The Problem with 2 Peter 1:1

[DavidB]

Help me understand your thought process here so we can have a fruitful discussion. Are you/we discussing ONLY what Justin Martyr has to say about this (the Trinity)?

Respectfully, Mary

Yes. The Justin Martyr quote you offered contradicts the trinity and the Ignatius quote. Tigger2 shows the accuracy of that quote is at best controversial among scholars.

 

[DavidB]

​

What they left out to deliberately misrepresent the source and deceive you:

"Question of Continuity and Elemental Trinitarianism: From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true; but it implies an extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma. Triadic Consciousness in the Primitive Revelation. The formulation "one God in three Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the 2d-century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead. ... From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three distinct Persons was easily derived. ... If it is clear on one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of 3 centuries' reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p299-300)
Catholic Encyclopedia's and Dictionaries
see also CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Trinity

This quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia is informative.

“The Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the term mystery in theology. It lays down that a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness" (Constitution, "De fide. cath.", iv). In other words, our understanding of it remains only partial, even after we have accepted it as part of the Divine message. Through analogies and types we can form a representative concept expressive of what is revealed, but we cannot attain that fuller knowledge which supposes that the various elements of the concept are clearly grasped and their reciprocal compatibility manifest.”

“Mystery, hidden, darkness, partial?”

“We cannot attain that fuller knowledge which supposes that the various elements of the concept are clearly grasped”

God is a concept? God is a mystery? God is hidden? God is enveloped in darkness?

 

[David in NJ]

This quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia is informative.

“The Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the term mystery in theology. It lays down that a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness" (Constitution, "De fide. cath.", iv). In other words, our understanding of it remains only partial, even after we have accepted it as part of the Divine message. Through analogies and types we can form a representative concept expressive of what is revealed, but we cannot attain that fuller knowledge which supposes that the various elements of the concept are clearly grasped and their reciprocal compatibility manifest.”

“Mystery, hidden, darkness, partial?”

“We cannot attain that fuller knowledge which supposes that the various elements of the concept are clearly grasped”

God is a concept? God is a mystery? God is hidden? God is enveloped in darkness?

i am not a proponent of RCC but a true 'wayward son' according to the Harlot.

With that said: God has revealed Himself in Scripture and it is a Mystery that cannot be unlocked by the intellect alone.

Thus, the LORD said HE will send the Helper/Comforter who is the Holy Spirit = the Spirit of Truth.

The Holy Spirit is only given to His Blood washed Born-Again Children.

God/Elohim/Yhwh is 3 and always will be.

But not because RCC says so.

 

[Marymog]

I look forward to your answer (or anyone else’s) to Tigger2 regarding the Ignatius quote.

@tigger 2 is being a bit dishonest in his post. Tigger only quotes parts of his reference (Catholic Encyclopedia - “St. Ignatius of Antioch”) and leaves out the part that doesn't fit his narrative. He then adds a quote from anti-trinitarian 'scholar' and unitarian, Alvan Lamson. Furthermore the quote from the New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967 I can't verify, but I will take his word on it and address it also.

Here is what Tigger quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia: “Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the "long recension". This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form.”

Here is what Tigger "accidently" left off from that quote. The very last line: "The spurious letters in this recension are those that purport to be from Ignatius.' The article then lists the "spurious letters" of which the Letter to the Ephesians is not listed. The Epistle to the Ephesians is considered by scholars as one of the seven authentic letters written by Ignatius.

Here is what Tigger didn't quote from his source: While it can hardly be said that there is at present any unanimous agreement on the subject, the best modern criticism favors the authenticity of the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius. Even such eminent non-Catholic critics as Zahn, Lightfoot, and Harnack hold this view. Perhaps the best evidence of their authenticity is to be found in the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, which mentions each of them by name.

Here is the full chapter (18) from which I previously quoted to support the Trinity doctrine: Let my spirit be counted as nothing for the sake of the cross, which is a stumbling-block to those that do not believe, but to us salvation and life eternal. Where is the wise man? Where the disputer? Where is the boasting of those who are styled prudent? For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.

In regards to New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967. The Catholic Church has never denied that the Trinity doctrine came into being later. It is true that the Apostolic Fathers and ECF's never remotely approached such a mentality or perspective in regards to the Trinity doctrine. They were writing about the Trinity, they just didn't have a 'word' for it or it wasn't 'defined' by The Church for several years. That doesn't mean it was created out of whole clothe by The Church.

