Patristic Quotations of "One is good, the Father"

Dear OldShepherd,
You had made a comment about this saying of Jesus and since you really enjoy the quotes of the Fathers I think you will get a real kick out of these from Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, Pseudo-Clementine and Irenaeus as well as some quotes from a book by William Peterson.

You may even change your mind about what you though of the Fathers!

Mark 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. (KJV, Cf Mt 19:17; Lu 18:19)

Clement of Alexandria Strom. V. 10.63 (c. 260 CE)
"And if, the Creator above all is confessed to be just, and the Lord to be the Son of the Creator; then the Lord is the Son of Him who is just. Wherefore also Paul says, "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested; " and again, that you may better conceive of God, "even the righteousness of God by the faith of Jesus Christ upon all that believe; for there is no difference." And, witnessing further to the truth, he adds after a little, "through the forbearance of God, in order to show that He is just, and that Jesus is the justifier of him who is of faith." And that he knows that what is just is good, appears by his saying, "So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good," using both names to denote the same power. But "no one is good," except His Father." ( hEIS AGAQOS, hO PATHR )

Hippolytus - haer. V.7.25 (pre-222 CE)
'They affirm, then, concerning the substance of the seed which is a cause of all existent things, that it is none of these, but that it produces and forms all things that are made, expressing themselves thus: "I become what I wish, and I am what I am: on account of this I say, that what puts all things in motion is itself unmoved. For what exists remains forming all things, and nought of existing things is made." He says that this (one) alone is good, and that what is spoken by the Saviour is declared concerning this (one): "Why do you say that am good? One is good, my Father which is in the heavens , (hEIS ESTIN AGAQOS, hO PATHR EN TOIS OURANOIS) who causeth His sun to rise upon the just and unjust, and sendeth rain upon saints and sinners."'

Justin Martyr - Dial. 101.2 (c. 150 CE)
"Then what follows of the Psalm is this, in which He says: `Our fathers trusted in Thee; they trusted, and Thou didst deliver them. They cried unto Thee, and were not confounded. But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people; 'which show that He admits them to be His fathers, who trusted in God and were saved by Him, who also were the fathers of the Virgin, by whom He was born and became man; and He foretells that He shall be saved by the same God, but boasts not in accomplishing anything through His own will or might. For when on earth He acted in the very same manner, and answered to one who addressed Him as `Good Master: '`Why callest thou me good? One is good, my Father who is in heaven.' (Luke xviii. 18 f.)"

the Pseudo-Clementine Homiles XVI.3.4 (c. 260 CE)
"AT break of day, when Peter went forth to discourse, Simon anticipated him, and said: "When I went away yesterday, I promised to you to return to-day, and in a discussion show that he who flamed the world is not the highest God, but that the highest God is another who alone is good, and who has remained unknown up to this time. At once, then, state to me whether you maintain that the framer of the world is the same as the lawgiver or not? If, then, he is the lawgiver, he is just; but if he is just, he is not good. But if he is not good, then it was another that Jesus proclaimed, when he said, `Do not call me good; for one is good, the Father who is in the heavens.'" (hO GAR AGAQOS hEIS ESTIN, hO PATHR hO EN TOIS OURANOIS)


What text can NT Textual Criticism ultimately Reach? (William L. Peterson -- New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis, and Early Church History, a Discussion of Methods, page 142, edited by Barbara Aland and Joel Delobel)

• Justin, Dial. 101.2 hEIS ESTIN AGAQOS, hO PATHR MOU hO EN TOIS OURANOIS - "One is good, my Father in the heavens."
  
  Taitian Diatessaron (c. 172 CE) , as per Ephrem Syrus, Comm. on the Diatessaron, XV,9 (Syr & Arm] "Unus est bonus, Pater, qui in caelo."
  
