John 1:1

[SimonArizona]

Explain how someone like Justin could say the Son was not the Creator and make comments on the difference in Being between the Father and Son with respect their presence on earth.

“We believe in one God the Father Almighty Creator of heaven and earth…We believe in Jesus Christ, the only Son of the Father…*Through whom *all things were created.”

 

[Dan_Parker]

“We believe in one God the Father Almighty Creator of heaven and earth…We believe in Jesus Christ, the only Son of the Father…*Through whom *all things were created.”

I agree with that. Do you agree with Justin Martyr that the Son is not the Creator?

 

[SimonArizona]

I agree with that. Do you agree with Justin Martyr that the Son is not the Creator?

The Son is truly creator because the Father creates through Him. The Son only does what He sees the Father doing. All things were created by Him i.e. the Son says the bible.

 

[Dan_Parker]

The Son is truly creator because the Father creates through Him. The Son only does what He sees the Father doing. All things were created by Him i.e. the Son says the bible.

I understand your logic but Justin says otherwise. Can you explain how Justin could say the Son was not the Creator?

I say the Son is not the Creator Ex Nihilo because since the Father creates, it is the Father that brings forth things from nothing. The Son does not do this. He gets what the Father gives him.

DRA John 3:35 The Father loveth the Son: and he hath given all things into his hand.

 

[SimonArizona]

I understand your logic but Justin says otherwise. Can you explain how Justin could say the Son was not the Creator?

I say the Son is not the Creator Ex Nihilo because since the Father creates, it is the Father that brings forth things from nothing. The Son does not do this. He gets what the Father gives him.

DRA John 3:35 The Father loveth the Son: and he hath given all things into his hand.

There are many point of agreement here. before that; Not everything the Fathers wrote is infallible, nor does the Church claim that. The Church claims that as a whole it is infallible. What it decides upon and decrees is received from Christ whose body we are. This direction is not only promised by Christ (in the Gospels) but is evident from an unbroken lineage of one constant unchanging understanding of the Faith.

Yes I agree that all that the Son has he receives from the Father, I also add that Everything the Father has the Son has in like manner.

 

[twb1621]

I understand your logic but Justin says otherwise. Can you explain how Justin could say the Son was not the Creator?

I say the Son is not the Creator Ex Nihilo because since the Father creates, it is the Father that brings forth things from nothing. The Son does not do this. He gets what the Father gives him.
DRA John 3:35 The Father loveth the Son: and he hath given all things into his hand.

Justin explains his position that the Son of God was God of the Father’s will. Justin also stands on his conclusion that Jesus as God and of His Father, both of whom came to be together before the creation, were together during the creation and supports his conclusion with those words shared between the Father and the Son such as “Let us make man in our image…”, which reflects a cooperative. With the Trinity, these things are recognized, for God the Son was not “born” or even begotten of the soil of the earth as man but rather begotten of the will of God and shared in that divine knowledge and existence. God the Father cannot be separated from His will therefore both are one. The Son was there and shared in the experience of creation. God our Father Himself declared there is only one God yet He acknowledges His Son through the prophets in scripture and the Son is specifically referred to as God in Scripture. If there is only one God as we know there to be, the Son of God is therefore one with the Father, one of Three in one God. Now, if you are going to refer to Justin as someone we should believe in without doubt, there is a great deal more you need to accept from his writings in order to show yourself credible.

 

[utunumsint]

Explain how someone like Justin could say the Son was not the Creator and make comments on the difference in Being between the Father and Son with respect their presence on earth.

He does not say that the Son was not the Creator, because in another place, he quotes Genesis 1, and declares that it is the Father speaking to the Son and the Holy spirit, when he said “Let us make man in our image.”

When he is talking about presence, I believe he is trying to correct the idea that the essense of God can be localized in one place in a way that limits him, or confines him. But in the very next chapter, he says the following.

Justin: I shall give you another testimony, my friends, from the Scriptures, that God begot before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled. The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter,

Now, I like the image of fire lighting another fire. Both have the same essense.

Now on to the passage I quoted,

For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father,

He is responding to those who confuse the Father and the Son.

nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son;

The Father has a son.

who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.

The Word, the Son is God.

And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets;

It is the Son who is sent by the Father. “Sent” being the word for Apostle and "Messenger " for Angel.

but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe in Him, He endured both to be set at nought and to suffer, that by dying and rising again He might conquer death.

Here the context of the passage has to do with salvation, and the conquest of Death. Christ brings about this conquest of death.

And that which was said out of the bush to Moses, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and the God of your fathers, Exodus 3:6

Again speaking of Christ.

this signified that they, even though dead, are yet in existence, and are men belonging to Christ Himself.