@Aunty Jane "liked" Tiggers post even though it was a deceptive post. I look forward to anything @Illuminator or @BreadOfLife has to add.

Keeping it real....Mary

 

[Marymog]

Yes. The Justin Martyr quote you offered contradicts the trinity and the Ignatius quote. Tigger2 shows the accuracy of that quote is at best controversial among scholars.

The Justin Martyr quote DOES NOT contradict the Trinity. It CLEARLY supports it. It lists 3 seperate entities or personages.

And @tigger 2 was deceptive in his post. It is NOT controversial among scholars. It is only controversial among SOME scholars that don't accept what has long been taught and what is accepted by 99% of Christianity. If you have 99 people agreeing on something and 1 person disagrees....there is no controversy.

 

[Marymog]

​

What they left out to deliberately misrepresent the source and deceive you:

"Question of Continuity and Elemental Trinitarianism: From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true; but it implies an extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma. Triadic Consciousness in the Primitive Revelation. The formulation "one God in three Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the 2d-century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead. ... From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three distinct Persons was easily derived. ... If it is clear on one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of 3 centuries' reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p299-300)
Catholic Encyclopedia's and Dictionaries
see also CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Trinity

WHAT? Someone on this forum left out to deliberately misrepresent the source and deceive??? You don't say....Shocking!

Keep up the good fight and exposing them!

Respectfully, Mary

 

[GEN2REV]

The Trinity is the Foundation of Scripture that Elohim communicated from the Beginning.

Because He refers to a general plural, He has communicated an elaborate doctrine of a 3-person God? All honest Bible students reject such flimsy evidence.

Elohim firmly established this for us in Genesis and confirmed it in His Gospel. Hidden from those without the Spirit and revealed to those who Love Him, who are not bound by unbelief.

He makes a general reference to a plurality, which Scripture reveals was He and the angels, and somehow He has "firmly established" a complex doctrine? That is the vapor-thin proof that only a very naive and insincere Christian latches onto for dear life.

If Jesus had wanted to convey any of this concept "to those who love Him" and "confirmed it", He would've taught it, in grave detail, to the disciples, in all 4 Gospels.

NADA.

Why not go straight to the Source of Truth?

We've been going straight to the source of Truth for many years, which is God's Word, not some delusional experience of the Holy Spirit teaching you things that aren't recorded in Scripture.

The findings?

NADA.

 

[David in NJ]

Because He refers to a general plural, He has communicated an elaborate doctrine of a 3-person God? All honest Bible students reject such flimsy evidence.What are you smoking? He makes a general reference to a plurality, which Scripture reveals was He and the angels, and somehow He has "firmly established" a complex doctrine? That is the vapor-thin proof that only a very naive and insincere Christian latches onto for dear life.

If Jesus had wanted to convey any of this concept "to those how love Him" and "confirmed it", He would've done it in grave detail to the disciples, in all 4 Gospels.

NADA.
We've been going straight to the source of Truth for many years, which is God's Word, not some delusional experience of the Holy Spirit teaching you things that aren't recorded in Scripture.

The findings?

NADA.

HAHAHAHAHA - you got me laughing = "general plurality with angels"

Hey Bro, bring forth the scripture that says this

It is good to have laughter in one's heart, this is not cynical.

 

[Marymog]

Reply to marymog:

So, which of these is the first and most important Ante-Nicene Father (which you originally recommended)?

While we wait, here's a bit on the two you quoted

Ignatius of Antioch, a student of the Apostle John: For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit”. - to the Ephesians, ch. 18 (longer form) short form has “For the Son of God…”

Hi Tigger,

Here is what I have found in regard to the short version: Ignatius_to_Ephesians.pdf (orderofstignatius.org)

The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Ephesians – Shorter Version = Chapters 01 through 21 being read by Peter-John Parisis from The Writings of Apostolic Fathers translated by Dr. Roberts, Dr. Donaldson, and Rev. F. Crombie 1867 : Peter-John Parisis : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to the Ephesians | Patristics.info

CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Ephesians (St. Ignatius) (newadvent.org)

NONE of them say "For the Son of God...".

Please provide your source for this allegation!

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Justin Martyr

(c. 100-165 A.D.)

Justin, whom the trinitarian The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (p. 770) called “the most outstanding of the ‘Apologists,’” wrote:

God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after him are created and corruptible {Justin has just concurred that the world was begotten by God} .... take your stand on one Unbegotten, and say this is the Cause of all. - ANF 1:197 (‘Dialogue’).

