@Earnest
Your argument, based on the writings of Justin Martyr, hinges on the
misrepresentation that Justin saw Christ merely as "another god" or a
created angelic being. However, Justin's own writings, when considered in full
context, contradict this assertion, showing that Justin recognized Jesus Christ
as the fully divine Son of God, who was not merely a created being, but who shares in
the divine nature. The claim that Justin referred to Jesus as "another
god" or "an angel" is based on a misunderstanding of his use of these terms.
Justin uses the terms "angel" and "apostle" to describe
Jesus not in the sense of being a mere angelic or subordinate being, but to
highlight his role as the messenger (Greek: angelos simply means
"messenger") and representative of God. Justin explicitly clarifies
that Jesus is the Son of God, and in several passages, he affirms that the Son
is divine. In First Apology, Chapter 63, Justin writes:
"The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the
Father of the universe who spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was
indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly
charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither
the Father nor the Son."
Here, Justin is clear that the "Angel"
who spoke to Moses was not a mere created being but the Son of God, who is also
God. The term "angel" here does not imply an ontological subordination
or creation but is used to denote Jesus' role as a divine messenger. Justin was
engaging with Jewish critiques that identified the Father as the one speaking
to Moses and correcting them by stating it was actually the pre-incarnate
Christ who interacted with humanity in these Old Testament theophanies.
Justin makes it explicit that Jesus is divine and distinguishes him from
mere angels or created beings. In Dialogue with Trypho, Justin
identifies Jesus as the "only-begotten Son of the Father" and calls
Him God: "The first-begotten Word of God, is even God" (First
Apology, Chapter 63). This shows that Justin held a Trinitarian view, where
the Father and the Son are distinct persons, but both are fully divine. This is
far from the subordinationist or Arian-like theology that some try to project
onto Justin.
Moreover, Justin’s theology was clearly progressing toward the Trinitarian
theology formalized later. His understanding of Christ as fully divine refutes
any suggestion that Justin believed Jesus to be a lesser, created god. He
argues that the Son is God alongside the Father but distinct in personhood.
This demonstrates a high Christology, not a belief in a "created"
Christ as the JWs often claim.
The Watchtower Society often quotes early Church Fathers selectively,
giving the impression that these figures supported Arian or subordinationist
views, but this is a distortion of their teachings. As shown in the excerpt
from Dialogue with Trypho and First Apology, Justin explicitly
acknowledges Jesus as God, a view entirely incompatible with Arianism or the
theology of the JWs. In fact, Justin argues that Jesus was worshipped alongside
the Father, indicating that he did not view Jesus as a mere creature but as
worthy of divine worship.
Justin's writings were aimed at refuting the Jewish view that denied the deity
of the Son. He was arguing that Jesus, the Word of God, had always been present
and active in the Old Testament as the one who appeared to figures like Moses.
To interpret Justin’s statements about the Son as supporting Arianism or a
lower Christology is to ignore the very purpose of his argument: to defend the deity
of Christ against Jewish critiques.
In conclusion, Justin Martyr’s writings affirm that Jesus Christ is fully
divine, not a mere created angel or subordinate god. While Justin uses the term
"angel" (messenger), this term describes Jesus’ role in delivering
the message of God, not his nature. Justin’s references to Jesus being "God"
and his role in theophanies such as the burning bush underscore his belief that
Jesus was indeed God, not a lesser being. The argument that Justin believed
Jesus was "another god" or a created angel is not supported by the
full context of his writings.
Thus, it is incorrect to claim that Justin's view aligns with Arian
theology or the theology of the JWs. Justin recognized the pre-existent, divine
nature of Christ and argued for his eternal relationship with the Father.
@peacefulpete
You suggest that Philo,
Justin Martyr, and the writer of the Ascension of Isaiah held a belief
in the Logos as an "emanation" of the Most High, and that this is
fundamentally different from the Christian understanding of the Logos as fully
God. However, this is a misunderstanding of early Christian theology. Philo of
Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher, did indeed speak of the Logos as a kind of
intermediary through which God interacts with the world. For Philo, the Logos
was an abstract principle, a divine intermediary that did not possess full
personhood or equality with God. Philo’s understanding of the Logos is more
akin to a philosophical bridge between the transcendent God and the material
world. It was not personal, and it certainly was not incarnate.
