J-D

You don't even understand why you yourself posted this? Then I'm sure you don't understand aa5874.

Sheshbazzar

So you are willing to quote a couple of paragraphs.
Is that supposed to indicate that your position is that 'The Acts of Pontius Pilate' is also to be accepted as authentic and credible as attested to by your CREDIBLE witness, the Catholic Saint 'Justin Martyr' ?

What is the paleographical and c14 DATING of your oldest example of 'Saint 'Justin's' 'First Apology' ?

What is the paleographical and c14 DATING of your oldest example of 'The Acts of Pontius Pilate' ?

What is the paleographical and c14 DATING of your oldest example of 'Saint 'Justin's' 'Dialogue With Trypho' ?

What is the paleographical and c14 DATING of your oldest example of 'Saint 'Justin's' 'On the Sole Government of God' ?

Besides what you have thus far selectively quoted, what about the rest of the highly developed CATHOLIC theological arguments and apologetics that are contained within these writings?
How credible is it that all of this complex CATHOLIC Christian theology and apologetics that we find within these writings, was developed and became standard orthodox CATHOLIC Christian fare within a primative and a as yet forming religion, and in a 'church' that (according to your assertions) had existed for less than 65 years when 'Saint Justin' died???
(and given the content of previous statements of yours, a LOT less, like your suggestions that it was all invented and written in the same year that 'Justin' converted)

You assert 'There was NO Jesus or gospel' known in the 1st century, yet you believe the Catholic Church's claims that their Saint 'Justin' produced all of these elaborate and complex theological writings before dying in 165 CE.
-Employing the already existing 'Memoirs of The Apostles' and 'Acts of Pontius Pilate' as his source materials,
-but yet according to you, NONE of this, and NO knowledge of any 'Jesus Christ' or of any 'gospel', or any 'church' at all was known to the world, what, a mere 60 years earlier?
(allowing your 'Saint 'Justin' some small time to become a man and to learn all of that crap 'he' writes about.)

About what year CE would you estimate that the Catholic Church's 'Saint Justin' first heard of and converted to Christianity?
What year did 'he' write 'Against all Heresies'?
'his'' First Apology'?
'his' 'Second Apology'
'his' 'Dialogue With Trypho'?
'his' 'Hortatory Address to the Greeks'?
'his' 'On the Sole Government of God' -with 'his' direct refence to 'THE CATHOLIC FAITH' ???
-Was there even any such thing as a standard 'CATHOLIC FAITH' in 150 CE, a mere 50 or 60 years, or much less -according to you-, after 'Jesus Christ', the 'Gospel' and 'Apostles' were first invented?

Did 'Saint Justin' instantly and miraculously absorb all of that high CATHOLIC theology and apologetic arguments and explanations that 'his' writings contain?

Sorry aa, but no matter how much you may assert about the CREDIBILITY of 'Saint Justin' and 'his' wrtings, it simply does not add up.

I do not find the CATHOLIC church's claims to be credible.

I do not find the wrtings of 'Saint 'Justin' The CATHOLIC writer to be credible or authentic.

I do not find your support of the DATING of this CATHOLIC CHURCH produced garbage to be credible.

Sheshbazzar





.

aa5874

Again, you have NOT IDENTIFIED any statement which is NOT Credible. We all know what you Believe so the next step is IDENTIFICATION and PRESENTATION of evidence.

I have IDENTIFIED Pauline Lies.

The Pauline writer claimed Jesus DIED for Sins was buried and Resurrected on the THIRD DAY and that he was a Witness of the Resurrected Jesus. See 1 Cor 15.

If Jesus was actually human then Paul lied. Jesus survived and did NOT DIE if he was crucified before Paul SAW him.

Justin did NOT claim he saw or witnesssed the Resurrected Jesus. Justin Believed the Jesus story just like Jews Believe Hebrew Scripture.

When are you ever going to Present ANY ACTUAL source for your claims??


What source of antiquity did you use to make such a finding??? Please, present YOUR Sources.

You seem to be engaged in a No Source--No Evidence--No Proof argument.

You do not even realize that NOT even the Church used the writings of Justin for the history and theology of the early Jesus cult of the supposed 1st century . The Church used Irenaeus, Papias, Hegesippus, Clement and others.

It would appear that the Church may have considered Justin's history of the Jesus cult as garbage and Ignored it.

In "Church History" by Eusebius , quite remarkably, Justin was used ONLY to corroborate Simon Magus the Magician, Menander a follower of Simon and Marcion the founder of the Marcionite cult.

Sheshbazzar

You wrote; "Next Question"
But it may be noted by anyone, that in your above reply you have studiously avoided answering even one of the direct questions that were asked.
Most of what you write about concerns 'Paul' and 'Eusebius' which is not at all what you are being repeatedly asked about.

As far as identifying which statements attributed to allegedly be original to the 'Church Father Justin Martyr' THE CATHOLIC, which are not credible, there are a great many such that I personally judge as being anachronistic and not represenative of the actual thoughts or theology of any 2nd century CE writer.

