Duvduv

However there is no evidence of Justin being in the second century. The texts themselves do not even identify any communities, leaders, locations or predecessors of Justin. Isn't that strange??!

Sheshbazzar

Yes it is strange.

Just like most all other early Christian writings, its parts appear to have been assembled and then latter expanded upon by unknown others.

Even if Justin's writings first actually entered human history at the time generally accepted, they do not actually relate any earlier church history, only its already mythologized legends drawn from writings similar to what we now have.

And as you note, other than mentioning The Memoirs, and that the church meets and reads from these on Sundays, he tells us virtually nothing concerning his contemporary church(s), and mentions no locations, nor any of its prominent leaders.

Not even so much as the name of that 'old man' whose conversation allegedly had converted him.

Then there is the following 'adopting the dress of a philosopher'. One might well wonder whether this was a common mode of one 'adopting' the Christian religion?

A stranger just pops in from outside of the existing Christian community, buys himself a philosophers coat, and wallah! He is transformed into Church's foremost spokesperson.
_one that never mentions, never acknowledges, never gives any credit to any contemporary Christian. No mentions of his local church's founders, nor of any other member of that congregation past or present. No brethren, no fellow workers, no companions in his ministry. Nothing.

Yet if the initial writings 'Justin' had been composed late in Chrristian history, it inconcievable that they would not have incorporated Pauline theology that was by then well familiar to the entire Christian world.

So yes Duvduv, there are things that are bad rotten in Denmark.
And I do not 'buy' that Saint Justin's writings are authentic in all of their parts. Nor St Clement's, Nor Saint Ignatius's, nor Saint Irenaeus's....

I believe we have been fed a line of fabricated Christian horse shit from the beginning, and we are still trying and failing to digest it. Best to just puke it all out and be done with it.

Toto

Why do you say this? From earlychristianwritings.com

aa5874

So, if what you say is true how does that help to establish your argument that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 4th or 5th century??

What sources will you employ??

What is the evidence that Eusebius was from the 4th century and that he is the one who actually mentioned the Nicene Creed??

In "First Apology" the writing attributed to Justin is addressed to Antoninus a 2nd century Emperor--- not one from the 4th or 5th century.

Duvduv

At the risk of repeating myself again, both of you ignore the salient contextual fact that this writer who claims to appeal on behalf of Christians nowhere says anything at all about his alleged community, ANY locations of such locations, any leaders, colleagues or peers, and nothing about any predecessors. Nothing about the OldMan, and nothing about how either he or the Old Man found out about Christianity or the Christ.

And all this is simply because the writings were obviously intended as emerging doctrinal and didactic church teachings. If Pauline ideas and Paul were missing, Shesh, it's because Paul had not yet emerged early in tge fourth century.

I cannot empirically prove Eusebius existed, but he represented a new empire religion that had the motive, means and opportunity to produce a religion claimed to have ancient roots.

aa5874

Such a thing is not found in the writings of Justin. Why can't you even repeat what Justin wrote??

Justin did NOT just buy a coat and then was transformed into the "Church's foremost spokeperson.

If you actually read "Church History" attributed Eusebius you would see that NOTHING all from Justin Martyr's writings about the 2nd century Jesus cult was used--Nothing.

Eusebius did NOT even mention the Memoirs of the Apostles as stated by Justin. Eusebius made refence to Justin to acknowledge Marcion, Simon Magus and other Heretics

It was Irenaeus who became the 2nd century foremost Church spokeperson based on Eusebius.

Eusebius used "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus for the History of the Jesus cult from the supposed 1st century up to c 180 CE--Justin was DUMPED.

The writings of Justin show that the Jesus cult was in its INFANCY stage around the mid 2nd century which is wholly unlike the writings of Irenaeus.

The Emperor, the Senate and the people of Rome were hardly familiar with the Jesus cult, their teachings and mode of life and this is reflected by Justin's writings and his own conversion--hardly anyone knew about the Jesus cult in the time of Justin.

We have writings attributed to Justin and we have writings attributed to Irenaeus supposedly from the 2nd century.

Justin appears to have No knowledge of any post ascension history of the Jesus cult up to the mid 2nd century except for the Memoirs of the Apostles--the stories of Jesus.

Justin Martyr DEPICTS a Big Black hole of 120 years for the Jesus cult AFTER the supposed Ascension.

On the other hand Irenaeus knows a complete history of the post-Ascension Jesus cult in minute details. He knows of Acts of the Apostles, all the Pauline letters to the Churches, the Pastorals, Timothy and Titus, the authors of the Four Gospels, the Bishops of Rome from 66 CE to 180 CE.

Irenaeus met people who knew the Apostles like Polycarp.

Justin just managed by chance to meet an old man after consulting with Platonists, Stoics, Peripatetics, Theoretics, and Pythagoreans.

Justin never read Acts of the Apostles or the Pauline writings or heard of authors named Mark, Luke and Matthew.

At least One of these writers are historically bogus.

Scholars have REJECTED virtually everything Irenaeus wrote about the authorship, chronology and date of authorship of the Gospels, Acts and the Pauline letters.

Effectively, we can say without reasonable doubt that "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus is historically bogus.

The claims about the 2nd century Jesus cult made by Justin Martyr have NOT been ever found to be in error--ONLY those of Irenaeus.

I Reject the claims in "Against Heresies" and accept those writings of Justin Martyr.

The Jesus story and cult was in its INFANCY stage around the mid 2nd century. The Jesus cult was hardly known in the Roman Empire and there were NO established writings except for stories about Jesus.

But what is most remarkable is that 1700 years later ALL the NT manuscripts that have been dated are COMPATIBLE ONLY with the writings of Justin Martyr.

Justin's BIG BLACK HOLE of 120 years for the Jesus story and is COMPLETELY intact

The writings of Justin Martyr DEPICT the history of the Jesus cult--there WERE NO Jesus story and cult in the 1st century.

Justin Martyr REPRESENTS the earliest Christians of the Jesus cult.

jdboy

I think the Roman Emperors were aware of Christianity:

"St. Domitilla (Flavia Domitilla) was a Christian Roman matron of the imperial family who lived at the end of the first century. She was grand-daughter of Emperor Vespasian, niece of Emperors Titus and Domitian. She was married to Titus Flavius Clemens, a Roman consul, nephew of Emperor Vespasian, and the first cousin of Emperors Titus and Domitian. She and her husband were converted to Christianity. On the land, which belonged to Flavia Domitilla, is the catacomb of Domitilla, "Coemeterium Domitillae", one of early Christian cemeteries. As a result of accusations her husband was martyred in 96 AD, and Flavia Domitilla was banished to the Island of Pandataria in the Tyrrhenian Sea, where she was possibly put to death."

aa5874

Where did you get such a story??

jdboy

http://www.abcgallery.com/saints/domitilla.html http://www.romanhostels.com/guide/catacombs-domitilla/

aa5874

I am afraid that it says nothing about the JESUS CULT of Christians.

You ought to know by now that being a Christian in antiquity does NOT mean you belong to the Jesus Cult.

The word Christian is derived from the Greek word for 'Anointing'.

Theophilus of Antioch called himself a Christian but did NOT state that he worshiped Jesus Christ.

Theophilus worshiped ONLY GOD and claimed he was a Christian because he was Anointed.

Theophilus "To Autolycus" 12 Without the Jesus story we would still have Christians in antiquity.