Duvduv

Sorry, but I don't understand what your question has to do with my reply. Please elaborate.

aa5874

You don't seem to understand the difference between "evidence" and "trust". You seem to trust Paul. I do not.

Apologetic sources have made written statements that Paul was aware of gLuke but the same Paul claimed it was the resurrected Jesus who revealed to him details about the Last Supper. See 1 Corinthians 11.

Paul is a LIAR.

Duvduv

For those who know Greek, what if any difference is there in the term used for living or dwelling in GJohn 15:1-6 and its use in Galatians 2:20? Thanks

Duvduv

I have just been rereading the First Apology of Justin and found it interesting how until about Chapter 31 he simply pontificates about how great the Christians are and briefly mentions his Christ in a way that seems as if the reader takes for granted what he is talking about. Around chapter 21 he adds in a few aphorism of "Jesus" without even hinting where he got it from, but seems to again assume the reader knows what he is talking about.

Then just like he doesn't provide a source there, he comes along in Chapter 31 and makes the cryptic comment about how his Christ was predicted 5000 years ago etc. by "prophets" without suggesting who is talking about, or which prophets he refers to in a chapter entitled "Hebrew prophets" of which there were none 5000 years before himself.

Finally, in chapters 65-67 he writes about the religious rituals, almost as an afterthought, performed by "us" - without describing anything about his group, where they are, how many they are, whether men and women, etc. etc. No mention of the leaders of his group, where they came from, etc. And from all this peripatetic discussion the reader is supposed to be impressed with so little information actually offered.

No information of where his Christ lived, among which peoples, what his life was like, etc. except for a few words in Chapter 46. It's rather funny that of all the things Justin DOES claim about his Christ, only in Chapter 48 does he have those words to check the "Acts of Pilate" as if the reader knows what he is referring to. That recommendation presumably should have offered many times before.......

In his unique manner he starts his approach of seeing his Christ predicted by Moses and the Hebrew Bible starting in Chapter 32 with the usual assumption that the reader will take his word for it ---NEVER quoting other authorities for purposes of strengthening his position. Never mentioning a name (EVEN the "old man") as people of renown who can be believed. His favorite quotes, however, are NOT from his own group but from the Prophet Isaiah.

His whole hope seems to be that the Emperor would say, "Heck, let's believe in that Christ guy. All hail Justin, the great revealer!" Justin talks of how Jesus saves from sins, but doesn't explain how this works or what this implies for the believer (in this case the Emperor) other than intellectual acknowledgement.
"OK, he will save us from sins, now what?"

Then in Chapter 58 a brief mention of Marcion out of the blue, without any reference to what he is talking about, AGAIN, as if he takes for granted that the reader knows what he means, even with no reference to any texts used by Marcion.

Duvduv

Does this sound like the writings of someone intimately familiar with the subject he is addressing throughout all these chapter as far back as the mid-second century?? Not in my book......I am beginning to think it's akin to writings of someone reading an encyclopedia, with books all open around the table, parading all over the place in different areas and putting something on paper - whether about the Hebrew prophets predicting Christ 5000 years ago, or his rituals, or that Christ is really the same as the story of pagan gods, etc. Unable to realize that his readers is not familiar with the subject matter at all, whereby the writer himself is not familiar with his own subject. It just doesn't sound authentic to me at all. Very, very fishy.....

DCHindley

According to, I think, Eusebius, Justin is supposed to have written 2 separate apologies, to two different emperors. It has been suggested by critics that what has been preserved as Justin's (single) Apology is actually a combination of the "best" of both. These kind of condensed versions of longer works are called "Epitomes." These tend to be condensed for the "edification" of the faithful who would not be able to stay awake for the full version.

If I remember correctly, the preserved Apology consists mostly of rhetorical questions, asking the emperor to reconsider prosecution of Christians because their beliefs are essentially no different than beliefs accepted by pagans. The original two apologies of Justin may have been long, dull and possibly more inclusive of the kind of specifics you think should be there, but unless a copy of one of them turns up in a monestary, we may never know.

DCH

Duvduv

Dave, so what they put together is this aimless meandering and illogical statements as I described? What was that supposed to accomplish? In any case, good old Eusebius was probably trying to deal with the confusion and questions that emerge in this Apology, IF Eusebius existed. And if he was trying to make the argument for Christianity clear to any interested reader he did a lousy job.