  Irenaeus, haer. I.210.2 (pre-185 CE) "hEIS ESTIN AGAQOS, hO PATHR EN TOIS OURANOIS"
  
  Hippolytus, haer. V.7.25 (pre-222 CE) "hEIS ESTIN AGAQOS, hO PATHR EN TOIS OURANOIS"
  
  Clement of Alexandria, Strom. V.10.63 (c. 207 CE) "hEIS AGAQOS, hO PATHR"
  
  the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies XVI.3.4 (c. 260 CE) "hO GAR AGAQOS hEIS ESTIN, hO PATHR hO EN TOIS OURANOIS"
  
  Vetus Latina MS e (apud Matthew; V cent) "Unus est bonus, pater."
  
  Vetus Latina MS d (apud Luke; V cent) "Nemo bonus misi unus Deus pater."
  

According to NA 27, the only text critical issue is that "father" appears in a single manuscript of the Matthean passage, namely Marcus as quoted by Irenaeus.

There is no dispute over the Lukan passage.

Today @ 02:46 PM post located here
Jaltus:

According to NA 27, the only text critical issue is that "father" appears in a single manuscript of the Matthean passage, namely Marcus as quoted by Irenaeus.

There is no dispute over the Lukan passage.

Dear Jaltus,
I checked my NA27 and my Swanson but it was in the USB that I found Marcion, Clement, Ps-Clement and Juvencus.

Thanks for sharing that, I have marked my copies.

Regards,
Cal

Thanks. NA 27 covers more with less depth, but UBS covers with more depth what it covers.

Today @ 05:58 AM post located here
Cal_Minian:

Patristic Quotations of "One is good, the Father"

Dear OldShepherd,
You had made a comment about this saying of Jesus and since you really enjoy the quotes of the Fathers I think you will get a real kick out of these from Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, Pseudo-Clementine and Irenaeus as well as some quotes from a book by William Peterson.

Mark 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. (KJV, Cf Mt 19:17; Lu 18:19)

Is this a serious post? Do you think you really posted anything which refutes anything I said? Then read on.

You may even change your mind about what you though of the Fathers!

Not no way! Not no how! I am not one bit impressed by blind cut and paste jobs or sloppy research and quotes out-of-context. You can take your pick as to which it is.

Clement of Alexandria Strom. V. 10.63 (c. 260 CE) * * *

Posted quote does NOT appear in the work cited nor does it appear in Stromata IV or VI. Here's the link to V, prove me wrong.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/...#P7190_2189438

Hippolytus - haer. V.7.25 (pre-222 CE)
'They affirm, then, concerning the substance of the seed which is a cause of all existent things, that it is none of these, but that it produces and forms all things that are made, expressing themselves thus: "I become what I wish, and I am what I am: on account of this I say, that what puts all things in motion is itself unmoved. For what exists remains forming all things, and nought of existing things is made." He says that this (one) alone is good, and that what is spoken by the Saviour is declared concerning this (one): "Why do you say that am good? One is good, my Father which is in the heavens , (hEIS ESTIN AGAQOS, hO PATHR EN TOIS OURANOIS) who causeth His sun to rise upon the just and unjust, and sendeth rain upon saints and sinners."'

You have absolutely GOT to be kidding with this one. You either blindly copied it from some JW anti-Trinitarian site or just yanked this quote out of the work cited without bothering to read the context. As you have noted this is from Hippolytus' Against Heresies and in this particular quote Hippolytus is showing how a heretical group called "the Naassene" calls Osisis the Logos and misapplies Mk 10:7, Mt 19:17; Lu 18:19 to Osiris. Now is that what you want to prove? Give me a break! I have highlighted your out-of-context quote, below.

• This, with them [the Naassene. OS], is the ineffable and mystical Logos. They assert, then, that the Egyptians, who after the Phrygians, it is established, are of greater antiquity than all mankind, and who confessedly were the first to proclaim to all the rest of men the rites and orgies of, at the same time, all the gods, as well as the species and energies (of things), have the sacred and august, and for those who are not initiated, unspeakable mysteries of Isis. These, however, are not anything else than what by her of the seven dresses and sable robe was sought and snatched away, namely, the pudendum of Osiris. And they say that Osiris is water. But the seven-robed nature, encircled and arrayed with seven mantles of ethereal texture-for so they call the planetary stars, allegorizing and denominating them ethereal robes,-is as it were the changeable generation, and is exhibited as the creature transformed by the ineffable and unportrayable, and inconceivable and figureless one. And this, (the Naassene) says, is what is declared in Scripture, "The just will fall seven times, and rise again." For these falls, he says, are the changes of the stars, moved by Him who puts all things in motion.
  