Because this sentence follows the previous one, it is manifest that the one who said “I am that I am”, was Christ, and he was speaking about himself, for the sake of those who would belong to himself, even though dead, like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

For they were the first of all men to busy themselves in the search after God; Abraham being the father of Isaac, and Isaac of Jacob, as Moses wrote.

Thus when God says I am who am, it is as a reasurance to those who search for God, that they will be ultimately rewarded with eternal life by being with the one who is co-eternal with God the Father.

I hope this helps.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Dan_Parker]

utunumsint:
He does not say that the Son was not the Creator, because in another place, he quotes Genesis 1, and declares that it is the Father speaking to the Son and the Holy spirit, when he said “Let us make man in our image.”

Dan:
He most certainly does say the Son is not the Creator, see below. Jehovah’s Witnesses also believe that the Son was the one to who God said “Let us make…” however that does not mean the Son is the Creator. The Father gave all things into his hands (Jn 3:35) and therefore he cannot have brought anything into existence from nothing, which is to what the Hebrew BARA and Greek KTIZW refer.

Chapter 60. Opinions of the Jews with regard to Him who appeared in the bush
newadvent.org/fathers/01285.htm

Trypho: We do not perceive this from the passage quoted by you, but [only this], that it was an angel who appeared in the flame of fire, but God who conversed with Moses; so that there were really two persons in company with each other, an angel and God, that appeared in that vision.

Justin: Even if this were so, my friends, that an ]angel and God were together in the vision seen by Moses, yet, as has already been proved to you by the passages previously quoted, it will not be the Creator of all things that is the God that said to Moses that He was the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, but it will be He who has been proved to you to have appeared to Abraham, ministering to the will of the Maker of all things, and likewise carrying into execution His counsel in the judgment of Sodom; so that, even though it be as you say, that there were two—an angel and God—he who has but the smallest intelligence will not venture to assert that the Maker and Father of all things, having left all supercelestial matters, was visible on a little portion of the earth.

 

[Dan_Parker]

There are many point of agreement here. before that; Not everything the Fathers wrote is infallible, nor does the Church claim that. The Church claims that as a whole it is infallible. What it decides upon and decrees is received from Christ whose body we are. This direction is not only promised by Christ (in the Gospels) but is evident from an unbroken lineage of one constant unchanging understanding of the Faith.

Yes I agree that all that the Son has he receives from the Father, I also add that Everything the Father has the Son has in like manner.

Yes, however the Son has what the Father gave him and the Father has because he is the Creator Ex Nihilo. Therefore the Son is not the Creator, agreed? That is what Justin says too.

 

[Tomster]

Justin explains his position that the Son of God was God of the Father’s will. Justin also stands on his conclusion that Jesus as God and of His Father, both of whom came to be together before the creation, were together during the creation and supports his conclusion with those words shared between the Father and the Son such as “Let us make man in our image…”, which reflects a cooperative. With the Trinity, these things are recognized, for God the Son was not “born” or even begotten of the soil of the earth as man but rather begotten of the will of God and shared in that divine knowledge and existence. God the Father cannot be separated from His will therefore both are one. The Son was there and shared in the experience of creation. God our Father Himself declared there is only one God yet He acknowledges His Son through the prophets in scripture and the Son is specifically referred to as God in Scripture. If there is only one God as we know there to be, the Son of God is therefore one with the Father, one of Three in one God. Now, if you are going to refer to Justin as someone we should believe in without doubt, there is a great deal more you need to accept from his writings in order to show yourself credible.

twb,

In regards to post # 238 . . .

 

[Tomster]

Yes, however the Son has what the Father gave him and the Father has because he is the Creator Ex Nihilo. Therefore the Son is not the Creator, agreed? That is what Justin says too.

Dan,

What is it going take for you realize that the Son was ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN?

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan,

What is it going take for you realize that the Son was ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN?

What bible writer teaches that the Son was eternally begotten?

 

[Dan_Parker]

utunumsint:
OK then. But it is clear to me that Ireneaus is making this argument. This is my point. I claim it.

Dan:
My point will be that there is no proof from the Greek of Ireneaus, and when the Greek of the LXX at Ex 3:14 is compared with the Greek of John 8:58 the evidence is that there is no connection between these two texts.

However in Latin (and KJV English) they do look the same. There is a good chance that the text was emended after it as translated into Latin.

 

[SimonArizona]

The Father and the Son work in perfect harmony. The Son does what the Father does. The Son teaches what the Father is saying. The Son has all that the Father has. The Fathers sends the Holy Spirit, the Son sends the Holy Spirit. The Father will do what we ask, the Son will do what we ask. The son does nothing of himself. The son does not create by himself but in perfect harmony with the Father. All things are created for the Son, it is thus his creation and it is proper that the Son redeem it, but its the Father who redeems it and also the Son who works.

The point being, their entire substance is in perfect harmony. All that the Father has, the Son has also.

