aa5874

How do you know that someone wrote about an ACTUAL Nicene Creed and that there was a Council of Nicaea at any time???

Did it come to you in a dream??? Because Church writers said so???

Surely, you MUST understand that the DATED evidence SUPPORTS Justin Martyr so it can be considered that Justin is Credible.

Writers that are NOT supported by the DATED evidence can be considered to be FICTION writers like Eusebius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Ignatius, Papias, Polycarp and those who mentioned the Council of Nicaea and also claimed that a character called Paul wrote Epistles before c 70 CE, and that the Jesus stories were written Before c 70 CE.

Did you notice that I have ALREADY found that writings under the name of Irenaeus are NOT supported by the DATED Texts and are MASSIVE forgeries???

Did you notice that Justin Mentioned Marcion in "First Apology" and made Brief statements about the Teachings of Marcion???

The DATED evidence show that the Pauline letters were likely to have been written AFTER Justin's "First Apology". You MUST get familiar with the DATED NT Manuscripts.

The Pauline writings, P 46, based on Paleography was mostly written around the start of the 3rd century.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri
Again, I NO longer accept IMAGINARY evidence. It is IMPOSSIBLE to re-construct the past from your Imagination. I am FED UP with imagination evidence.

The DATED Texts of antiquity FUNDAMENTALLY CORROBORATE Justin Martyr so I will accept Justin as credible.

Based on Justin Martyr's writings the Jesus cult was in its infancy stage and the Roman Emperor, the Senate and the People of the Roman Empire knew very very little about the Jesus cult up to c 150 CE.

Justin wrote NOTHING of the FOUR named Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters which is COMPATIBLE with the DATED Four named Gospels, the Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

Duvduv

Until you have a notarized affidavit you have no "evidence". All you have is an argument of speculation based on observation, inference and analysis of content and context, which is exactly what I have. I also do not have a notarized affidavit. However, I believe the argument that the the Apology was from the second century is weak.

aa5874

Until you have a notarized affidavit then all you have is your imagination.

There are TEXTS dated by Paleography and Scientific means and they do NOT support your claim that the Jesus stories were composed in the 4th century.

You want people to accept your imagination while you simultaneously REJECT the DATED Texts. Your imagination is worthless.

DATED DATA of antiquity is needed to re-construct the past-- NOT imagination.

It is EXTREMELY essential that TEXTS are DATED by Paleography and Scientific means so that we can STOP Guessing and STOP speculating.

At this point, I will NOT entertain any more imagination evidence.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

100% of the DATED Texts fundamentally Corroborate Justin Martyr.

Justin Martyr is fundamentally a credible writer NOT Eusebius.

Duvduv

AA, I think we have exhausted this subject. I already described to you the definition of an exact science and reproduction in a laboratory.

aa5874

No way!!! I am NOT exhausted. I got the DATED Texts and they fundamentally Corroborate Justin Martyr. You have NOTHING.

I expected you to get exhausted.

The writings of Justin Martyr show that the Jesus cult was NOT well-known up to the mid 2nd century and that the Four named Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters were unknown to him.

And further, Justin even claimed that it was the MEMOIRS of the Apostles that were READ in the Churches--NOT, NOT the Pauline letters.

"First Apology" Up to the mid 2nd century the People of the Roman Empire were being told by Justin what happens in a typical church of the Jesus cult.

If "First Apology" was manipulated then I would expect that "First Apology" would be addressed to Claudius or Nero 100 years earlier, that is, 41-68 CE--NOT to Antoninus c 150 CE.

Duvduv

WHAT cities? Where? Led by whom?
What's the big deal if the author put an earlier name on the Apology if he wanted to show that the religion goes back a couple of hundred years and was not emerging in the 4th century?
Besides, and I have to repeat this, what evidence do you have that this emperor ever received this document, read it or replied to it?Was it sent return receipt requested with a green card from the Rome post office? I can publish a letter written by John Smith to Richard Nixon that was never sent and for which there is no proof other than the fact that someone wrote it up.

GakuseiDon

I think you'll find that is common to nearly every letter that is dated to the first few centuries. Either:
(1) This is simply how they wrote back then, or
(2) Later forgerers wrote in this style, probably because this is how the forgerers expected people back then to write, or this is how they wrote in the forgerers' time.

If Justin's letters were medieval forgeries, why did the person writing them mention Marcion's letters or Paul in your view? Wouldn't that have added to their authenticity?

Duvduv

I never said it was a medieval forgery similar that what could easily have been the case with the Pliny letter "discovered" by Giacondo. But if it was written by someone in the 4th century before the church became a church and the texts were developed, he could have done it to show that his religion had an old belief in the Christ over 200 years old and wasn't just a new invention.

I suppose it's also theoretically possible that the Apology was a montage of some old philosophical writings that appealed to the "Christian" writer who added to it. But I tend to think it was all written at once with the usual marginal interpolations such as that idiotic statement telling the emperor to look in the dusty archives for the census of Bethlehem when he couldn't even name the Old Man or how either he or Justin found out about the Christ and the biblical prophecies.

And of course this writer couldn't tell the emperor the names of ANY of his colleagues (including his dear Old Man) or a single named community where his people lived. And despite his accusations of Marcion in the 2nd century he couldn't name a single thing that Marcion ever wrote or a single text that Marcion had even once, including the Pauline epistles that Marcion supposedly had. It makes no sense.

Virtually the entire 2nd century legend stands or falls on Justin.

GakuseiDon

Right. So the question is: Why DIDN'T this later hypothetical author include the names of the Old Man, the names of ANY of his colleagues, including the Old Man, anything about Paul, and anything about the writings of Marcion? Why leave all these things out?

But it makes more sense that a later forger, knowing all these things, left them out? That's what I don't understand.

Duvduv

I would say the stuff about Marcion and Paul y were left out because they didn't exist yet, and the information about the Old Man and the community etc. were left out because the author wasn't imaginative enough to consider it of any significance in putting together his story Apology.