aa5874

I find the writings of Justin Martyr to be some of the most significant writings from a Church writer.

Justin Martyr has EXPOSED that virtually the ENTIRE NT and Church writings do NOT reflect the history or chronology of Jesus believers.

1. Justin Martyr's writings have EXPOSED that there was NO Canon up to the middle of the 2nd century.

This is Justin on the "Memoirs of the Apostles" in "First Apology' LXVII.

So Justin is in effect giving a "live report" of a typical Sunday at church in the middle of the 2nd century.

There were NO Pauline letters and no named Gospels in Justin's church.

2. Justin Martyr's writings EXPOSED that there was NO such thing as ORTHODOXY or proto-orthodoxy up to the middle of the 2nd century.

Justin Martyr in his SEARCH for the truth did NOT Mention any writer called Paul, James, Jude or John wrote any Epistles to any church. He wrote NOTHING about any Pauline doctrine, Pauline churches or Pauline revelations.

Justin Martyr was familiar with the teachings of the Platonists, Stoics, Peripatetics, Theoretics, and Pythagoreans, but NOTHING Pauline, NOTHING from Matthew, NOTHING from Mark, NOTHING from Luke, NOTHING from John, NOTHING from Ignatius, NOTHING from Polycarp, NOTHING from Peter the supposed 1st bishop of Rome, NOTHING from JAMES and NOTHING from Papias.

And even more noticeable is that Justin Martyr DEFENDED his belief in Jesus WITHOUT making a single reference to any EARLIER writers like Papias, Ignatius, Polycarp, Paul or the bishop of any church.

Justin DEFENDED his belief UNASSISTED.

Justin had NO HELP from any supposed early Church writers for at least 100 years before him.

Justin KNEW the doctrine of Simon Magus, Menander, the Marcians, the Valentinians, the Basilidians, the Saturnilians, Marcion and others from since the time of Claudius to the middle of the 2nd century.

But, Justin was NOT aware of the doctrine any Church writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Jude, the Pauline writers and Peter supposedly the 1st bishop of Rome.

Justin Martyr developed his own DOCTRINE using Hebrew Scripture, the Memoirs of the Apostles, and Revelation.

Justin Martyr has destroyed Church History by Eusebius.

avi

Thank you aa5874, I appreciate your input. I find it very stimulating to read, and also provocative, exactly the right kind of thread for this forum.

I do not wish to dispute any of your facts. I cannot in fact, for I am wholly ignorant.

However, I would like to sound a note of caution, with regard to the logic which you have employed. I don't mean to criticize, simply to issue an alternative idea.

That Justin Martyr's writings (if they have not been redacted over the millenia??) are accurate, that's terrific. However, the fact that no mention has been made of Mark, Paul, et al, in any of his works, still extant today, should not, in my opinion, compel belief that THEREFORE, Justin Martyr was unaware of the existence of any of those supposed writers, or their output.

You, for example, have written convincingly, in my opinion, about many topics of interest on this forum. But, have you ever written about the Aztecs? Should we then conclude, that you are unaware of any relationship between the pyramids constructed in Egypt, and those of Central America?

In other words, the fact that someone does NOT discuss another author, should not, a priori, in my view, lead to a conclusion that THEREFORE, the author in question does not know anything about the second author, BECAUSE the second author has not yet published his work....

Perhaps most forum members disagree with me on this point, that's fine. Everyone can believe what they wish. Personally, I have no problem with your conclusion, i.e. that the authors in question wrote their material AFTER Justin Martyr wrote his. I simply do not rely upon the absence of data in Justin Martyr's surviving texts, to arrive at that conclusion.

I am grateful to you for providing this explanation, and you may indeed be correct, and I may be in error, here. I am only expressing my opinion, not a fact. I don't accept the argument that failure to mention something implies the non-existence of that entity.

Thanks again, for an interesting topic.

avi

vid

He does name Peter as an author of memoir, with a quote that is present in what we call Gospel of Mark. Similar tradition to the one recorded by Papias and cited by Eusebius.

Actually, he quotes those "memoirs of apostles" so close to Gospels of Matthew and Mark we can be fairly certain he used them. He's first author recorded to do so. With Luke it is more problematic, IIRC there are 2 similar phrases, but we can't be sure.