  They affirm, then, concerning the substance of the seed which is a cause of all existent things, that it is none of these, but that it produces and forms all things that are made, expressing themselves thus: "I become what I wish, and I am what I am: on account of this I say, that what puts all things in motion is itself unmoved. For what exists remains forming all things, and nought of existing things is made." He [the Naassene. OS] says that this (one) [Osiris. OS] alone is good, and that what is spoken by the Saviour is declared concerning this (one) [Osiris. OS]: "Why do you say that am good? One is good, my Father which is in the heavens, who causeth His sun to rise upon the just and unjust, and sendeth rain upon saints and sinners." But who the saintly ones are on whom He sends the rain, and the sinners on whom the same sends the rain, this likewise we shall afterwards declare with the rest. And this is the great and secret and unknown mystery of the universe, concealed and revealed among the Egyptians. For Osiris, (the Naassene) says, is in temples in front of Isis; and his pudendum stands exposed, looking downwards, and crowned with all its own fruits of things that are made. And (he affirms) that such stands not only in the most hallowed temples chief of idols, but that also, for the information of all, it is as it were a light not set under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, proclaiming its message upon the housetops, in all byways, and all streets, and near the actual dwellings, placed in front as a certain appointed limit and termination of the dwelling, and that this is denominated the good (entity) by all. For they style this good-producing, not knowing what they say. And the Greeks, deriving this mystical (expression) from the Egyptians, preserve it until this day. For we behold, says (the Naassene), statues of Mercury, of such a figure honoured among them.
  
  http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/...tm#P912_239623

Justin Martyr - Dial. 101.2 (c. 150 CE)
"Then what follows of the Psalm is this, in which He says: `Our fathers trusted in Thee; they trusted, and Thou didst deliver them. They cried unto Thee, and were not confounded. But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people; 'which show that He admits them to be His fathers, who trusted in God and were saved by Him, who also were the fathers of the Virgin, by whom He was born and became man; and He foretells that He shall be saved by the same God, but boasts not in accomplishing anything through His own will or might. For when on earth He acted in the very same manner, and answered to one who addressed Him as `Good Master: '`Why callest thou me good? One is good, my Father who is in heaven.' (Luke xviii. 18 f.)"

At least this quote is accurate, as far as it goes. But let us get a bigger picture and read further in Justin. Need I say more?

• Justin, Dialogue
  
  For they were like an unharnessed foal, which was not bearing a yoke on its neck, until this Christ came, and sent His disciples to instruct them; and they bore the yoke of His word, and yielded the neck to endure all [hardships], for the sake of the good things promised by Himself, and expected by them.
  
  And our hearts are thus circumcised from evil, so that we are happy to die for the name of the good Rock, which causes living water to burst forth for the hearts of those who by Him have loved the Father of all, and which gives those who are willing to drink of the water of life.
  
  http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/...m#P4043_787325

the Pseudo-Clementine Homiles XVI.3.4 (c. 260 CE) * * *

"Pseudo" means false. I don't do false!

What text can NT Textual Criticism ultimately Reach? (William L. Peterson -- New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis, and Early Church History, a Discussion of Methods, page 142, edited by Barbara Aland and Joel Delobel)

And textual variants prove exactly what? Here are a few early church fathers you overlooked.

• The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians
  
  For as the false prophets and the false apostles drew [to themselves] one and the same wicked, deceitful, and seducing39 spirit; so also did the prophets and the apostles receive from God, through Jesus Christ, one and the same Holy Spirit, who is good, and sovereign,40 and true, and the Author of [saving] knowledge.
  
  http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/...m#P1941_328407
  
  Irenaeus Against Heresies Book IV
  
  But the Word of God did not accept of the friendship of Abraham, as though He stood in need of it, for He was perfect from the beginning ("Before Abraham was," He says, "I am"162 ), but that He in His goodness might bestow eternal life upon Abraham himself, inasmuch as the friendship of God imparts immortality to those who embrace it.
  
  http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/...#P7979_2198226

And OBTW I did all my own ECF research AND I read the context lest I too look foolish.