But,

Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten - ANF 1:170 (‘Apology’).

And thus do we also, since our persuasion by the Word, stand aloof from them (i.e., the demons), and follow the only unbegotten God through His Son - ANF 1:167 (‘Apology’).

Justin Martyr’s ‘Apology’ and ‘Dialogue {With Trypho}’ “are preserved but in a single ms (Cod. Paris, 450, A.D. 1364)” - Britannica, 14th ed.

Tigger,

I don't understand what that has to do with what we are debating. Can you clarify?

 

[Marymog]

Reply to marymog:

So, which of these is the first and most important Ante-Nicene Father (which you originally recommended)?

Why does one or the other have to be "first and most important"? That makes no sense! The Ante-Nicene Fathers are a collection of writings of the Church Fathers starting with the Apostolic fathers all the way up to the first General Council that was held at Nicea in 325AD. That is 20+ writings of men. They are all important!

 

[BreadOfLife]

From Catholic Encyclopedia - “St. Ignatius of Antioch”

“Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the "long recension". This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form.”

It seems there are several (or more) versions of Ignatius' writings. In the Ante-Nicene Fathers the Book of Ephesians shows two versions side by side. Since they were not labelled, I have assumed the one on the left is the longer version (it varies) and the one on the right is the shorter version.

At any rate, the one marymog quoted with the Son apparently called "God" has the other version beside it which does not say that but instead uses the "Son of God" in its place.

What we find generally, except for 1 Clement, in the manuscripts still available for the Ante-Nicene fathers, is that there are mixtures of apparent trinitarian statements and clear non-trinitarian statements.

If we take into consideration who the copyists were for the last 1800 years, we can see where any trinitarian statements could have been added by copyists. What we would not expect is for any copyist during that period to add non-trinitarian statements. The copy would have been destroyed along with its copyist!

That is why many trinitarian scholars say things like:

“It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Christian theologians of the second and third centuries, even theologians of the rank of Origen...came to see the Logos [the Word, Christ] as a god of second rank.” - The Encyclopedia of Religion, Macmillan Publ., 1987, Vol. 9, p. 15.

Trinitarian scholar, minister, and missionary, H. R. Boer admits: The very first Christians to really discuss Jesus’ relationship to God in their writings were the Apologists.

“Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world, but nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father.” - p. 110, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.

“Before the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) all theologians viewed the Son as in one way or another subordinate to the Father.” - pp. 112-113, Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity (trinitarian), 1977; and p. 114, The History of Christianity, A Lion Handbook, Lion Publishing, 1990 revised ed.

“The formulation ‘One God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.” - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.

Alvan Lamson is especially straightforward:

“The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ... derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ... Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact.” - Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries.

Please note, that these are not my comments; they are not the WT comments, they are trinitarian comments.

Correct - these ARE Trinitarian comments which YOU have completely misunderstood In your utter blindness.

First of all – the Son was not “created”. Hye is eternally begotten of the Father. A simple way of understanding is that He “flows from” the Father. It is in THIS sense that the Church Fathers you mentioned regarded Him as a “creature”.

As the Nicene Creed states – He is CONSUBSTANTIAL with the Father. The Holy Spirit also PROCEEDS from BOTH of them (John 15:26, 16:12-5, 20:22).

You also misunderstand the ROLES of the Trinity – even though it has been explained, ad nauseam, to YOU and your equally- faithless friends here.

The Son IS subordinate to t he Father because He was SENT BY the Father (John 20:21). This doesn’t mean that He is NOT God. It simply means that He is NOT the Father.

As I showed you before –
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the word WAS God.

This shows us TWO things:
a) The Word (the distinct Person of the Son) was WITH God the Father.
b) The Word (the distinct Person of the Son) WAS God along WITH the Father.

We know that the “Word” is the Son, because John goes on I the next 17 verses to describe WHO the Word is. He also refers to Him as “the Light” (v. 4-9) and states the He became FLESH and is the Son of the Father (v. 14).

YOUR problem isn’t a lack of evidence – but a lack of FAITH.

 

[David in NJ]

Because He refers to a general plural, He has communicated an elaborate doctrine of a 3-person God? All honest Bible students reject such flimsy evidence.What are you smoking? He makes a general reference to a plurality, which Scripture reveals was He and the angels, and somehow He has "firmly established" a complex doctrine? That is the vapor-thin proof that only a very naive and insincere Christian latches onto for dear life.

