aa5874

Then Duvduv, tell us why did NOT Justin write about the FOUR Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters but wrote about an OLD Man in the 4th century???

Virtually all apologetic sources of the 4th century mentioned the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings but NO OLD Man.

Duvduv

AA, I asked you FIRST. What is there to rely upon in the Justin Apology for any kind of Christian anything in the second century, as opposed to a later century since you argue that Justin's writing cannot be compatible with a later time period?

We do not know ANYTHING about what the Old Man knew or what he really told Justin according to the legend. So how is it cpmpatible with a second century when nothing of Justin's "Christian" world is known?

aa5874

I was hoping that you could figure out the answer on your own.

Justin wrote BEFORE the Four Gospels were named, before Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters were composed.

Justin Martyr wrote when the Jesus movement was in its infancy.

He had Myth Fables called the Memoirs of the Apostles, Revelation and FALSE prophecies in Hebrew Scripture.

It is that simple.

In the 4th century, Justin would NOT need an OLD Man to tell him anything--the Roman Church would have told him everything he wanted to know about Jesus, the Apostles and Paul.

Duvduv

And then a mere thirty years later in the same city of Rome in the second century one unknown Irenaeus knew all the texts. And Justin lived in the same town as Marcion and couldn't name a single text or teaching of the wicked heretic.
If you think that these fellows lived in the mid 2nd century I have a great bridge to sell you.
There's more to the inventions of the Constantine regime than meets the eye.
Take a chi rho Christ idea, throw in some stories and letters, fix them up, and pretty soon you have a new religion. Add in tales of heretics, employ some state sponsored "historians " and you have the beginnings of real state orthodoxy.

In the USSR they took some of Marx and Engels, threw in Lenin and Stalin, added some liberalism and old nationalism, made a heretic bogeyman out of Trotsky and off they went.

aa5874

I have ALREADY EXPOSED that "Against Heresies" is a Massive forgery written by Multiple authors.

The author who claimed Jesus was crucified when he was about 50 years old in "AH 2.22 is NOT the same author who knew the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

It is a piece of cake.

Any writing that mentions any of the Four named Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are Manipulated.

"Against Heresies" is the Flagship of forgeries.

Duvduv

If that be the case, then we are only talking about heresiology forgery with the ability and motivation well into the Constantinian period mentioning texts that were themselves Constantinian products based on assorted earlier and contradictory tales in written and oral form from different locales.
And products that were the most conducive to the official agenda and most appealing and offering a degree of antiquity. As things were in process the propagandists changed with it.
Thus you have the legend producing Justin and Irenaeus so close to each other yet with so many differences.

Duvduv

Ironically, the legend of the Nicene Creed of 325 could be true simply because it lacks all the Judaic elements of the gospels and the christology of the Creed dated to 381. Had a Eusebius writer wanted to make the 325 Creed properly orthodox he would have invented it better.
So alot of creative work was going on by the end of that century and into the next.

aa5874

Your post does NOT make much sense. You put forward the absurd and illogical proposal that Justin and Irenaeus were produced through forgery close to each other but with many many differences and contradictions.

It is obvious that such a proposal is completely unrealistic.

It is clear that even you think that they are forgeries that one was produced when very little or nothing was known about the four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters.

Justin claimed it was the TWELVE disciples that preached the Gospel to EVERY race of men and in Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings it was Paul who preached the Gospels to the Gentiles and was Commisioned to do so by the very disciples.

Justin and Irenaeus were NOT written close to each other as the EXISTING DATED evidence.

Justin was BEFORE the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

aa5874

Please, don't make me laugh. You think Justin and Irenaeus were forgeries but accept Eusebius as credible.

Please, show that Eusbius did exist and did write anything at all in the 4th century.

Eusebius is the very LAST writer anyone should trust.

Duvduv

I did not say that. I simply mean that the statement that appears in the book attributed to Eusebius about the so-called Nicene Creed would seem credible simply because it displays none of the teachings derived from the gospels or epistles that one would expect otherwise if a writer had wanted to show that the early 4th century had already integrated the "well-known" teachings of those texts.