Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 04-23-2012, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

...Do you agree with what the credible Justin wrote to the 2nd century emperor?

Please, if you are attempting to claim Justin is NOT credible then you may find that there are NO credible apologetic sources.

The Existing DATED evidence by Paleography and Scientific means have not been able to corroborate many many apologetic writers, the List is long and includes Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement of Rome , Polycarp, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius and more.

If you add Justin to the List of Non-credible sources then I am afraid that so-called Christian writers of antiquity were extremely dishonest.

And further, adding Justin to the list of Non-credible writers does NOTHING whatsoever to the evidence DATED by Paleography and scientific means.

Vitrtually all apologetic sources described Jesus as a Myth and the dated evidence is from the mid 2nd century.

Jesus was Myth, there was NO Paul and NO Apostles whether or NOT Justin is credible.

The Non-credible writers list only gets longer if you add Justin.

We have EVIDENCE DATED by Paleography and scientific means.

Duvduv · 04-23-2012, 08:17 PM

Justin sounds like an echo of the original Nicaea Creed.....hmmm....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I used Lucian's "Death of Peregrine" to show that a non-apologetic source did claim that there were Christians in Palestine.

"Death of Peregrine"

The claim that there were Christians in the 2nd century appears to be corroborated by Lucian.

If Jesus did NOT exist but was just a Myth then Justin Martyr's writings are COMPATIBLE with such a scenario and is supported by the DATED Codices and P 46, the Pauline writings by Paleography and/or scientific means to the mid 2nd -3rd century.

Justin is credible; an honest credible man of your choice is all what we need.

Justin wrote to the emperor in the 2nd century and justin is credible,you asserted this and I agreed to be informed by you. What did the credible Justin say?

Justin goes on to say in the same letter to the emperor:

Chapter XIII.—Christians serve God rationally.
What sober-minded man, then, will not acknowledge that we are not atheists, worshipping as
we do the Maker of this universe, and declaring, as we have been taught, that He has no need of
streams of blood and libations and incense; whom we praise to the utmost of our power by the
exercise of prayer and thanksgiving for all things wherewith we are supplied, as we have been
taught that the only honour that is worthy of Him is not to consume by fire what He has brought
into being for our sustenance, but to use it for ourselves and those who need, and with gratitude to
Him to offer thanks by invocations and hymns1782 for our creation, and for all the means of health,
and for the various qualities of the different kinds of things, and for the changes of the seasons;
and to present before Him petitions for our existing again in incorruption through faith in Him. Our
teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under
Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judæa, in the times of Tiberius Cæsar; and that we reasonably worship
167
Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second
place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist
in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the
Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to
you, we pray you to give heed

Do you agree with what the credible Justin wrote to the 2nd century emperor?

Duvduv · 04-23-2012, 08:33 PM

WHAT Christians in Palestine? WHERE in Palestine?
They worshiped which "man"?
This story says absolutely nothing about such alleged Christians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

One step at the time.

Justin writes to the Emperor and in his letter he says : we demand that the charges against the Christians be investigated.

He thinks that an investigation by honest men will prove the charges to be false.

Christians existed and were being persecuted and known to the Emperor early in the second century. ---We know this because Justin is credible.

Do yo agree with what the credible justin has said so far?

I used Lucian's "Death of Peregrine" to show that a non-apologetic source did claim that there were Christians in Palestine.

"Death of Peregrine"

Quote:

It was now that he came across the priests and scribes of the Christians, in Palestine, and picked up their queer creed. I can tell you, he pretty soon convinced them of his superiority; prophet, elder, ruler of the Synagogue--he was everything at once; expounded their books, commented on them, wrote books himself. They took him for a God, accepted his laws, and declared him their president. The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day,--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account...

The claim that there were Christians in the 2nd century appears to be corroborated by Lucian.

If Jesus did NOT exist but was just a Myth then Justin Martyr's writings are COMPATIBLE with such a scenario and is supported by the DATED Codices and P 46, the Pauline writings by Paleography and/or scientific means to the mid 2nd -3rd century.

mountainman · 04-23-2012, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Both supposed Christians writers Justin Martyr and Irenaeus cannot be simultaneously fundamentally credible because their history is too vastly different.

It is more likely that one is fundamentally historically accurate and the other is NOT.

Irenaeus is NOT credible or is extremely questionable.

Justin Martyr has been VINDICATED.

Justin Martyr is CREDIBLE based on the EXISTING dated evidence.

It is just as likely that BOTH sources are not credible.

JUSTIN MARTYR

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Wheless

(c. 100-165): Saint, Martyr, a foremost Christian Apologist. A Gentile ex-Pagan of Samaria, turned Christian, and supposed to have suffered martyrdom in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, in whose name he forged a very preposterous rescript.

Quote:

There is a non-apologetic writer called Lucian who appears to corroborate that there were people called Christians in Palestine in the 2nd century who worshiped a crucified man in a book called 'Death of Peregrine'.

You do state above "appears to corroborate". This apparent reliance upon Lucian is questionable. Each of the large number of books forged in the name of Lucian in the 4th century represents negative evidence against the claim that any one given book by the author called Lucian is genuine. If you are going to rely upon Lucian as a source, you need to state both sides of the argument - for and against authenticity.

