@Blotty
You're mistaken in both your historical and theological assessments, and your response reveals not only a misunderstanding of early Christian theology but also a refusal to deal honestly with the evidence as it stands. Let me respond directly, without evasion, distortion, or rhetoric. The issue here is not whether one simply finds the word "creator" used verbatim in every instance, but whether the early Church Fathers—especially Justin Martyr and Tertullian—understood Christ as the pre-existent Logos, divine in nature, and the active agent of creation. And the answer is clearly yes.
You question where Justin Martyr or Tertullian call Christ "Creator." The answer is found in Justin Martyr's First Apology (Chapter 60), where he states that the Logos "is the first-begotten of God, and is God" and that through Him, God created all things. This is an unmistakable identification of the Son as the agent of creation. You also ignore Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 62), where Justin argues that the "Lord" who appeared to Abraham and who created man in Genesis 1:26 (“Let us make man in our image”) was the Logos—whom he calls "God" and through whom all things came into being. He even goes as far as to say that the Logos is “God” (theos) and distinct from the Father as His “numerically distinct” but not ontologically inferior Word.
Your claim that Justin merely meant “a god” in Ex.7:1/Ps.83-sense by using allos theos (another god) is another misreading. The Greek language often used the term theos without the article (ho theos) in reference to divine persons in a nuanced way. In fact, Justin is grappling with the same distinction that John's Gospel makes in John 1:1—“and the Word was God (theos en ho logos)”—where the Logos is fully divine but distinct in person from the Father. Justin clearly upholds monotheism while affirming that the Son is divine and not a creature. The use of allos theos does not mean a different kind of god, nor does it mean “a lesser being”; it affirms a second divine person. If Justin were an Arian or subordinationist in the sense you imply, he would not have said that the Son is worshipped and prayed to (First Apology, ch. 67) along with the Father and the Spirit—something utterly blasphemous for a Jew unless Christ is truly God.
Tertullian, in his Against Praxeas, is explicit: “The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father, as He says, ‘I am in the Father;’ and is always with God, according to what is written, ‘And the Word was with God;’ and never separate from the Father, or other than the Father, since ‘I and the Father are one.’” (Adv. Praxean, 8). And in chapter 5: “Everything was created by Him, and without Him nothing was made.” Again, this is a direct echo of John 1:3, affirming the Son’s role in creation. If Christ creates everything, then He is not a creature. If He is eternally with the Father and consubstantial, as Tertullian argues, then He shares the divine nature fully.
But I'll gladly throw the ball back to you, answer which pre-Nicene church father explicitly said that
- the Father "created" (epoisen, ἐποίησεν) the Son
- the Son is the Archangel Michael
- the Holy Spirit is identical with the power of God (dynamis)
...and I could list the distinctive doctrines of the JWs. So the naive (and completely false) historical perception of church history, that "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away”, there once was a proto-JW church, only that "evil" Constantine "corrupted" it just because he loved paganism so so much. It is quite unfair and dishonest that while you JWs expect us to present explicit doctrinal precision from the Church Fathers' writing, there is not even traces for your distinctive doctrines in the early Christian sources.
You challenge my interpretation of John 17:3 as if the "separation" between the Father and the Son negates the Son's divinity. But as I made clear, that this verse simply asserts monotheism, not unitarianism, and Trinitarians have never denied that the Father is here ho theos, the “only true God”—rather, they affirm that the Son and Spirit share in that very nature, not by being identical persons, but by being of the same divine essence (homoousios). You seem to misunderstand the very foundations of Trinitarian theology: the unity of essence and the distinction of persons. John 17:3 is a relational statement within the economy of salvation, not an ontological disqualification of Christ’s deity. The prayer is about eternal life through knowledge of both the Father and the Son—the Greek kai unites them in one salvific knowledge. You ask: “Why are the other two not mentioned as part of the ‘only true God’?” But the Son is mentioned in the same breath—and that is the point. The Spirit, as John 14–16 shows, comes from both the Father and the Son, proceeding from them and glorifying the Son. Trinitarianism is not a slogan but a coherent synthesis of the entire scriptural witness.
Your reference to Eusebius betrays the usual misuse of history to support a conspiracy theory. Yes, there was a development in rhetoric—because heresies demanded clarity. The faith was defined, not ”invented” at Nicaea. Eusebius himself signed the Nicene Creed, affirming homoousios. The shift was not a corruption of doctrine but the articulation of what the Church had always believed and taught, even if the philosophical language had not yet been developed. The early Fathers, far from suppressing dissent with violence, engaged in rigorous theological disputation. The fact that heresy was sometimes met with political resistance later does not falsify the substance of Nicene orthodoxy. You are importing Enlightenment tropes of ecclesial tyranny into a period where the Church was, in fact, under immense pressure from both pagan and imperial forces.
As for the ad hominem jabs—calling me dishonest or deluded—these only show the weakness of your argument. If you can’t address the content, attacking the person is poor form and beneath serious theological dialogue. You said you would not engage further unless I show respect. I have shown nothing but intellectual honesty, citing primary sources, engaging your claims fairly, and refusing to caricature your position. But intellectual honesty also demands clarity and correction when truth is distorted.
You asked for substance. I have given you the Fathers, the Greek grammar, the historical context, the theological categories, and the scriptural framework. Your rejection of the Trinity is not biblical fidelity—it is a rejection of the full revelation of God in Christ. To deny the Son’s divinity is to stand against the Gospel itself. As Athanasius said, “He became what we are, that we might become what He is.” If Christ is not truly God, then we are not truly redeemed. That’s the truth—not rhetorical sleight of hand, but the confession of the Church, the apostles, and Christ Himself.