Today @ 05:54 PM post located here
OldShepherd:


Is this a serious post? Do you think you really posted anything which refutes anything I said? Then read on.



Not no way! Not no how! I am not one bit impressed by blind cut and paste jobs or sloppy research and quotes out-of-context. You can take your pick as to which it is.



Posted quote does NOT appear in the work cited nor does it appear in Stromata IV or VI. Here's the link to V, prove me wrong.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/...#P7190_2189438



You have absolutely GOT to be kidding with this one. You either blindly copied it from some JW anti-Trinitarian site or just yanked this quote out of the work cited without bothering to read the context. As you have noted this is from Hippolytus' Against Heresies and in this particular quote Hippolytus is showing how a heretical group called "the Naassene" calls Osisis the Logos and misapplies Mk 10:7, Mt 19:17; Lu 18:19 to Osiris. Now is that what you want to prove? Give me a break! I have highlighted your out-of-context quote, below.

• This, with them [the Naassene. OS], is the ineffable and mystical Logos. They assert, then, that the Egyptians, who after the Phrygians, it is established, are of greater antiquity than all mankind, and who confessedly were the first to proclaim to all the rest of men the rites and orgies of, at the same time, all the gods, as well as the species and energies (of things), have the sacred and august, and for those who are not initiated, unspeakable mysteries of Isis. These, however, are not anything else than what by her of the seven dresses and sable robe was sought and snatched away, namely, the pudendum of Osiris. And they say that Osiris is water. But the seven-robed nature, encircled and arrayed with seven mantles of ethereal texture-for so they call the planetary stars, allegorizing and denominating them ethereal robes,-is as it were the changeable generation, and is exhibited as the creature transformed by the ineffable and unportrayable, and inconceivable and figureless one. And this, (the Naassene) says, is what is declared in Scripture, "The just will fall seven times, and rise again." For these falls, he says, are the changes of the stars, moved by Him who puts all things in motion.
  
  They affirm, then, concerning the substance of the seed which is a cause of all existent things, that it is none of these, but that it produces and forms all things that are made, expressing themselves thus: "I become what I wish, and I am what I am: on account of this I say, that what puts all things in motion is itself unmoved. For what exists remains forming all things, and nought of existing things is made." He [the Naassene. OS] says that this (one) [Osiris. OS] alone is good, and that what is spoken by the Saviour is declared concerning this (one) [Osiris. OS]: "Why do you say that am good? One is good, my Father which is in the heavens, who causeth His sun to rise upon the just and unjust, and sendeth rain upon saints and sinners." But who the saintly ones are on whom He sends the rain, and the sinners on whom the same sends the rain, this likewise we shall afterwards declare with the rest. And this is the great and secret and unknown mystery of the universe, concealed and revealed among the Egyptians. For Osiris, (the Naassene) says, is in temples in front of Isis; and his pudendum stands exposed, looking downwards, and crowned with all its own fruits of things that are made. And (he affirms) that such stands not only in the most hallowed temples chief of idols, but that also, for the information of all, it is as it were a light not set under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, proclaiming its message upon the housetops, in all byways, and all streets, and near the actual dwellings, placed in front as a certain appointed limit and termination of the dwelling, and that this is denominated the good (entity) by all. For they style this good-producing, not knowing what they say. And the Greeks, deriving this mystical (expression) from the Egyptians, preserve it until this day. For we behold, says (the Naassene), statues of Mercury, of such a figure honoured among them.
  
  http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/...tm#P912_239623

At least this quote is accurate, as far as it goes. But let us get a bigger picture and read further in Justin. Need I say more?

