a question about Saint Martyr

[a.s1]

The Catholic Encyclopedia notes he wasn't perfect and I am aware of no saint, of either the Catholic or Eastern tradition that is thought to be perfect. Do you?

I didn't debate on that.

Which makes me wonder if you actually read St Justin's first apology because he is quite hard of Pagan religious beliefs and says things like:


But those who hand down the myths which the poets have made, adduce no proof to the youths who learn them; and we proceed to demonstrate that they have been uttered by the influence of the wicked demons, to deceive and lead astray the human race. For having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come, and that the ungodly among men were to be punished by fire, they put forward many to be called sons of Jupiter, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things which were said with regard to Christ were mere marvellous tales, like the things which were said by the poets. And these things were said both among the Greeks and among all nations where they [the demons] heard the prophets foretelling that Christ would specially be believed in; but that in hearing what was said by the prophets they did not accurately understand it, but imitated what was said of our Christ, like men who are in error, we will make plain.
St. Justin's First Apology, Chapter 54


You do know that all of his collected works are online, for free, and can be read here, right?

Justin Martyr's writings lack consistency.

on one side he says "as I've quoted":

"And when we say also that the Word, Who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all Aesculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb and Hercules, when he had commited hiself to the flames to escape his toils and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri and Perseus son of Danne and Bellerophen, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus …etc"

and on the other side he says:

But those who hand down the myths which the poets have made, adduce no proof to the youths who learn them; and we proceed to demonstrate that they have been uttered by the influence of the wicked demons, to deceive and lead astray the human race. For having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come, and that the ungodly among men were to be punished by fire, they put forward many to be called sons of Jupiter, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things which were said with regard to Christ were mere marvellous tales, like the things which were said by the poets. And these things were said both among the Greeks and among all nations where they [the demons] heard the prophets foretelling that Christ would specially be believed in; but that in hearing what was said by the prophets they did not accurately understand it, but imitated what was said of our Christ, like men who are in error, we will make plain.
St. Justin's First Apology, Chapter 54

Anyways, I think that inconsistency is ok since Saints , according to Christian belief, are not perfect.


Thank you

[lilpixieofterror]

I didn't debate on that.

Yet you are asking if a saint should be question. Can you think of any church tradition that says a saint can't be?

Justin Martyr's writings lack consistency.

on one side he says "as I've quoted":

and on the other side he says:

You should really try actually reading his works instead of picking and choosing soundbites you think proves your point. St Justin's first and second apology, along with his dialogue is very lengthy. Also, quoting somebody or stating a belief and going on to refute that belief is a pretty common thing done in older works and you'll find this going on in the NT as well as within the works of the church fathers and other important writers. Aquinas does that quite a bit in "Summa Theologica" and there is no reason why Justin can't be doing that either.

Anyways, I think that inconsistency is ok since Saints , according to Christian belief, are not perfect.

Sorry, but it's on 'inconsistent' if you read it, void of context, and simply pick out soundbites instead of reading the whole thing. As I said above, you are aware of the practicing of stating a belief that the author does not hold to and then moving on to refute that belief, right?

[One Bad Pig]

So Justin was telling the pagans not to mock Christians for the fact that what Christians actually believe in is not different from what you also believe! I still doubt Christians agree on that.

Um, no. Try actually reading Justin's First Apology, Ch. 18-22 or so.

Knowing whether the hellfire is literally fire or something else is not a big deal ,when compared to knowing God, who we are supposed to worship. However, "God is beyond our understanding" and therefore God has to tell us about Him, His attributes , what He wants from us and to tell us the right belief regarding Him. Explaining the Church role in defining the right beliefs by saying that " The Bible was not written to define right belief" is very weak ,and it also refers to something deep, as I think. Before explaining my point I need to ask few questions:

Do those who are guided by the Holy Spirit have the choice whether to follow the Holy Spirit's guidance or neglect it?

Yes.

Were Mark, Mathew, Luke, John and the other writers of the Bible inspired by the Holy Ghost?

Yes.

Is the Trinity beyond our limited human comprehension?

Yes.

I think that your first sentence contradicts the second one, or maybe I didn't understand what you meant!

I don't think you understood what I meant.

You said that the three persons are of one will, then you said that both the Son and the Holy Spirit are functionally subordinate to the Father in which they carry out His –the Father's- will. I need you to clarify this please:

Since all the three persons are one in essence ουσια, and that their attributes are identical, then why the Son and the Holy Spirit are functionally subordinate to the Father? Is the person of the Father greater than the two other persons that they need to follow His will?

The Son and Holy Spirit originate in the Father. They carry out His will, and thus are subordinate to Him, even though they are of the same essence. The Father is not greater in any attribute, and the Son and Holy Spirit do not "need" to follow His will; they cooperate to do so. The relationships are due to mutual love, not power.

And another question in mind:

What is the point of God (as a whole) to appear in three identical persons? In other words: Why God the one has three persons?

They are distinct, not identical. Why three exactly, I don't know. Why more than one? God is relational, which is why we can relate to Him.

The Bible is inconsistent and in many times is contradicted with what the concept of Trinity entails. I will elaborate on this point, if necessary, when the previous questions are answered.

I have yet to see anything in context that contradicts the Trinity.

[One Bad Pig]

So is that to be understood then that God breathed as applied to Old Testament writings does not apply to the the New Testament writings, such as the one that Paul had just written to Timothy?

I would say that the New Testament writings are inspired by God, as acknowledged by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The NT canon was not defined until the 4th century, well after the Church began. Was the Church without right doctrine in the interim? No.

Would you care to clarify this, how your argument applies here and to other yet to be written texts?

I see no reason for yet to be written texts; we have the New Covenant and the promise of His coming. When Jesus comes again, there will be no more need for scripture.

Matthew 4:4,

. . . It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Taken literally, we're missing a bunch. The words of Jesus in the NT are merely representative of what He spoke.