The Christian concept of
the Logos, particularly in the Gospel of John (John 1:1-3, 14), is
fundamentally different. John affirms that the Logos is not merely an emanation
or intermediary, but fully personal and fully divine. "The Word was with
God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). This is not an emanation in the
Neoplatonic sense but an ontological statement about the divine nature of
Christ. Moreover, John emphasizes the incarnation—"The Word
became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14)—which is entirely absent from
Philo’s conception. The Logos in Christianity is not an abstract intermediary;
it is the eternal Son of God who took on human nature without ceasing to be
fully divine.
While Justin Martyr uses
the language of the Logos and defends the pre-existence of Christ, he does not
depict the Logos as a mere emanation or lower divine being. In his Dialogue
with Trypho, Justin affirms that the Logos is eternal, generated by the
Father, and shares the same divine essence (οὐσία) as the Father. Justin’s
analogy of fire from fire is crucial: just as one flame kindled from another
does not diminish the original, so the Logos, eternally begotten from the
Father, shares the same divine nature without being a separate or lesser deity.
Justin’s understanding aligns with what later became formalized in the Nicene
Creed, even though the specific term "Trinity" was not yet in use.
The claim that Philo’s
Logos is fundamentally similar to the Christian Logos does not hold. While
early Christian writers, including John and Justin, were influenced by
Hellenistic thought, they significantly reinterpreted the concept of Logos in
light of the revelation of Jesus Christ.
You mention that Gnostic
branches of Christianity regarded themselves as monotheistic and that they were
attracted to the concept of divine emanations. It’s important to differentiate
mainstream Christian theology from Gnosticism, which was ultimately rejected by
the early Church as heretical. Gnostic systems indeed posited multiple
emanations (often referred to as aeons) from a singular divine source.
These emanations were not seen as co-equal with the source but were
increasingly imperfect as they descended. In many Gnostic systems, the material
world was viewed as corrupt or flawed, created by a lesser, malevolent being
(often identified with the God of the Old Testament), and salvation involved
escaping the material world.
Mainstream Christianity, as
expressed in the New Testament, holds to a strict monotheism inherited from
Judaism. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not emanations in a Gnostic
sense, but three distinct persons who share one divine essence. The early
Christians rejected Gnostic dualism and the notion that the material world is
inherently evil. The incarnation—God becoming flesh in the person of Jesus—was
a direct challenge to Gnostic beliefs.
While Gnosticism drew from
certain Jewish and Hellenistic traditions, it fundamentally diverged from the
teachings of Jesus and the apostles. The Christian concept of the Trinity—one
God in three persons—is not an emanationist framework but a relational
understanding of the one God revealed in Scripture.
You draw a comparison
between the Gospel of Mark and Greek mythological dramas like The Bacchae,
suggesting that the Gospel of Mark could be a myth or dramatization. This is a
misunderstanding of the genre and intent of the Gospel writers. The Gospels,
particularly Mark, are written as historical narratives, not mythological
allegories. They include concrete references to historical figures like Pontius
Pilate, Herod Antipas, and Caiaphas, and they locate events in real places such
as Jerusalem and Galilee. These are not the hallmarks of mythological
literature but of historical narrative. While the Gospels certainly convey
theological meaning, they are rooted in historical claims about the life,
death, and resurrection of Jesus.
Unlike mythological stories
like The Bacchae, which are clearly framed as allegory or symbolic
drama, the Gospels present themselves as eyewitness testimony to real events.
The early Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus was not based on
allegory but on the conviction that Jesus physically rose from the dead, as
seen by many witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). This is a claim about historical
reality, not myth.
Your suggestion that the
Gospels could be myths like The Bacchae is undermined by the fact that
early Christians did not treat their texts as mythological but as reliable
testimonies to historical events. The early Church, including figures like
Justin Martyr, vigorously defended the historical reality of Jesus’ life, death,
and resurrection against pagan critiques.