• Justin, Dialogue
  
  For they were like an unharnessed foal, which was not bearing a yoke on its neck, until this Christ came, and sent His disciples to instruct them; and they bore the yoke of His word, and yielded the neck to endure all [hardships], for the sake of the good things promised by Himself, and expected by them.
  
  And our hearts are thus circumcised from evil, so that we are happy to die for the name of the good Rock, which causes living water to burst forth for the hearts of those who by Him have loved the Father of all, and which gives those who are willing to drink of the water of life.
  
  http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/...m#P4043_787325

"Pseudo" means false. I don't do false!
[/b]



And textual variants prove exactly what? Here are a few early church fathers you overlooked.

• The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians
  
  For as the false prophets and the false apostles drew [to themselves] one and the same wicked, deceitful, and seducing39 spirit; so also did the prophets and the apostles receive from God, through Jesus Christ, one and the same Holy Spirit, who is good, and sovereign,40 and true, and the Author of [saving] knowledge.
  
  http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/...m#P1941_328407
  
  Irenaeus Against Heresies Book IV
  
  But the Word of God did not accept of the friendship of Abraham, as though He stood in need of it, for He was perfect from the beginning ("Before Abraham was," He says, "I am"162 ), but that He in His goodness might bestow eternal life upon Abraham himself, inasmuch as the friendship of God imparts immortality to those who embrace it.
  
  http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/...#P7979_2198226

And OBTW I did all my own ECF research AND I read the context lest I too look foolish.

Dear Carlos,
Thanks for your research. You might be interested in reading What text can NT Textual Criticism ultimately Reach? (William L. Peterson -- New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis, and Early Church History, a Discussion of Methods, page 142, edited by Barbara Aland and Joel Delobel)

One point of clarification. You do agree that the Fathers I quoted indicated that the one who was good alone was the Father, don't you?

Regards,
Cal

Today @ 12:00 PM post located here
Cal_Minian:

Dear Carlos,
Thanks for your research. You might be interested in reading What text can NT Textual Criticism ultimately Reach? (William L. Peterson -- New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis, and Early Church History, a Discussion of Methods, page 142, edited by Barbara Aland and Joel Delobel)

One point of clarification. You do agree that the Fathers I quoted indicated that the one who was good alone was the Father, don't you?

Regards,
Cal

Perhaps you could quote any pertinent parts of Aland and Delobel, relevant to this particular discussion?

"You do agree that the Fathers I quoted indicated that the one who was good alone was the Father, don't you?" Are you serious? You quoted ONE (1) church father who does appear to say in ONE place that only God is good and in two other places, in the same work, that Christ is good. I have aleady posted my opinion of the others. One nonexistent, one junk!

Today @ 07:12 PM post located here
OldShepherd:



Perhaps you could quote any pertinent parts of Aland and Delobel, relevant to this particular discussion?

"You do agree that the Fathers I quoted indicated that the one who was good alone was the Father, don't you?" Are you serious? You quoted ONE (1) church father who does appear to say in ONE place that only God is good and in two other places, in the same work, that Christ is good. I have aleady posted my opinion of the others. One nonexistent, one junk!

Dear OldSheperd,
I found the chapter from that book which I photocopied a number of years ago. I think I will scan and OCR it so that I can quote it. I won't be able to do that for a week or so.

However I thought I remembered that William Peterson had participated in an email group I used to extensively read where he commented on this subject. It was back in 1996. Here is a link to the email. He is much less conservative in the email than in the book so it's a real fun read.

The url is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tc-list/message/769

He concludes with:

But of course, this is all old hat, for it is all pre-Christian, found in
Philo, in his discussion of Ex. 7.1 and elsewhere (try on Q. in Gen., II.62,
for size): "The oracle was given by God. For nothing mortal can be made in
the likeness of the most high One and Father of the universe, but only in
that of the second God, who is His Logos."

It may not be the Christology of now, but I have a pretty good inkling that
it was the Christology of THEN, and that is what I am researching--NOT what
I may or may not subscribe to NOW.


--Petersen, Penn. State Univ.