Anyway, I think most of your argument is invalid argument from silence. Just the fact one author doesn't mention some things doesn't mean they didn't exist.

show_no_mercy

Just FYI, there are quite a few quotes in Justin that show he was aware of uniquely Lukan gospel material

1. Elisabeth is mother of John the Baptist (Dialog with Trypho 84) / Luke 1:57
2. Gabriel’s announcement to Mary; "Be it according to thy word" (DT100) / Luke 1:38
3. Census under Quirinius (DT78) / Luke 2:2
4. Circumcised 8th day (DT23,67) / Luke 2:21
5. Sweats drops of blood (DT103) / Luke 22:44
6. Appears to disciples in Jerusalem (DT 51) / Luke 24:36 [the other gospels have him appear in Galilee, the more Gentile of the two]
7. Ascended to heaven (Firs Apology 51, 46) / Luke 24:51

Justin also seems to be aware of the Protevangelium of James:

But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Him.

The bolded part -- Joseph and Mary taking residence in a cave to give birth -- is only to be found in the gospel of James:

17. [...] And they came into the middle of the road, and Mary said to him: Take me down from off the ass, for that which is in me presses to come forth. And he took her down from off the ass, and said to her: Whither shall I lead thee, and cover thy disgrace? for the place is desert.

18. And he found a cave there, and led her into it; and leaving his two sons beside her, he went out to seek a midwife in the district of Bethlehem.

aa5874

But, once you admit that you are wholly ignorant of the facts then I am at a loss of how to answer you.

But, didn't you just say that you are wholly ignorant of the facts? I don't understand how to deal with a "note of caution" from the "wholly ignorant".

In any event, I will attempt to resolve your queries.

Now, I don't know if you are wholly ignorant of this, but it is extremely difficult to actually determine the accuracy of any writing of antiquity.

I cannot say that the writings of Justin Martyr, Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny or any works of any writer are accurate, But, one can analyze writings of antiquity just as they are found today.

Perhaps, you may know that by analysis the "TF", Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3, was determined to be a forgery, not written by Josephus, even though the works of Josephus may have been redacted.


One cannot conclude that I am not aware of the Aztecs because I am having a discussion about Justin Martyr.

Now, just as in the writings of Josephus it can be determined that Josephus was NOT aware of any character called Jesus the Christ who was RAISED from the dead, it can also be determined that Justin Martyr was NOT aware of Jesus story writers called Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and letter writers called Paul, James, Jude and John.

But, such a determination cannot be done when one is ignorant of the facts.

The writings of Justin Marty MUST first be read and compared to the writings of other writers like Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen and Eusebius.

It is IMPERATIVE.

If it is assumed that Church writings of antiquity were interpolated and redacted by Christians or Christian apologists then it would be expected that the redactors or interpolators would attempt to fundamentally corroborate their fabricated history of the Church in every writing that were manipulated.

The writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen after passing through the manipulating hands of the Church agree almost completely with "Church History" by Eusebius.

So, today when one examines the writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen it would appear that the writers were FULLY AWARE of authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and the same writers were FULLY AWARE of letter writers called Paul.

The Christian redactors and interpolators did what was expected in the works of Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen. They made their writings compatible to and corroboration for "Church History" by Eusebius.

But, when the writings of Justin Martyr are examined it becomes BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that the Christian redactors and interpolators did NOT manipulate his writings since there is nothing about Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline writings, and the General Epistles.

Now, examine "Church History" by Eusebius it will be noted that Justin Martyr's writings were NOT used AT ALL to corroborate any post-ascension activities of the Apostles, the writings of Paul, Acts of the Apostles and the names of the authors of the Gospels.

In essence, Justin Martyr was NOT a source for the post-ascension FICTION found in "Church History" by Eusebius.

Justin Martyr's writings do not say that the apostle Peter was the 1st bishop of Rome.

But, the writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius do.

Now, Peter did NOT exist at all.


But, did you not say that you are wholly ignorant of the facts.? Once you were not ignorant of the facts perhaps you may have come to some other conclusion

Well once you admit that I may be correct then it means that my theory may be reasonable.

Now, you must know that it is reasonable to consider an unknown entity as non-existing once there is no evidence for its existence.

By the way, are you claiming that no-one should conclude that ZEUS does not exist because there is no evidence for ZEUS?

I hope not.

Once it is concluded that an unknown entity does not exist because of lack of evidence then such a conclusion is ALWAYS VALID UNTIL EVIDENCE is found.

The possibility that the unknown exist is IRRELEVANT without EVIDENCE.

Lack of EVIDENCE for the unknown is the FUNDAMENTAL basis for a theory of non-existence.

aa5874

But Peter wrote no memoirs even according to the Church writers.

The passage referred to the "Memoirs of HIM" meaning "of Jesus" not Peter.

Jesus is introduced as HE and HIM In "Dialogue with Trypho" CVI

But, it can ALSO be argued that the Gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark were DERIVED from the Memoirs of the Apostles because they were so close.

It is almost certain that there was NO disciple named Matthew and no apostle named Peter who had a disciple called Mark.

