God bless you, thank you for the work. Can you explain to me a bit further about the sense in which we say the son is under the father. Or if you could point me to further reading
Marcion believed they were different Gods and was wealthy enough to start a church with his preferred writings as cannon. His church lasted a few hundred years. What I find interesting is that this cult originates with Paul’s ideas and writings. He may not have been the first apostle who claims to have had spiritual experiences, just the most convincing and literate enough to writer letters.
First of all he is a Platonist, he didn’t believe in creation Ex-Nihilo Chapter 59. Plato's obligation to Moses And that you may learn that it was from our teachers - we mean the account given through the prophets- that Plato borrowed his statement that God, having altered matter which was shapeless, made the world, hear the very words spoken through Moses, who, as above shown, was the first prophet, and of greater antiquity than the Greek writers; and through whom the Spirit of prophecy, signifying how and from what materials God at first formed the world, spoke thus: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and unfurnished, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and it was so. So that both Plato and they who agree with him, and we ourselves, have learned, and you also can be convinced, that by the word of God the whole world was made out of the substance spoken of before by Moses. And that which the poets call Erebus, we know was spoken of formerly by Moses. Deuteronomy 32:22 He also says Plato talks about Christ Chapter 60. Plato's doctrine of the cross And the physiological discussion concerning the Son of God in the Timæus of Plato, where he says, He placed him crosswise in the universe, he borrowed in like manner from Moses; for in the writings of Moses it is related how at that time, when the Israelites went out of Egypt and were in the wilderness, they fell in with poisonous beasts, both vipers and asps, and every kind of serpent, which slew the people; and that Moses, by the inspiration and influence of God. To nail this down he admits and follows the doctrine of Logos-Pneuma, which collapses the Holy Spirit and the Logos. Chapter 33 Behold, you shall conceive of the Holy Ghost, and shall bear a Son, and He shall be called the Son of the Highest, and you shall call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins, Luke 1:32; Matthew 1:21 - as they who have recorded all that concerns our Saviour Jesus Christ have taught, whom we believed, since by Isaiah also, whom we have now adduced, the Spirit of prophecy declared that He should be born as we intimated before. It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God as anything else than the Word, who is also the first-born of God, as the foresaid prophet Moses declared; and it was this which, when it came upon the virgin and overshadowed her, caused her to conceive, not by intercourse, but by power. And the name Jesus in the Hebrew language means Σωτήρ (Saviour) in the Greek tongue. Wherefore, too, the angel said to the virgin, You shall call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins. And that the prophets are inspired by no other than the Divine Word, even you, as I fancy, will grant. He says that the Word of God crated Christ in the womb. Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word.
You can’t read. Justin Martyr says that the Father and Son are separable and divisible. He is refuting those who claim that they are inseparable and indivisible.
He says that others say the Son is merely an inseparable power and continues saying he is begotten not by the essence being severed (as opposed to what we see in the division in various fires) but the essence remains the same. We would actually affirm that otherness is a type of division but the essence has no variation or otherness. Thus we can say the Father is hypostatically divided from the Son but essentially undivided: Each of these things may be divisible in thought (τῶν εἰρημένων ἕκαστον ἐπινοίᾳ μεριστὸν), but in [the divine] nature (τῇ φύσει) they are one and indivisible (ἀμερίστῳ), proceeding from one another indivisibly. Although they may seem to be separated (χωρίζεσθαι) from what they are in, nonetheless, they maintain the same form of understanding, and in essence, they are one and the same. St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, 1.3, (PG 73 53B-C) I do not know what else he could have believed besides these; unless perhaps, a man already educated on the Capitol, had learned the term "homoousion" and the Trinity. He knew that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were divided not by nature but by persons. St. Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians
@@ApostolicOrthodoxy He is a Platonist. He believes the Father is transcendent. He can’t change. He can’t appear in creation or incarnate as a man. He doesn’t believe the Father and Son are co equal. The Son can incarnate as a man and appear in creation. He rejects the analogy of sun and light. The same analogy that trinitarians use for the trinity. He rejects that. He also rejects the trinitarian claim that the Father and Son are inseparable and indivisible. He is using the analogy of two flames. These flames are separable and divisible. You can SEE them separated. He is not claiming that the second flame has the same unchanging essence. He claims that the first flame (the Father) doesn’t undergo change. He is a Platonist. He is concerned that the first principles doesn’t undergo change. He acknowledges that the mediator between the transcendent and creation undergoes change. He believes in two stage logos theology. He doesn’t believe in eternal generation of the Son.