Have fun,
Your good friend, Cal

I find this odd. Is Cal attempting to prove that the Fathers didn't believe Christ to be God? Cal needs to do more than simply cite the Fathers but interpret them correctly as well. Does Martyr intend to exclude the Son? No. Especially given his theology. The only other motive {of Cal} I see is to demonstrate that they are very astute when it comes to scriptural interpretation. Now that would certainly be a case of pick and choose.

Yesterday @ 11:58 PM post located here
IronMetro:

I find this odd. Is Cal attempting to prove that the Fathers didn't believe Christ to be God? Cal needs to do more than simply cite the Fathers but interpret them correctly as well. Does Martyr intend to exclude the Son? No. Especially given his theology. The only other motive {of Cal} I see is to demonstrate that they are very astute when it comes to scriptural interpretation. Now that would certainly be a case of pick and choose.

Dear IronMetro,
The purpose of my post was to show how the verse "only God is good" was used by BDAG which is contrasting Jesus and others who are called QEOS in a representative sense with the Father who is called God in the monotheistic sense.

BDAG distinguishes beween QEOS of the Father in John 1:1a as being in the monotheistic sense and QEOS of the Word in John 1:1b as being in the sense that is not the monotheistic sense.

As for Justin, you might be interested in the following:

A. Lukyn Williams, D. D., in his "Justin Martyr: The Dialogue with Trypho. Translation, Introduction, and Notes " (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; N.Y. & Toronto: The MacMillan Co.; 1930) 301 pages. says regarding theos as applied to Christ:

"In each case [where Justin refers theos to Christ,] theos not ho theos [i.e., "not the God"]. J[ustin] reserves the latter ["the God"] for the Supreme God, except in lvi. 10, where the article [anaphorically] marks the God of which the narrative is speaking, and so in lx. 3." Page 122.
And on page 124: "Observe that throughout this chapter J[ustin] is insisting, (a) that the Angel is not the Supreme God, (b) and yet is called God."

Kind Regards,
Cal

Yesterday @ 01:07 PM post located here
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldSheperd,
I found the chapter from that book which I photocopied a number of years ago. I think I will scan and OCR it so that I can quote it. I won't be able to do that for a week or so.

However I thought I remembered that William Peterson had participated in an email group I used to extensively read where he commented on this subject. It was back in 1996. Here is a link to the email. He is much less conservative in the email than in the book so it's a real fun read.

The url is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tc-list/message/769

He concludes with:

But of course, this is all old hat, for it is all pre-Christian, found in Philo, in his discussion of Ex. 7.1 and elsewhere (try on Q. in Gen., II.62, for size): "The oracle was given by God. For nothing mortal can be made in the likeness of the most high One and Father of the universe, but only in that of the second God, who is His Logos."

It may not be the Christology of now, but I have a pretty good inkling that it was the Christology of THEN, and that is what I am researching--NOT what I may or may not subscribe to NOW.

--Petersen, Penn. State Univ.

Have fun,
Your good friend, Cal

irrelevant! Philo was a Hellenized Jewish Philosopher and I doubt very seriously that he had any Christology at all.

Today @ 02:44 AM post located here
Cal_Minian:

BDAG distinguishes beween QEOS of the Father in John 1:1a as being in the monotheistic sense and QEOS of the Word in John 1:1b as being in the sense that is not the monotheistic sense.

NO! It absolutely does NOT! You are consistently reading your presuppositions into what BDAG actually says!

Today @ 02:44 AM post located here
Cal_Minian:



Dear IronMetro,
The purpose of my post was to show how the verse "only God is good" was used by BDAG which is contrasting Jesus and others who are called QEOS in a representative sense with the Father who is called God in the monotheistic sense.

BDAG distinguishes beween QEOS of the Father in John 1:1a as being in the monotheistic sense and QEOS of the Word in John 1:1b as being in the sense that is not the monotheistic sense.