 

[FCEGM]

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that the Father made all things through (Greek DIA) the Son because that is what bible writers teach in context. Justin had those Scriptures as well. However Jehovah’s Witnesses do not teach that the Son is the Creator because no bible writer teaches this.

There is a big difference between Justin understanding that the Father made all things through the Son and him explicitly saying that the Son is not the Creator but that God is the Creator.

In this Justin is expressing exactly what Jehovah’s Witnesses teach but not what Catholics teach.

Ah, how quickly one forgets! As I’ve tried several times to explain to you, Catholicism identifies -with St. Justin - the Father alone as the Creator. I know you think your “find” in Justin is a BIG point and is thus dear to your JW heart, but really, you should have gotten it by now. To be even clearer and to quote myself from an earlier post to you:

“. . .we Catholics identify the Father alone as the Creator. . . .St. Justin (a 2nd Century Catholic) merely distinguishes between the Personal role of the Father as Creator and the “collaborative” role of the Son, through Whom all things were made BY THE FATHER. Understood (correctly and honestly) in its historical context; that is all we see at play in St. Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. The fact that you fail to grasp this illustrates your failure to grasp Catholic doctrine - and all orthodox Christianity’s - due to a limited understanding of history/orthodoxy, which is a typical shortcoming of your organization.”

I believe you misuse the word anachronism. Wiki gives this definition:
An anachronism—from the Greek a?? (ana: against, anti-) and ??? (chronos: time)—is an error in chronology, especially a chronological misplacing of persons, events, objects, or customs in regard to each other.

When I say that Justin teaches that the Son is not the Creator, I place his belief in the 2nd century and earlier where that understanding was considered Orthodox. I do not take the Catholic understanding of today and change Justin’s words to the effect that what he really meant was that of course, the Son is the Creator!

No, what you expect of him as a Catholic is to speak as a Catholic would post-Nicea; that is an expectation of anachronism.

You are importing an understanding from centuries later and reading that back into Justin.

Nooooo. I think it’s time you did some reading on the development of doctrine, Dan. Cardinal Newman’s classical work, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (written while still an Anglican), on the subject would be important reading for you - if you were to take it up; an excerpt:

. . .while it is certain that developments of Revelation proceeded all through the Old Dispensation {68} down to the very end of our Lord’s ministry, on the other hand, if we turn our attention to the beginnings of Apostolical teaching after His ascension, we shall find ourselves unable to fix an historical point at which the growth of doctrine ceased, and the rule of faith was once for all settled. Not on the day of Pentecost, for St. Peter had still to learn at Joppa that he was to baptize Cornelius; not at Joppa and Cæsarea, for St. Paul had to write his Epistles; not on the death of the last Apostle, for St. Ignatius had to establish the doctrine of Episcopacy; not then, nor for centuries after, for the Canon of the New Testament was still undetermined. Not in the Creed, which is no collection of definitions, but a summary of certain credenda, an incomplete summary, and, like the Lord’s Prayer or the Decalogue, a mere sample of divine truths, especially of the more elementary. No one doctrine can be named which starts complete at first, and gains nothing afterwards from the investigations of faith and the attacks of heresy. The Church went forth from the old world in haste, as the Israelites from Egypt “with their dough before it was leavened, their kneading troughs being bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders,” Part 1, Chapter 2, section 1.

newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html#contents

Also, you say that Justin would say that the Father created through the Son. Would you mind showing me where he uses the word create in this context? Scripture says God made all things through (DIA) the Son. (Hebrews 1:1-3; John 1:1-3)

I didn’t have to say it, Dan, since Justin already said it for me - as I previously posted to you:

“And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God’s ordering all things through Him,” Second Apology, ch. 2.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Finally, you say that Justin identifies the Son as God and Lord of Hosts. You may be correct, but you have not quoted him in context. Could it be that Justin’s words could just have easily been construed to the effect that he spoke the words of and represented the God and Lord of Hosts because he was ministering to his will?

No, Justin is quite clear as to his identification of Christ as the Lord of Hosts:

". . .but now you will permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts, and Jacob, in parable by the Holy Spirit; and your interpreters, as God says, are foolish, since they say that reference is made to Solomon and not to Christ, when he bore the ark of testimony into the temple which he built. The Psalm of David is this:

The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof; the world, and all that dwell therein. He has rounded it upon the seas, and prepared it upon the floods. Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? Or who shall stand in His holy place? He that is clean of hands and pure of heart: who has not received his soul in vain, and has not sworn guilefully to his neighbour: he shall receive blessing from the Lord, and mercy from God his Saviour. This is the generation of them that seek the Lord, that seek the face of the God of Jacob. Lift up your gates, you rulers; and be lifted up, you everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord strong and mighty in battle. Lift up your gates, you rulers; and be lifted up, you everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord of hosts, He is the King of glory.