You argue that Christianity
is rooted in Neo-Platonism and that figures like Paul and the writer of John
were influenced by this philosophical tradition. While it is true that early
Christian thinkers engaged with Greek philosophy, it is misleading to claim
that Christianity is rooted in Neo-Platonism. Neo-Platonism, particularly as
developed by Plotinus (3rd century), posited a single, transcendent One from
whom all things emanate. However, Christianity does not present God as an
impersonal force or as a being from whom the world emanates in a hierarchical
chain. Instead, Christian theology teaches that God is personal and relational,
that He created the world ex nihilo (out of nothing), and that He entered into
history through the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
Early Christian thinkers
like Justin, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen did engage with Greek philosophical
ideas, but they did so critically, adapting certain concepts while rejecting
others. For instance, while they borrowed the language of "Logos"
from Greek philosophy, they redefined it in light of the revelation of Christ.
The Logos in Christian theology is not an impersonal principle but the second
person of the Trinity, eternally begotten of the Father.
While Greek philosophy
influenced the intellectual framework of the early Church, the core beliefs of
Christianity—creation, incarnation, and resurrection—are profoundly different
from Neo-Platonic thought. Christianity is rooted in the historical revelation
of God in Jesus Christ, not in the speculative metaphysics of Greek philosophy.
In conclusion, your
argument suggests a continuity between Hellenistic philosophical concepts and
early Christian theology, but it overlooks the ways in which Christianity
fundamentally reinterpreted these concepts in light of the life, death, and
resurrection of Jesus. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity, far from being an
emanationist or Gnostic system, is a monotheistic understanding of one God in
three persons. This is not rooted in Neo-Platonism or Greek myth but in the
revelation of God through Christ, as witnessed by the apostles and early
Church.
@scholar
Your argument relies
heavily on a misunderstanding of what the qualitative force of "theos"
means in John 1:1c. The commentary you cited from Sacra Pagina
acknowledges that the qualitative "theos" describes the nature
of the Word—“what God was, the Word also was.” This means that John is
affirming that the Word shares fully in the divine nature of God, but not
confusing the Word with the Father. The NWT rendering "a god"
misinterprets this qualitative force by suggesting a distinction in divinity
between the Word and the Father. The NWT's translation implies a secondary,
lesser deity, which is not what the qualitative meaning entails. If the Word
possesses the nature of God, then the rendering "a god"
diminishes this very nature by introducing a subordinationist framework
inconsistent with John's intent.
The NWT introduces a
theologically problematic reading by translating "theos" as "a
god," suggesting the existence of multiple gods, which contradicts the
monotheism presented in John and throughout the Bible (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:4,
Isaiah 43:10). The qualitative force means that the Word possesses the very
nature of God, not as a second or lesser god, but fully participating in God's
divine essence. Trinitarianism holds that the Father and the Word (Son) share
the same divine nature without being identical persons, which avoids the
confusion that the NWT translation introduces.
The claim that
Trinitarianism is “rooted” in Neo-Platonism oversimplifies the development of
Christian theology. While some Church Fathers used philosophical terminology to
articulate their doctrines, the core concepts of the Trinity are rooted in
Scripture and the early Church’s understanding of Jesus' divine identity. The
idea that Trinitarian theology simply “adopted” Neo-Platonism ignores the
biblical evidence for Christ's deity found in texts like John 1:1,
Philippians 2:6-11, and Colossians 1:15-20. Moreover, the Nicene Creed, which
affirmed the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, was not simply a
product of Greek philosophy, but of theological debates that sought to remain
faithful to the apostolic tradition.
The qualitative rendering,
as supported by scholars such as Daniel B. Wallace, emphasizes the divine
nature of the Word without introducing henotheism. The NWT's translation
"a god" distorts the meaning by suggesting that the Word is not fully
God but a lesser divine being. This interpretation is inconsistent with the
broader context of John’s Gospel, which consistently affirms the full divinity
of the Word (John 1:3, John 1:18) and aligns with the monotheistic faith of
Israel.
In conclusion, the NWT
translation "a god" misrepresents the qualitative nature of "theos"
in John 1:1c by introducing theological confusion and contradicting the
monotheistic message of both the Old and New Testaments. The traditional
rendering, “the Word was God,” is the most accurate and consistent translation
that preserves the full divinity of the Word.