Duvduv

For that matter, I think we can go one step further and see that the way the gospels reflect an understanding (or rather misunderstanding) of Jewish issues, their authors resorted to sitting with encyclopedias or the equivalent of newspaper articles, putting things together in a confused manner.

DCHindley

One man's "edification" is another man's trash, I guess. Look at any "apologetics" web site run by Fundies, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Nazis, Muslims, whatever, and you'll see exactly that same kind of piecemeal "feel good" statements, few if any of which are meaty.

Since I was speaking by memory, I looked up what I remember reading:

The first class of [preserved works of Justin] embraces those which are unquestionably genuine, viz. the two Apologies ...

There is a curious question connected with the [two] Apologies of Justin which have come down to us. Eusebius [also] mentions two Apologies,--one written in the reign of Antoninus Pius, the other in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Critics have disputed much whether we have these two Apologies in those now extant. Some have maintained, that what is now called the Second Apology was the preface of the first, and that the second is lost. Others have tried to show, that the so-called Second Apology is the continuation of the first, and that the second is lost. Others have supposed that the two Apologies which we have are Justin's two Apologies, but that Eusebius was wrong in affirming that the second was addressed to Marcus Aurelius; and others maintain, that we have in our two Apologies the two Apologies mentioned by Eusebius, and that our first is his first, and our second his second. (Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 1, page 161)

In short, what we have preserved is likely not what they currently purport to be, but fragments from them, or as I suggested, epitomes from the actual apologies. I had to downgrade my earlier to "suggestion" as I do not see my solution mentioned as proposed by scholars in the time that the ANF volumes were edited (mid to late 1800s).

The surviving 1st Apology is addressed to "Emperor Titus Aelius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar, (emperor from 11 July 138 to 7 March 161 CE) and to his son Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the Philosopher, the natural son of Caesar, and the adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred Senate."

The 2nd Apology is addressed to "The Roman Senate" in reaction to recent events occurring in "your city" (Rome?) "under Urbicus." In the apology, a bystander, seeing the condemnation of Ptolemaeus, a Christian teacher, he pleads for him: "O Urbicus, [this action] does not become the Emperor Pius, nor the philosopher, the son of Caesar, nor the sacred senate."

If this is Quintus Lollius Urbicus, he had an early career as a Senator and Governor of Asia, and under Hadrian as Legate commanding the Legio X Gemina in Vienna, Gaul. He was also a Legate during the 2nd Jewish War of 132-135 CE. He was a Consul in Rome for only a portion of the year 135 CE. All this was under Hadrian (Publius Aelius Trajanus Hadrianus Augustus, emperor between 117 - 10 July 138 CE). Upon the accession of Antonius Pius (), he was immediately sent to Britannia as Governor, serving from 139 and 142. The names of the parties involved in the 2nd Apology are all Greek, and thus not likely Britons. There is no evidence that he, or any other Urbicus, served as Consul in Rome under Antonius Pius between 143-161. So, Urbicus could not have been Consul under Antonius Pius, but under Hadrian.

DCH

aa5874

Once Jesus did NOT exist then Justin would have NO actual history of him.

Justin Martyr used the "Memoirs of the Apostles", the Acts of Pilate, Revelation by John and Hebrew Scripture to argue that Jesus was the Messiah born of Mary and the Holy Ghost, without a human father, was crucified, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

However, unlike other Church writers, Justin did NOT claim that he knew any one who knew any apostles, did NOT claim he knew any Bishops of the Church, did NOT claim he knew of Epistles by Paul, John, James and Jude, did NOT claim he knew of any Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts of the Apostles.

In fact, Justin wrote about the so-called Heretics like Simon Magus, Menander, Basilides, Valentinus, Marcos and Saturnilus.

When Justin Martyr was searching for the "Truth" he did NOT mention that he consulted a single single Christian but went to Platonists, Stoics, Peripatetics, and Pythagoreans.

The only Canonised book that is mentioned by Justin Martry is Revelation by John.

The writings of Justin Martyr were NOT manipulated by apologetic sources unlike the writings attributed to Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Origen, Polycarp and many others filled with bogus information about the authorship, dating and chronology of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and Epistles.

And not only the NT, but those very writings contain bogus information about the history of the Church and succession of bishops which things are not anywhere at all in the writings of Justin Martyr.