Accordingly, it is shown that Solomon is not the Lord of hosts; but when our Christ rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, the rulers in heaven, under appointment of God, are commanded to open the gates of heaven, that He who is King of glory may enter in, and having ascended, may sit on the right hand of the Father until He make the enemies His footstool, as has been made manifest by another Psalm. For when the rulers of heaven saw Him of uncomely and dishonoured appearance, and inglorious, not recognising Him, they inquired, ‘Who is this King of glory?’ And the Holy Spirit, either from the person of His Father, or from His own person, answers them, ‘The Lord of hosts, He is this King of glory.’ For every one will confess that not one of those who presided over the gates of the temple at Jerusalem would venture to say concerning Solomon, though he was so glorious a king, or concerning the ark of testimony, ‘Who is this King of glory?’

See also chapter 85 where Justin expands further to Trypho on Psalm 24.

For someone who claims the early Fathers as his own, you’re not very familiar with them.

 

[SimonArizona]

The second person is the Word of the first. God has uttered a Word, a Word who is with God, by this Word all things were made. <for the sake of argument i’ll pass over the Word was God for now>

So God utters a word—not framed by the mouth, of course, for God has no mouth. He is pure spirit.

So it is a word in the mind of God, not sounding outwardly as our words sound, akin rather to a thought or an idea. What idea produced in God’s mind could possibly be God? Christian thinking saw early that it could be only the idea God has of himself.

God knows himself perfectly, the idea that God has of himself cannot be imperfect. Whatever is in the Father must be in his idea of himself, and must be exactly the same as it is in himself. Otherwise God would have an inadequate idea of himself, which would be nonsense. Thus, because God is infinite, eternal, all-powerful, his idea of himself is infinite, eternal, all-powerful. Because God is God, his idea is God. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. And the Word was God.”

The Father knows and loves; so his idea knows and loves. In other words the idea is a person. Men have ideas, and any given idea is something. God’s idea of himself is not something only; it is Someone, for it can know and love.

 

[FCEGM]

The earlier Fathers were closer to the truth and closer to JW theology.

I think that’s called whistling in the dark since JW theology can’t even identify the proper shape of the Cross - but St. Justin Martyr could:

Justin: Listen, therefore, to what follows; for Moses first exhibited this seeming curse of Christ’s by the signs which he made.

Trypho: Of what [signs] do you speak?

Justin: When the people waged war with Amalek, and the son of Nave (Nun) by name Jesus (Joshua), led the fight, Moses himself prayed to God, stretching out both hands, and Hur with Aaron supported them during the whole day, so that they might not hang down when he got wearied. For if he gave up any part of this sign, which was an imitation of the cross, the people were beaten, as is recorded in the writings of Moses Dialogue, ch. 89… . .

. . .But the same figure is revealed for the destruction and condemnation of the unbelievers; even as Amalek was defeated and Israel victorious when the people came out of Egypt, by means of the type of the stretching out of Moses’ hands, and the name of Jesus (Joshua), by which the son of Nave (Nun) was called. And it seems that the type and sign, which was erected to counteract the serpents which bit Israel, was intended for the salvation of those who believe that death was declared to come thereafter on the serpent through Him that would be crucified, but salvation to those who had been bitten by him and had betaken themselves to Him that sent His Son into the world to be crucified. ibid. ch. 90

“But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically. And this, as the prophet foretold, is the greatest symbol of His power and role; as is also proved by the things which fall under our observation. For consider all the things in the world, whether without this form they could be administered or have any community. For the sea is not traversed except that trophy which is called a sail abide safe in the ship; and the earth is not ploughed without it: diggers and mechanics do not their work, except with tools which have this shape. And the human form differs from that of the irrational animals in nothing else than in its being erect and having the hands extended, and having on the face extending from the forehead what is called the nose, through which there is respiration for the living creature; and this shows no other form than that of the cross. And so it was said by the prophet, “The breath before our face is the Lord Christ.” And the power of this form is shown by your own symbols on what are called “vexilla” [banners] and trophies, with which all your state possessions are made, using these as the insignia of your power and government, even though you do so unwittingly. And with this form you consecrate the images of your emperors when they die, and you name them gods by inscriptions. Since, therefore, we have urged you both by reason and by an evident form, and to the utmost of our ability, we know that now we are blameless even though you disbelieve; for our part is done and finished.” First Apology, ch. 55.

 

[Dan_Parker]

For someone who claims the early Fathers as his own, you’re not very familiar with them.

I don’t. I have said quite the opposite. I said they are closer to the truth not that I claim them as my own. It might be good for you to quote me instead of making claims about my arguments.

 

[teak421]

The problem is that these writings have not been protected like Scripture. The number of copies we have are very few.

Can you provide documentation that we have the original manuscripts of any New Testament text?