Toto

Why do you think this was his objection, not to mention his primary objective? If he was going to forge stuff, why not make it really good?

Do you see that your reply is a complete and total non sequitur? The question is what would the forgery accomplish? Your answer is hey look over there! a bright, shiny forgery!

May this be the last thread on the 4th century invention of Christianity.

Jeffrey Gibson

PLEASE make it so!

Jeffrey

Sheshbazzar

I'm sorry Pete, but reading all of the text of Justin's First Apology' and 'Dialogue', with their highly involved and totally affirmative arguments for the truth of the gospel of 'Jesus Christ', there is no way that I could accept that they were fabricated by 4th century 'enemies' of the Christian church or faith.

In these writings, Justin is a convicted Christian through and through. He presents no arguments against Jesus or the Church, and in what places he displays any doctrinal deviations from latter Christian beliefs, it is totally unconscious. He doesn't raise any arguments either overt or subtle against those latter beliefs or the hierarchy, but is just utterly ignorant of them. Nor do his compositions contain anything that is mocking of Christian beliefs

So I remain convinced that Justin's writings are authentic to the Christian religion as he found it, and as it actually existed and was practiced circa 130-160 CE, (although perhaps being a bit 'inflated' by Justin's personal Philosophical rhetoric, I highly doubt that most of Justin's contemporary worshipers had such a highly developed theology. His letters were composed for 'pushing it'.) __NO 'Book of Acts', NO 'Paul' or 'Pauline Epistles', and NO 'Catholic Church hierarchy either known of, or in charge.

Justin's involvement and reporting was done in an earlier, much simpler, less oppressive Christian church than the one that evolved after 180 CE.



.

spin

You're in no position to know hat my capacity is. But what exactly makes you relate the Latin collection known as the Historia Augusta to Eusebius's Greek Church history?

You confuse ad hominem with criticism of your work. They are not the same thing.

Now that is an ad hominem, as there is no way not to equate "inept fuck who believes" (a person) with the "you" of "your". It's also bad grammar, as there is no grammatical point to which one can attach the for-fragment. Still the intention is there.

This blathering about the historical Jesus, when I've made it perfectly clear I don't support the notion, lacks sense. The Dura-Europos frescoes are securely dated to about 70 years prior to your claimed start of christianity and so falsify your claim. Life's tough when you see that you have wasted so much time on a stupid idea, so you ignore the fundamental problem and build a wall of nonsense to protect you from harsh reality: you imply there was another conspiracy to falsely present the room at Dura-Europa with its scenes of walking on water, the woman at the well, the women at the tomb, "take up your bed", all as christian. Anyone can understand why you'd want to deny the inherently christian content, but it is futile. You have no more compelling understanding of those scenes together in the one place along with the good shepherd, a christianized image. Your approach to the diatessaron fragment found at the site is more of the same empty denial. "It can't be genuine, because..., well,.. it can't." Sorry, fella, when the shit hits the wall, you need to move on, rather than wallowing in it.

avi

What proportion of our extant three texts of Justin Martyr were written by him, rather than added by the monks working in an Italian monastery in 1364 CE?

How did Justin come to write a letter to the Roman Emperor? What I mean to ask is, how likely is it that a Christian, having denied the divinity of the Roman Emperor, would be on sufficiently friendly terms with him, to send a message, and have it read by the emperor, and saved for posterity?

External verification of the ideas of Justin are terse. The condition of the original monastery copy from 1364 is imperfect.

He supposedly opened a school in Rome? Where did he get the funds to accomplish this pursuit? Why would the Roman authorities permit him to openly challenge their own instruction?

Jeffrey Gibson

From his pupils? From a benefactor? Just how much money do you think it takes to open a "school"?

Can you provide evidence that justifies your hidden assumption that there was a proto orthodox "church" in Rome in the mid second century that had the authority, not to mention the means, to quash or prevent the opening of schools that taught things contrary to what "it" taught? How would it do so, even if it did?

How do you account for the opening and continuation and success of a contra proto orthodox schools in Rome by Valentinius and by Marcion on your supposition?

And can you tell me what it is that informs your claims about the early Roman church and it's "power"? What, if any, books or articles on Christianity in Rome in the second century have you read? Anything by MacMullen? Feurgeson? Frend? Lane-Fox? And especially Lampe?

I'm guessing from what you write that your acquaintance with the scholarship on this matter is little to none. But I'll be happy to hear that I am wrong in this surmise.

Jeffrey

Sheshbazzar

Unknown. But what IS known is that no one ever added anything that would support the existence of the 'Book of Acts', an 'apostle 'Paul', the 'Pauline Epistles,' or indications of the existence of any hierarchal apostolic church organization.
(a pretty strong argument that the original was authentic to the 2nd century. _Latter editors would be shooting themselves in the foot by omitting incorporating these accepted and expected items.)

And then to top that off, Justin's writings quite unconsciously places 'Jesus' as being of lower status, and second to, and subject to God the Father.
Not co-substantial and co-equal. The 'wrong' side for any Christian Saint to find themselves on in the 3rd century CE.
Justin's writing is innocent of any awareness that such a 'Trinitarian Controversy' has ever existed, raising no defenses for his position, and no arguments or objections against the trinitarian position that the 3rd century church endorsed.
And it is worthy of note, that no 14th century or earlier monk ever altered Justin's 'heretical' statements regarding the relationship between The Father and the Son. Which matter being a 'hot button' issue among Christians for over a thousand years, with numerous anathema's and death penalty Decrees attached, would, along with providing support for 'the Doctrine of Apostolic Succession', be one of the very first things any latter church editor would want to bring into line with Roman Catholic Doctrine to preserve Catholic tradition and Justin's acceptance as being a good Catholic Saint, and not an accursed and damned HERETIC!.

Glad you asked this question. Justin did not actually write any letter to the Roman Emperor.

Justin in his First Apology uses the Roman Emperor and Senate as a literary foil for spreading his personal religious philosophical propaganda.

Justin's intended audience for 'First Apology' was not the Roman Emperor or Senate, but the 'Open Letter' is propaganda tool for the recruitment of Christians and prospective Christians to HIS particular flavor of religious philosophy.
'First Apology' is a cleverly contrived piece of religious recruitment propaganda, directed at the general public readership, dressed up as an 'open letter to the Emperor'.
Just like the thousands of political "Open Letter(s) to President Obama" that are circulated with no intention or expectation of President Obama ever receiving or reading them. Its one of the oldest propaganda ploys in existence.
The Church managed to keep it out of sight for a long time. It's contents certainly does few favors to the Roman Catholic institution that preserved it. And if taken seriously, totally undermines and discredits the vaunted 'apostolic authority' of The Holy Roman Apostolic and Catholic Church.
Few things that old are perfect. Given the content, it is just short of a miracle that the Roman Church ever allowed it to survive or ever come to light.


.

Jeffrey Gibson

Do you have any evidence that these monks (or, according to Harnack, one monk in particular) actually were in the habit (excuse the pun) of adding things to the texts they possessed? If so how often and to what degree did they do this? Is there any other text they preserved that you can point to that was handled the way you claim the Apologies were handled? Or was it only to the text of Justin that they added things? And just how much was added? What, specifically are the additions?

What informs your "knowledge" of the scribal practices that went on in the Monastery?

Jeffrey

mountainman

The argument being explored Shesh is not that Justin and Celsus and (etc etc etc) were forged by the 'enemies' of the Christian church but that they were forged by the 4th (and 5th etc) century church itself - by Eusebius and his continuators and preservers.



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Toto

The argument is not being "explored." It is being mindlessly repeated as if there were some substance to it.