aa5874

Forget the rhetoric. Church History appears to be credible to you because of statement in the book.

You make me laugh.

"Church History" is hardly considered credible.

Statements in Church History show that it is NOT credible and MUST be corroborated by EXTERNAL CREDIBLE sources.

Duvduv

I think it is significant that the so-called citations in the writings of Justin Martyr lumped together as "Memoirs of the Apostles" assume for the reader that the Memoirs are all one set of stories or information when in fact we know the canonical gospels contradict one another. But you would never know that from the citations of the Memoirs since the usual "different perspectives" routine doesn't exist for a writer who lumps everything together as Memoirs of the Apostles."

But of course if what the author called Justin meant was merely stories floating around that lacked any distinctions or contradictions between the version of one apostle or another apostle then it wouldn't exist.

stephan huller

a memoir (= hypomnema) is generally considered to be a notebook which represents an unfinished product rather than a finished composition. A similar term is mentioned in the Letter to Theodore of Clement for the text Mark wrote on behalf of Peter.

aa5874

Why do you IMAGINE that Justin had the Canonical Gospels when he never mentioned them???

You seem to be always speculating instead of trying to understand what is written.

Do you NOT understand that Justin Martyr's writings suggest that there was NO Canon up to the mid 2nd century.

Again, if Justin Martyr's writings were composed by the later Church then we would EXPECT them to look like writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius and others

Only one book is mentioned by Justin that is found in the Canon and it is Revelation.

mountainman

Emperor Julian calls Eusebius "wretched". (See "Against the Hobbits")



Amen.


Eusebius, possibly a man of Jewish descent, may have invented the Jesus Story. He certainly acted as the Editor of the publication under Constantine.


Funny I dont trust Eusebius either.

mountainman

Duvduv,

The way I see it is that even if Eusebius had a creed which was preserved to the three main 5th century heresiological historians, these historians preserved mention of the creed preserved by Socrates Scholasticus.

It seems obvious that these later historians took the opportunity to omit material which might otherwise tell us more about the conflict between Constantine's new and strange christian (or even "Chrestian") regime and the 95% pagan dominance.

For example a recently translated alternative source (Philip of Side) mentions that there was a great confontation at Nicaea between the "Christian Bishops" and the "very many philosophers" who had been retained by Arius of Alexandria. Noone else mentions this.

These 5th century Nicaean reports are pseudo-historical heresiological polemic

They simply continued the Christian forgery mill which had commenced operations under Eusebius.

Duvduv

AA wasn't noticing that I was focusing on a specific context of eusebius. Namely the context of the Nicene Creed as opposed to many other claims of Eusebius. Whereas the context found in Justin makes him questionable on its own merits.
Mountainman, could you expand on your pointr
Of course why would the "orthodox" have even agreed to participate in a council with those wicked Arian heretics in the first place, and "shame on" Eusebius for calling Arians "bishops " as if they were equivalent to the Orthodox!
Of course using the term bishop itself assumes a mature church structur which itself is questionable.

Duvduv

AA, the assumption is that the gospels existed in the second century with Justin whether or not they were official Scripture in a church canon.

I am questioning the combined usage of the contradictory gospels in Justin. Please reread my posting.

aa5874

Why do you keep on relying on your imagination???? Please, try to understand what Justin wrote and forget about assumptions.

Justin Martyr did NOT write that he knew of multiple versions of the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Also, in "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen it is implied that Celsus did NOT know of the genealogies which would suggest that the Jesus story in the 2nd century did NOT contain any genealogy or that there was NO discrepancies in them.

And further, it is also claimed that there was a Jesus story called the "Diatessaron" used by Tatian a supposed follower of Justin.

It would appear that Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles contained information that is NOT found in any of the earliest NT Codices.

Dialogue with TryphoThere is NO Cave story in the earliest known Codices with the NT but Justin, Celsus and Origen knew of a Jesus story where Jesus was born in a CAVE.

Please, forget about ASSUMPTIONS and try to understand what Justin wrote.

Up to the 3rd century, there was a story that Jesus was BORN in a CAVE and that the CAVE was found.

"Against Celsus" 51 There was a CAVE birth in a Jesus story which would signify that Justin's Jesus story was NOT the same as the versions found in the Codices.

Duvduv

Well, they say the manger was in a cave or the cave was in a manger. But that's of no importance. What is of importance are the aphorisms found in Justin that are also found in the canonical gospels, though sometimes not exactly in the same form. The majority of people believe this indicates that the gospels were known to Justin who did not quote them.

I do not agree, and view these aphorisms as things floating around that got into the gospels eventually. And my point was that IF one believes that these were citations from the gospels as "Memoirs" it must be observed that this Justin does not distinguish between one story ond another/one gospel and another. Rather it's all one thing called memoirs despite all contradictions and inconsistencies.

This is when the NT texts were beginning to emerge, and in my opinion Justin's descriptions are not prior to Irenaeus in the second century at all.