The Church writers claimed Mark wrote his Gospel about 20 years before the Fall of the Temple but gMark was written after the Fall of the Temple.

the author called Mark most likely did not get any "memoirs' from Peter who himself was most likely a fictitious character in the Jesus stories.

But, then your argument has no real VALIDITY or is IRRELEVANT using your own reason.

The fact that you don't have EVIDENCE that something exist doesn't mean that the unknown entity exists.

You MUST know that WITHOUT evidence of existence that I can VALIDLY and INFINITELY DECLARE an unknown entity to be non-existing since I can ONLY be proven wrong when EVIDENCE is found for existence.

Justin Martyr was NOT AWARE of authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is INFINITELY VALID until you can show he was AWARE.

Justin Martyr was NOT aware of the Pauline writings is INFINITELY VALID until you can show that he was aware of the Pauline writings.

aa5874

Again, it must be noted that the author of gLuke did ADMIT or IMPLY that there were writings about Jesus already in existence before he wrote his Gospel for Theophilus. See Luke 1.1-4.

And it must be recognised that the first mention of gLuke as authored by Luke was AFTER Justin Martyr by Irenaeus in "Against Heresies"


But from the very passages you quoted Justin Martyr does not appear to be familiar with Protevangelium of James.

Protevangelium of James contains information not found in Justin Martyr.

Now, Justin clearly made references to the "Memoirs of the Apostles" as his source for the Jesus story and did NOT even mention any character called James who wrote a Gospel.

aa5874

When one examines the writings of Justin Martyr it will be realised that the writer has NO post-ascension history of any Jesus believers, followers, doctrine, miracles, or named writers.

Now, it is my view that Jesus of the NT did NOT exist but was just a story possibly written sometime at the end of the 1st century and that the story was simply believed to be true and hence the start of the Jesus cult.

Once Jesus did not exist and was just a story then I would expect that there would be NO history of the disciples of Jesus.

In the Gospels Jesus supposedly ascended to heaven sometime during the governorship of Pilate at around the age of thirty and left his 12 disciples on earth.

What happened to the 12 disciples or apostles after Jesus left earth?

According to Justin they wrote the Memoirs of Jesus and preached all over the world.

That is all.

That is the END of the history of the 12 apostles.

"First Apology" XLII Justin has nothing else about the apostles.

And this is EXACTLY what I expect if Jesus was just a story.

The Jesus story ENDED at the ascension and so did the history of the apostles in Justin Martyr's writings.

There was no day of Pentecost when the apostles were filled with the Holy Ghost, no talking in tongues, no miracles where the dead was raised, no thousands of converts, no blinding light conversion by Paul, no bishop of Rome called Peter. Nothing.

Justin MARTYR produced a BIG BLACK HOLE for about 120 years from the ascension to Marcion.

And I expect a BIG BLACK HOLE once Jesus, the disciples and Paul did not exist. And it is an apologetic source that show the BIG BLACK HOLE.

Justin Martyr has destroyed "Church History" by Eusebius and his bogus "historical" sources.

show_no_mercy

What if Justin is lying?

aa5874

Lied about what? How could he have lied about things he wrote nothing about?

It would appear to me that many do not even read the writings of Justin Martyr.

Please see http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html

Justin Martyr was asked by Trypho the Jew to prove that JESUS called CHRIST did come and lived on earth and Justin used the MEMOIRS of the Apostles and Revelation by John.

Justin Martyr did not tell Trypho that Jesus had a brother who was an apostle called James.

Justin Martyr did NOT name any other FAMILY of Jesus than those mentioned in the Memoirs. Surely the supposed 70 disciples of Jesus must have had families and would have been IDEAL corroborative sources for Justin.

According to the story, Jesus supposedly lived in Galilee for about thirty years with thousands of followers. It should have been a rather easy task to demonstrate that Jesus did exist.

But, Justin used futuristic predictions in Hebrew Scripture as his source of history for Jesus.

Justin claimed Jesus was born of a Virgin as predicted in Isaiah 7.14, in other words, the EVIDENCE for Jesus the Christ are PREDICTIONS.

All the proof of the existence of Jesus by Justin was CONFINED ONLY TO the Memoirs, Revelation and Hebrew Scripture. He did not have Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles.

Justin Martyr has EXPOSED about 100 years of the BLACK Hole of the history of Jesus believers.

Once Jesus did not exist at all then a BLACK HOLE of history would be expected until sometime AFTER the first Jesus story was written.

Now, the picture PAINTED by Justin MARTYR is far MORE CREDIBLE than the picture painted by the author of Acts the close companion of Paul who the Church claimed wrote ALL the Epistles.

Based on Justin, the Jesus cult appeared to be relatively small and was little known in the middle of the 2nd century.