@@ApostolicOrthodoxyNah you are coping. And do not suppose, sirs, that I am speaking superfluously when I repeat these words frequently: *but it is because I know that some wish to anticipate these remarks, and to say that the power sent from the Father of all which appeared to Moses,* or to Abraham, or to Jacob, is called an Angel because He came to men (for by Him the commands of the Father have been proclaimed to men); is called Glory, because He appears in a vision sometimes that cannot be borne; is called a Man, and a human being, because He appears arrayed in such forms as the Father pleases; and they call Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to men: but maintain that this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the heavens; as when it sinks, the light sinks along with it; so the Father, when He chooses, say they, causes His power to spring forth, and when He chooses, He makes it return to Himself. In this way, *they teach,* He made the angels. *But it is proved that there are angels who always exist,* and are never reduced to that form out of which they sprang. And that this power which the prophetic word calls God, as has been also amply demonstrated, and Angel, is not numbered [as different] in name only like the light of the sun but is indeed something numerically distinct, I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same. He is trying to refute modalism, you either have bad reading comprehension or just coping, either way, you will die on this hill.
@@ApostolicOrthodoxy This is reading post-Nicene formulae back into Justin. The essence that remains the same and is not divided is that of the Father, "this power [the Word] was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divide; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided." No Nicene Trinitarian would say that the Son is begotten of the Father's will - this is explicitly rejected by Athanasius (see Fr Florovsky's "Athanasius' Concept of Creation") and the Cappadocians (Kelly, Behr, and Radde-Gallwitz all discuss this aspect of Cappadocian triadology. It is Eunomius that posits that the Son is a product of will, a doctrine decidedly rejected by the Nicene fathers). Further, as per earlier formulas like that of Ptolemy, Hippolytus, Clement, and Origen that claim the Father alone is uniquely simple and transcendent, Justin likewise is affirming that the Father's unique essence remains undivided and simple (see: Radde-Gallwitz, "Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Transformation of Divine Simplicity")
@@ApostolicOrthodoxy This is reading post-Nicene formulae back into Justin. The essence that remains the same and is not divided is that of the Father, "this power [the Word] was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divide (ως απομεριζομενης της του πατρος ουσιας); as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided." No Nicene Trinitarian would say that the Son is begotten of the Father's will - this is explicitly rejected by Athanasius (see Florovsky's "Athanasius' Concept of Creation") and the Cappadocians (Kelly, Behr, and Radde Gallwitz all discuss this aspect of Cappadocian trinitarianism. It is Eunomius that posits that the Son is a product of will, a doctrine decidedly rejected by the Nicene fathers). Further, as per earlier formulas like that of the apologists, Clement, and Origen that claim the Father alone is uniquely simple and transcendent, Justin likewise is affirming that the Father's unique essence remains undivided and simple (see: Radde Gallwitz, "Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Transformation of Divine Simplicity")
May the intercessions of St. Justin Martyr, the Trinitarian teacher, be with us all.
he is probably in hell if he didn’t repent before his assassination
May God bless your soul brother.
Thank you for blessing us with that nice breakdown of how to properly understand what Justin taught about the Trinity. Glory be to God ☦
God bless you
God bless you keep it up ࿇
Thank you Akhi
Thank you for doing this 🙏
Great video, keep it up
Can you make a video refuting Greg Stafford or the channel "NWT Defended"? I'm a former JW
Extremely W agen
God bless you, thank you for the work. Can you explain to me a bit further about the sense in which we say the son is under the father. Or if you could point me to further reading
ⲫ̀ϯ ⲥ̀ⲙⲟⲩ ⲉ̀ⲣⲟⲕ ⲡⲁⲙⲉⲛⲣⲓⲧ ⲛ̀ⲥⲟⲛ
God bless you Agen
Babe go back to sleep it’s just Agen posting ( 🔥)
bro is carrying orthodoxy on his back
Could you drop a link to that picture of the Trinity? It’s gorgeous.
p1.music.126.net/nrEFa7Ey4nUjxz_6_vuvow==/109951168151597438.jpg
See if this works!