If Jesus had wanted to convey any of this concept "to those how love Him" and "confirmed it", He would've done it in grave detail to the disciples, in all 4 Gospels.

NADA.
We've been going straight to the source of Truth for many years, which is God's Word, not some delusional experience of the Holy Spirit teaching you things that aren't recorded in Scripture.

The findings?

NADA.

Where did you go???

Bring forth the scripture that says "YHWH used creative plurality of creation with the angels"

Feel free to use the words 'God/Elohim/YHWH' as you see it.

 

[DavidB]

The Justin Martyr quote DOES NOT contradict the Trinity. It CLEARLY supports it. It lists 3 seperate entities or personages.

And @tigger 2 was deceptive in his post. It is NOT controversial among scholars. It is only controversial among SOME scholars that don't accept what has long been taught and what is accepted by 99% of Christianity. If you have 99 people agreeing on something and 1 person disagrees....there is no controversy.

So you think that listing the 3 entities proves the trinity?

 

[DavidB]

The Justin Martyr quote DOES NOT contradict the Trinity. It CLEARLY supports it. It lists 3 seperate entities or personages.

And @tigger 2 was deceptive in his post. It is NOT controversial among scholars. It is only controversial among SOME scholars that don't accept what has long been taught and what is accepted by 99% of Christianity. If you have 99 people agreeing on something and 1 person disagrees....there is no controversy.

It is not controversial? The quote you posted said
“While it can hardly be said that there is any unanimous agreement on the subject…”
Yet that is what you are trying to say.
Looking at what the apostolic fathers wrote can have some value. However, Paul told the brothers in Ephesus that “From among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.” The truth was being twisted while the apostles were still alive so how much import can be put on later uninspired writings?
I started this thread showing the translation issues with 2 Peter 1:1. The question I ask is why are so many Bible verses used to support the trinity at best controversial? It is to be expected then that uninspired writings after the apostles that seem to support the trinity are also disputed. One verse I have never seen disputed is 1 Corinthians 11:3:
“But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God.”

What could be more clear?

 

[Marymog]

It is not controversial? The quote you posted said
“While it can hardly be said that there is any unanimous agreement on the subject…”
Yet that is what you are trying to say.....

OMG...You are just like @tigger 2

DO NOT partially quote what I provided. Quote ALL OF IT: While it can hardly be said that there is at present any unanimous agreement on the subject, the best modern criticism favors the authenticity of the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius. Even such eminent non-Catholic critics as Zahn, Lightfoot, and Harnack hold this view. Perhaps the best evidence of their authenticity is to be found in the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, which mentions each of them by name.

Stop being sooooo dishonest.....

 

[Marymog]

Looking at what the apostolic fathers wrote can have some value. However, Paul told the brothers in Ephesus that “From among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.” The truth was being twisted while the apostles were still alive so how much import can be put on later uninspired writings?

Oh goodnesss David.....You are wearing me out kiddo.

Soooooooooooooooo you reject what the men who were students of the Apostles wrote but you accept what other men say WHO NEVER MET THE APOSTLES????????? You believe that the students of the Apostles wrote "twisted things" but the men YOU agree with didn't write twisted things???? That's your solution to make YOU right????

Do you realize how non-sensical that sounds?

Sooooooooooo what criteria do you use to determine that the students of the Apostles "twisted things" but YOUR MEN didn't???? What is your litmus test???

 

[Marymog]

I started this thread showing the translation issues with 2 Peter 1:1. The question I ask is why are so many Bible verses used to support the trinity at best controversial?

Dear dear David,

They are NOT controversial. A majority of Christianity, Christian denominations, preachers, teachers and the average I only go to Church on Sunday Christians believe and accept the Trinity doctrine. YOU and your ilk are in a very small minority. That does not make controversy. That makes a heresy.

 

[Pierac]

I would say the same to you, Pierac. Except in a more polite, tactful, graceful way. Peace to you, my friend.

I don't want you to be polite... I want you to show me how I'm wrong in my understanding of Psa 110:1 !

Read it again... and then show me!! Stop trying to make people feel better... show us the truth! One of ius s wrong... I believe it's you! Show/teach me differently!!!

Paul

 

[Marymog]

So you think that listing the 3 entities proves the trinity?

No, it is not only little ol' Marymog that thinks that. A MAJORITY of Christians think that. Why do you reject it?