For example, we know that it is likely that the reference to "Christians" in the book "Meditations", authored by the ROman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, were later Christian interpolations. We may be seeing the same modus operandi in this book by Lucian. The Christians controlled the preservation of hand-written literature, at least in the major cities of the Roman Empire, from the year 324/325 CE, and they do not have a good track record in the integrity stakes.

aa5874 · 04-23-2012, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Justin sounds like an echo of the original Nicaea Creed.....hmmm....

No, No, No!!! Justin CONTRADICTED the Nicene Creed. Justin claimed Jesus was SECOND to God.

First Apology

Quote:

.....He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove....

First Apology

Quote:

For he gives the second place to the Logos which is with God...

Justin accepts the Platonic view that the Logos is Second to God.
Please read the very same passage.

The Nicene creed does NOT state that Jesus was SECOND to God.

Sheshbazzar · 04-23-2012, 08:58 PM

Just wondering. If Justin is fundamentally credible to you, where do you think Justin got his information from? credible sources? or uncredible sources?

aa5874 · 04-23-2012, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Both supposed Christians writers Justin Martyr and Irenaeus cannot be simultaneously fundamentally credible because their history is too vastly different.

It is more likely that one is fundamentally historically accurate and the other is NOT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

It is just as likely that BOTH sources are not credible....

I do NOT hold such a view but it is of NO consequence since virtually all apologetic sources described Jesus as a Myth and there is NO written evidence DATED by Paleography or scientific means that show Paul or the Apostles did exist or that Acts of the Apostles, the four gospels and the Pauline writings did exist before the mid 2nd-3rd century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...Also your reliance upon Lucian is questionable. Each of the large number of books forged in the name of Lucian in the 4th century represents negative evidence against the claim that any one given book by the author called Lucian is genuine. If you are going to rely upon Lucian as a source, you need to state both sides of the argument - for and against authenticity.

The authenticity or non-authenticity of Lucian does not really affect what is found in writings attributed to Justin Martyr or Irenaeus.

There are certain claims in the writings of Justin Martyr that appear to CONTRADICT virtually all apologetic sources yet the DATED written sources SUPPORT ONLY Justin Martyr.

This is quite remarkable.

Justin Martyr only acknowledged that it was the 12 disciples that preached the Gospel to ALL RACE of Men in the world while virtually all other Apologetic sources that mentioned Paul claimed he preached the Gospel to the Gentiles.

All the DATED written Texts by Paleography and Scientific means cannot account for Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters in the 1st century before 70 CE.

But, again the DATED written text tend to show that there was a Jesus story sometime in the mid 2nd-3rd century based on Paleography regardless of the status of the writings of Lucian.

Jesus was still a Myth, with NO Apostles and NO Paul.

I expected NO text of Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline letters and the FOUR gospels to have been dated to the 1st century and before c 70 CE and that is PRECISELY the case.

I can NOW say that there was NO Jesus, NO Apostles and NO Paul in the 1st century before c 70 CE.

Duvduv · 04-24-2012, 01:04 AM

Maybe he simply means the phrase "Father, SON, and Holy Spirit "......

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Justin sounds like an echo of the original Nicaea Creed.....hmmm....

No, No, No!!! Justin CONTRADICTED the Nicene Creed. Justin claimed Jesus was SECOND to God.

First Apology

First Apology

Quote:

For he gives the second place to the Logos which is with God...

Justin accepts the Platonic view that the Logos is Second to God.
Please read the very same passage.

The Nicene creed does NOT state that Jesus was SECOND to God.

MrMacSon · 04-24-2012, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Maybe he simply means the phrase "Father, SON, and Holy Spirit "......

The trinity was first mentioned by Tertullian around the early 3rd Century ...

Quote:

Trinity

Tertullian was the first Christian writer to face a serious attack concerning the nature of God. In response, he outlined a formula summarising the Biblical teaching on this, and was the first to use the word trinitas in a technical way to describe the relation of God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. The work is question is Adv. Praxean, but he also uses the term in De Pudicitia 2, and 21, and 25. He also was the first to use the word persona for the persons of the Trinity. However Tertullian's pioneering work in this area does not always avoid tending to make the Son subordinate to the Father, no doubt because the issue was not in his mind at the time.

In Adv. Hermogenes 4 he makes a statement that there was a time when the Son did not exist, but the context again suggests that the statement is an inadvertence drawn forth by his argument about the appropriate titulature of the persons of the Trinity, rather than a doctrinal statement.

http://www.tertullian.org/theology.htm

see also http://www.religionfacts.com/christi...fs/trinity.htm

add - there seem to be earlier references to a trininitarian concepts - http://carm.org/early-trinitarian-quotes

now, unsure ..??
.

mountainman · 04-24-2012, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I can NOW say that there was NO Jesus, NO Apostles and NO Paul in the 1st century before c 70 CE.

Heavens above! No Christians before 70 CE? Are you sure?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-23-2012, 08:58 PM	#16
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Just wondering. If Justin is fundamentally credible to you, where do you think Justin got his information from? credible sources? or uncredible sources?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.