Jake brancatella should prolly watch this video
Marcion believed they were different Gods and was wealthy enough to start a church with his preferred writings as cannon. His church lasted a few hundred years. What I find interesting is that this cult originates with Paul’s ideas and writings. He may not have been the first apostle who claims to have had spiritual experiences, just the most convincing and literate enough to writer letters.
First of all he is a Platonist, he didn’t believe in creation Ex-Nihilo
Chapter 59. Plato's obligation to Moses
And that you may learn that it was from our teachers - we mean the account given through the prophets- that Plato borrowed his statement that God, having altered matter which was shapeless, made the world, hear the very words spoken through Moses, who, as above shown, was the first prophet, and of greater antiquity than the Greek writers; and through whom the Spirit of prophecy, signifying how and from what materials God at first formed the world, spoke thus: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and unfurnished, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and it was so. So that both Plato and they who agree with him, and we ourselves, have learned, and you also can be convinced, that by the word of God the whole world was made out of the substance spoken of before by Moses. And that which the poets call Erebus, we know was spoken of formerly by Moses. Deuteronomy 32:22
He also says Plato talks about Christ
Chapter 60. Plato's doctrine of the cross
And the physiological discussion concerning the Son of God in the Timæus of Plato, where he says, He placed him crosswise in the universe, he borrowed in like manner from Moses; for in the writings of Moses it is related how at that time, when the Israelites went out of Egypt and were in the wilderness, they fell in with poisonous beasts, both vipers and asps, and every kind of serpent, which slew the people; and that Moses, by the inspiration and influence of God.
To nail this down he admits and follows the doctrine of Logos-Pneuma, which collapses the Holy Spirit and the Logos.
Chapter 33
Behold, you shall conceive of the Holy Ghost, and shall bear a Son, and He shall be called the Son of the Highest, and you shall call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins, Luke 1:32; Matthew 1:21 - as they who have recorded all that concerns our Saviour Jesus Christ have taught, whom we believed, since by Isaiah also, whom we have now adduced, the Spirit of prophecy declared that He should be born as we intimated before. It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God as anything else than the Word, who is also the first-born of God, as the foresaid prophet Moses declared; and it was this which, when it came upon the virgin and overshadowed her, caused her to conceive, not by intercourse, but by power. And the name Jesus in the Hebrew language means Σωτήρ (Saviour) in the Greek tongue. Wherefore, too, the angel said to the virgin, You shall call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins. And that the prophets are inspired by no other than the Divine Word, even you, as I fancy, will grant.
He says that the Word of God crated Christ in the womb.
Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word.
You can’t read. Justin Martyr says that the Father and Son are separable and divisible. He is refuting those who claim that they are inseparable and indivisible.
He says that others say the Son is merely an inseparable power and continues saying he is begotten not by the essence being severed (as opposed to what we see in the division in various fires) but the essence remains the same. We would actually affirm that otherness is a type of division but the essence has no variation or otherness. Thus we can say the Father is hypostatically divided from the Son but essentially undivided:
Each of these things may be divisible in thought (τῶν εἰρημένων ἕκαστον ἐπινοίᾳ μεριστὸν), but in [the divine] nature (τῇ φύσει) they are one and indivisible (ἀμερίστῳ), proceeding from one another indivisibly. Although they may seem to be separated (χωρίζεσθαι) from what they are in, nonetheless, they maintain the same form of understanding, and in essence, they are one and the same.
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, 1.3, (PG 73 53B-C)
I do not know what else he could have believed besides these; unless perhaps, a man already educated on the Capitol, had learned the term "homoousion" and the Trinity. He knew that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were divided not by nature but by persons.
St. Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians
@@ApostolicOrthodoxy
He is a Platonist. He believes the Father is transcendent. He can’t change. He can’t appear in creation or incarnate as a man. He doesn’t believe the Father and Son are co equal. The Son can incarnate as a man and appear in creation.
He rejects the analogy of sun and light. The same analogy that trinitarians use for the trinity. He rejects that. He also rejects the trinitarian claim that the Father and Son are inseparable and indivisible. He is using the analogy of two flames. These flames are separable and divisible. You can SEE them separated. He is not claiming that the second flame has the same unchanging essence. He claims that the first flame (the Father) doesn’t undergo change. He is a Platonist. He is concerned that the first principles doesn’t undergo change. He acknowledges that the mediator between the transcendent and creation undergoes change. He believes in two stage logos theology. He doesn’t believe in eternal generation of the Son.
@@ApostolicOrthodoxyNah you are coping.
And do not suppose, sirs, that I am speaking superfluously when I repeat these words frequently: *but it is because I know that some wish to anticipate these remarks, and to say that the power sent from the Father of all which appeared to Moses,* or to Abraham, or to Jacob, is called an Angel because He came to men (for by Him the commands of the Father have been proclaimed to men); is called Glory, because He appears in a vision sometimes that cannot be borne; is called a Man, and a human being, because He appears arrayed in such forms as the Father pleases; and they call Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to men: but maintain that this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the heavens; as when it sinks, the light sinks along with it; so the Father, when He chooses, say they, causes His power to spring forth, and when He chooses, He makes it return to Himself. In this way, *they teach,* He made the angels. *But it is proved that there are angels who always exist,* and are never reduced to that form out of which they sprang. And that this power which the prophetic word calls God, as has been also amply demonstrated, and Angel, is not numbered [as different] in name only like the light of the sun but is indeed something numerically distinct, I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same.
He is trying to refute modalism, you either have bad reading comprehension or just coping, either way, you will die on this hill.
@@ApostolicOrthodoxy This is reading post-Nicene formulae back into Justin. The essence that remains the same and is not divided is that of the Father, "this power [the Word] was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divide; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided."
No Nicene Trinitarian would say that the Son is begotten of the Father's will - this is explicitly rejected by Athanasius (see Fr Florovsky's "Athanasius' Concept of Creation") and the Cappadocians (Kelly, Behr, and Radde-Gallwitz all discuss this aspect of Cappadocian triadology. It is Eunomius that posits that the Son is a product of will, a doctrine decidedly rejected by the Nicene fathers).
Further, as per earlier formulas like that of Ptolemy, Hippolytus, Clement, and Origen that claim the Father alone is uniquely simple and transcendent, Justin likewise is affirming that the Father's unique essence remains undivided and simple (see: Radde-Gallwitz, "Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Transformation of Divine Simplicity")
@@ApostolicOrthodoxy This is reading post-Nicene formulae back into Justin. The essence that remains the same and is not divided is that of the Father, "this power [the Word] was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divide (ως απομεριζομενης της του πατρος ουσιας); as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided."
No Nicene Trinitarian would say that the Son is begotten of the Father's will - this is explicitly rejected by Athanasius (see Florovsky's "Athanasius' Concept of Creation") and the Cappadocians (Kelly, Behr, and Radde Gallwitz all discuss this aspect of Cappadocian trinitarianism. It is Eunomius that posits that the Son is a product of will, a doctrine decidedly rejected by the Nicene fathers).
Further, as per earlier formulas like that of the apologists, Clement, and Origen that claim the Father alone is uniquely simple and transcendent, Justin likewise is affirming that the Father's unique essence remains undivided and simple (see: Radde Gallwitz, "Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Transformation of Divine Simplicity")
Hey brother muslims also show a passage from Justin Martyr we're he said that the Torah is corrupted can you also debunk that please.
Willam Albrict who is a Vatican 2 sect member heretic had a debate with a Muslim on this topic.
no catholics aren't catholic..
Why did you cut out the full sentence in Chapter 128 ? 7:57
It seems like the triune god failed to give the Spirit of truth to his worshippers.