aa5874

Again, your imagination has run wild. Justin Martyr's doctrine that Jesus was Second to God was based on Earlier PLATONISM.

First Apology LX
Justin's writings are NOT compatible with the 4th century Nicene Creed but with earlier Platonism.

spin

An analogy is not false just because it shows that you are fucking up. You simply can't argue lack of evidence is evidence of lack. An argument from silence requires you to show the silence is contrary to expectation for you to have hope. And lack of information seems only to be expected.

Duvduv

Of course it's contrary to expectations. The author called Justin brags about his religion and the Christians, talks about the Old Man and memoirs of unnamed apostles, and appeals for understanding.But he talks as if he's the only person around. The silence is deafening.

Duvduv

So what does "second place" signify? Isn't the Son in Second Place in the Trinity between the Father and the Holy Spirit?
In any case, as things developed the Creeds became more conneced to the Word the Logos of GJohn after Justin.

Duvduv

So here we see what is closer to the Creed of Constantinople than to the Creed of Nicea.

Chapter 61. Christian baptism
I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.

aa5874

Again, you provide more imagination. Justin did NOT claim Jesus created the heaven and earth as is seen in the Nicene Creed.

Justin Martyr Consistently claimed God CREATED the heaven and earth like Plato.

First Apology Again, it is seen that Justin's theology on Creation is based on Platonism and not the 4th century Church and Creed.

Justin did NOT claim that Jesus was the Creator of heaven and earth as stated in the Nicene Creed.

Justin Martyr's writings can be considered Credible because they are Compatible with the Texts Dated by Paleography and C 14 which shows that the Jesus cult most likely started in the 2nd century.

Based on Justin, the Roman Emperor Antoninus, the Senate and the People of Rome knew very little or nothing about the Jesus cult of Christians up to the mid 2nd century.

aa5874

I find it extremely troubling that so-called Scholars and Experts, whether HJ or MJ, have maintained that there are authentic Pauline letters using FAITH as the basis.

It is IMPERATIVE that so-called Scholars and Experts rely of Facts and NOT Faith yet they have violated their own profession.

Let us examine the Facts about Paul and the Pauline writings.

1. Not one Pauline writings contain any date of writing.

2. The author of Acts of the Apostles did NOT claim Saul/Paul wrote any letters to Churches.

3. Apologetic sources, "Church History" and "Commentary on Matthew" claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke.

4. An Apolgetic Source, the Muratorian Canon, claimed Paul wrote his letters AFTER Revelation was already composed.

5. There is NOT a single passage in the earliest Gospels, gMark and gMatthew, that was copied from any Pauline letters.

6. The earliest gMark Contradicts the Pauline letters.

7. Apologetic Sources from the mid 2nd-3rd century, Justin Martyr, Aristides and Arnobius, show ZERO awareness of the Pauline teachings of Universal Salvation by the Resurrection.

8. Letters attempting to place Paul in the 1st century have beem deduced to be Forgeries.

9. The Pauline writer claimed to have been a Persecutor of the Christian Faith.

10. The Pauline writer claimed he RECEIVED information from a resurrected being that is found ONLY in gLuke.

11. The Pauline letters themselves have been deemed to have MULTIPLE authors.

12. It is in the 2nd century that we have Non-apologetic arguments Against the Jesus story.

13. Apologetic sources that claimed Pauline letters were early are themselves forgeries or highly questionable.

14. The Dated Pauline letters, P 46, were composed sometime between the mid 2nd-3rd century.

There is just NO credible evidence at all to show that the supposed Paul wrote letters to churches and that he wrote them before c 70 CE.

Nothing--Zero--NIL--NONE.

Scholars, Experts, whether HJ or MJ, MUST answer to Mankind for their continued PROPAGANDA about early Pauline letters.

It is NOT acceptable anymore for so called NT Scholarship to MIS-REPRESENT the FACTS about the Pauline letters.

The evidence from antiquity does NOT support an early Paul before c 70 CE.

There is NO evidence of a Jesus cult of Christians in the 1st century.

The Persecution of the Jesus cult of Christians could NOT have happened when there were NO Jesus cult of Christians.

So-called Scholars and Experts CANNOT continue to BOMBARD us with KNOWN FLAWED opnion about the Pauline writings.

Experts and Scholars should ACT according to their profession and TELL the WORLD that the Pauline letters have NO credible evidence at all that they were were written before c 70 CE.

If the Scholars and Experts do NOT want to to do it then I WILL.

The PRESENT Available Evidence from antiquity DENIES authenticity to ALL the PAULINE LETTERS.

The Canonised Pauline letters with Acts of the Apostles are PART of a FRAUD to deceive people into thinking that there was a Jesus cult of Christians before c 70 CE when there was NONE.

NO Pauline letter was written before c 70 CE.