As for Justin, you might be interested in the following:

A. Lukyn Williams, D. D., in his "Justin Martyr: The Dialogue with Trypho. Translation, Introduction, and Notes " (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; N.Y. & Toronto: The MacMillan Co.; 1930) 301 pages. says regarding theos as applied to Christ:

"In each case [where Justin refers theos to Christ,] theos not ho theos [i.e., "not the God"]. J[ustin] reserves the latter ["the God"] for the Supreme God, except in lvi. 10, where the article [anaphorically] marks the God of which the narrative is speaking, and so in lx. 3." Page 122.
And on page 124: "Observe that throughout this chapter J[ustin] is insisting, (a) that the Angel is not the Supreme God, (b) and yet is called God."

I have done my own research in Justin and you might be interested in my conclusions. But then again probably not because they clearly refute this citation.

• In his, ( Link to: Dialogue with Trypho), Justin wrote;
  1. The Word is Not an Inanimate Power.
     
  2. The Word is a Person.
     
  3. The Word is Begotten of the Father's Substance.
     
  4. He (Jesus) was God,
     
  5. He (Jesus) was Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God.
     
  6. He (Jesus) was God, indivisible from the Father.
     
  7. He (Jesus) was God, inseparable from the Father.
     
  8. (Jesus) was Begotten from the Father but not by abscission.
  
  Justin wrote, Jesus was God, “indivisible”, not capable of being divided, from the Father. Jesus was God, “inseparable”, not capable of being separated, from the Father. The Word, Jesus, God, The Son of God, is Begotten of the Father's Substance but is not divided from the Father, is not separated from the Father, and is not cut off from the Father.

Kindest Regards,
Carlos

OS,
thanks for your research. I have a book that claims Justin Martyr said the following:

"I say that there is, and is said to be, another God and Lord, subject to the Maker of all things, who is also called an Angel, because he announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things-above whom there is no other God-wished to announce them...He is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob,and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from him who made all things-numerically I mean, not in will."

Is this true and what does it mean? How can Jesus (assuming it is speaking of him) be another God other than the maker of all things? He seems to think Jesus is a God other than the Creator and is subject to that God. How was Jesus numerically distinct from the God who made all things. Was Martyr a Polytheist? Any comments on this?

Yesterday @ 11:25 PM post located here
OldShepherd:



"In each case [where Justin refers theos to Christ,] theos not ho theos [i.e., "not the God"]. J[ustin] reserves the latter ["the God"] for the Supreme God, except in lvi. 10, where the article [anaphorically] marks the God of which the narrative is speaking, and so in lx. 3." Page 122.
And on page 124: "Observe that throughout this chapter J[ustin] is insisting, (a) that the Angel is not the Supreme God, (b) and yet is called God."

I have done my own research in Justin and you might be interested in my conclusions. But then again probably not because they clearly refute this citation.

• In his, ( Link to: Dialogue with Trypho), Justin wrote;
  1. The Word is Not an Inanimate Power.
     
  2. The Word is a Person.
     
  3. The Word is Begotten of the Father's Substance.
     
  4. He (Jesus) was God,
     
  5. He (Jesus) was Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God.
     
  6. He (Jesus) was God, indivisible from the Father.
     
  7. He (Jesus) was God, inseparable from the Father.
     
  8. (Jesus) was Begotten from the Father but not by abscission.
  
  Justin wrote, Jesus was God, “indivisible”, not capable of being divided, from the Father. Jesus was God, “inseparable”, not capable of being separated, from the Father. The Word, Jesus, God, The Son of God, is Begotten of the Father's Substance but is not divided from the Father, is not separated from the Father, and is not cut off from the Father.

Kindest Regards,
Carlos

Dear Carlos,
I see from your list you have not researched the specific quote I posted of:

"Observe that throughout this chapter J[ustin] is insisting, (a) that the Angel is not the Supreme God, (b) and yet is called God."

Could you tell me your take on this?

Kind Regards,
Cal

Yesterday @ 08:48 PM post located here
OldShepherd:



NO! It absolutely does NOT! You are consistently reading your presuppositions into what BDAG actually says!

Dear Carlos,
As I have shown in another post, according to BDAG QEOS is used with two senses in John 1:1, one for the Son as "a god" and another for the Father in the monotheistic sense.

Kind Regards,
Cal