One that I specifically pointed out above is this 'Saint 'Justin's' direct reference in 'his' "On the Sole Government of God' to "THE CATHOLIC FAITH"
I do not consider the reported myrid divisions in the early Christian movement as conducive to at such an early date, there being any cohesive doctrinal agreement that could be identified as a identifiable 'CATHOLIC FAITH'. This is a distinction that would have only emerged once the orthodox had suceeded in imposing their form of theology on the majority of the church, which was not until the 3rd century CE.
There are many other subjects in 'Saint'-'Justin's' writings that in my opinion are simply far too 'overcooked' in their reasonings to be genuine products of an early 2nd century writer.

The point of my posts is to encourage others here to actually read and to examine that material attributed to 'Saint Justin' and then rely upon their own reasoning abilities, and conscience, as to whether they read authentic to what an early 2nd century writer would have known.
I emphatically believe that they do not.

And as I have previously pointed out your 'theory' has some serious problems if it is called upon to present reasonable dates and time periods in which this 'saint Justin' accomplished all of this 'stuff' that you are uncritically accepting the CATHOLIC CHURCH"S word and dating of.

aa5874

It would appear that you do NOT even understand the meaning of "Catholic". The use of the Greek word for "Catholic" has NOTHING to do with the Roman Catholic CHURCH.

Belief in God was Catholic and long Before the Roman Catholic Church.

"On the Sole Goverment of God" is about faith in God and Not the Roman Catholic Church.

Again, you statements are ERRONEOUS. You cannot identify any statement by Justin that is NOT Credible and have only exposed that you do NOT understand the meaning of "Catholic".

I have ALREADY told you that you have NO Evidence--No Source--No Proof for your BELIEF.

You have NOT, I repeat, have NOT been able to identify any problems with the writings attributed to Justin Martyr. You have only Exposed that you do NOT understand the meaning of the word "Catholic".

Sheshbazzar

You don't understand my argument.

I was NOT referring to the latter 'Roman Catholic Church' but to this usage of the word 'CATHOLIC' as identifying a universal and cohesive set of beliefs held by 2nd century Christian believers.
The myriad attacks by the so called 'orthodox' upon the beliefs and doctrines of the many 'heretics' certainly belie any claims that the church of the 2nd century was ever 'catholic' in its beliefs or doctrines.

'Justin' in employing this word implies that there was a single identifiable christian religion in a time when the evidence indicates there were 'multiple Christianities', with huge differences in their theology.
It is my view, because of this diversity of reported beliefs, this 'Justin's' usage of the phrase "the catholic faith" is anachronistic, and was actually written in a latter century.

Were Marcion's highly divergent beliefs and teachings which are known to have been wide-spread and well established, of that alleged 'catholic' faith?
There was no identifiable 2nd century 'catholic faith' to be found in such a diversity 2nd century 'christian' beliefs.


And it is to be noted that you are still evading and dodging addressing any of those direct Questions that I asked of you.




.

Duvduv

AA has yet to explain whether Justin was advocating on behalf of all sects who believed in "Christ" in the face of persecution, or whether he was advocating on behalf of "us," i.e. his own little teeny weeny sect about which the same Justin says not a single word about who the leaders were, where the communities were, and all other matters of urgency when writing an emperor.

Nor does AA prove with his "compatible" blah blah whether the Emperor ever received such a letter and was moved to tears on behalf of these little sects or that little sect, and what happened because of this Apology one way or the other.

Nor does AA explain why Justin and Marcion allegedly lived in the same time period and city, and yet this Justin does not say a word about a single text held by Marcion INCLUDING PAULINE EPISTLES and a GOSPEL (rather than just generic memoirs).

Nor does AA explain why Justin can never distinguish among the sources resembling the (three) canonical gospels when we know that they contradict each other, and Justin lumps everything together without EVER identifying the name of any of his great apostles who were the source of any of these teachings.

Nor does AA explain on what Justin relied to offer a replacement theology where all the Tanakh prophecies were for his Jesus and the gentiles followers of the Christ.

Nor does AA even explain where this alleged "credible source" even found out about the ideas of Christianity beyond a brief encounter with a nameless Old Man.

aa5874

Again, you are not Credible. You openly contradict yourself. Examine Excerpts from your previous posts. You did refer to the CATHOLIC CHURCH.




I am having great difficulty with your errors or loss of memory.

Sheshbazzar

What I have a problem with regarding aa's 'Theory' is his assertions that the name "Jesus Christ" was unknown in the 1st century CE.
And the obvious problems with his time scale for all of this highly developed christian theology to have been developed. ie 'NO "Jesus Christ" known at all in the 1st century, and yet 'Justin' sometime in his adult life encounters Christians and an already existent Christian faith complete with 'The Memoirs of The Apostles' and 'The Acts of Pontius Pilate'.
Allowing that this 'Justin' had even reached an age of 20 or 40 yeas, while studying and engaging in those various Greek philosophies which he claims to have experience in before he ever encountered Christianity, that would allow only a 20-40 year period to have elapsed, to have "Jesus Christ" the Apostles, and these 'Memoirs' and 'Acts of Pilate' and a 'church' to have developed around them. One that was large enought to be publicly recognized and be officially singled out for an unjust persecution, that would require 'Justin' to be defending it against.
The theology presented in 'Justin's' works simply does not ring true as being represenative of an emerging 2nd century religion in existence for less than 65 years.

Sheshbazzar

Your reading comprehension is as deficient as your logic.