Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tanya · 09-28-2012, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If the Church wrote the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline and Non-Pauline letters then we would EXPECT them to write about those books in First Apology and Dialogue with Trypho.

They did NOT.

We KNOW who most likely wrote the writings attributed to Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen if the Church wrote the FOUR Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline and Non-Pauline.

The Church did.

1. The Church claimed the FOUR Gospels are the ONLY undisptutable Gospels in the Church of God under heaven.---See Church History 6.25.4

2. The Church claimed Acts of the Apostles was Universally regarded as Authentic. See Church History 2.17.6

3. The Church claimed ALL Pauline letters were Well known and Undisputed. See Church History. See Church History 3.3.5.

The writings attributed to Justin do NOT make such claims. How could the Church FORGET to include those claims in the writings of Justin???

We know the Church Writers that make those claims and Justin is NOT one of them.

Look at a partial List:

Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius.

Thanks for this interesting and provocative post, aa5874.

Some of those mentioned here, (at least Irenaeus and Eusebius) discuss the writings of Justin Martyr.

Do you happen to know, off hand, whether or not Eusebius' son, Jerome, had also discussed the writings of Justin Martyr? How about one of Jerome's contemporaries: Hilary of Poitiers?

My impression from scanning some of their works, is that neither of these two authors mentions Justin.

If true, do we know why they neglected to mention him? What about Origen? Tertullian? Who else describes Justin's works, apart from Ireneaus and Eusebius?

Duvduv · 09-28-2012, 07:13 AM

I DIDN'T SAY THEY WERE COMPOSED BY THE EMERGED CHURCH.....I have told you on several occasions that as the religion was emerging stories were also emerging. The gospels were not yet in written form (as we even note from the first Nicaean Creed) and the guy named Justin was quoting from stories, and never notices any contradictions among the assorted memoirs of apostles who he cannot even name. That's because it was at an earlier stage.

Furthermore, you know as well as I do that church apologists have "found" references to epistles wherever they were hunting for them in the Justin writings. However, it appears as if you allow arguments from silence from yourself but not from others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The simple fact is that as in the case of the epistles AA ignores his great "credible " "recovered data" that has no evidence that it was ever actually written or received in the second century at all. It is claimed for the second century because the church says it is.

Well now tell what is your evidence that Justin's writings are "claimed for the 2nd century because the church says it is??

What Credible source from antiquity are you employing???

Please, tell us why the Church wrote "The First Apology" and FORGOT to say that the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters were READ in the Churches on Sundays???

How could the Church write "the First Apology" and FORGET to mention the Bishops of Rome, the Martyrdom of Peter and Paul and the Day of Pentecost???

If you think the Church wrote all the FOUR Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline and Non-Pauline letters, writings attributed to Irenaeus, Tertullian, Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen then WHY, WHY, WHY are NOT the writings of Justin Martyr filled with same information about the FOUR Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline and Non-Pauline letters??

The answer is CLEAR.

The writings attributed to Justin are most unlikely to have been composed by the Church.

Come on Duvduv!!!

If the Church wrote the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline and Non-Pauline letters then we would EXPECT them to write about those books in First Apology and Dialogue with Trypho.

They did NOT.

We KNOW who most likely wrote the writings attributed to Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen if the Church wrote the FOUR Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline and Non-Pauline.

The Church did.

1. The Church claimed the FOUR Gospels are the ONLY undisptutable Gospels in the Church of God under heaven.---See Church History 6.25.4

2. The Church claimed Acts of the Apostles was Universally regarded as Authentic. See Church History 2.17.6

3. The Church claimed ALL Pauline letters were Well known and Undisputed. See Church History. See Church History 3.3.5.

The writings attributed to Justin do NOT make such claims. How could the Church FORGET to include those claims in the writings of Justin???

We know the Church Writers that make those claims and Justin is NOT one of them.

Look at a partial List:

Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius.

aa5874 · 09-28-2012, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I DIDN'T SAY THEY WERE COMPOSED BY THE EMERGED CHURCH.....I have told you on several occasions that as the religion was emerging stories were also emerging. The gospels were not yet in written form (as we even note from the first Nicaean Creed) and the guy named Justin was quoting from stories, and never notices any contradictions among the assorted memoirs of apostles who he cannot even name. That's because it was at an earlier stage...

Again, Where are your SOURCES for your outrageous claims??? What stories are you talking about??

Come on Duvduv!!! How in the world can you say the Gospels were NOT in written form???

You MUST know that what you say is TOTAL IMAGINATION.

You MUST know that Jesus stories have been FOUND and DATED to the 2nd-3rd century.

The History of the Jesus cult cannot be reconstructed from YOUR imagination but from RECOVERED DATED TEXTS and COMPATIBLE Sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Furthermore, you know as well as I do that church apologists have "found" references to epistles wherever they were hunting for them in the Justin writings. However, it appears as if you allow arguments from silence from yourself but not from others.

No, No, No!!!! You KNOW that No-one has found any Distinct references to the Pauline Epistles in the writings attributed to Justin Martyr.

You KNOW that Justin Martyr CLEARLY and DISTINCTLY stated that he used the MEMOIRS of the Apostles, the Acts of Pontius Pilate, and Revelation by John.

Why, Why, Why can't you even ADMIT what is found in the writings attributed to Justin???

Again, you are spreading propaganda to HIDE the fact that Your claims that are made from Silence.

Again, You KNOW that No-one has found any Distinct references to the Pauline Epistles

You have ZERO Credible sources of antiquity that show that the Jesus stories were NOT in a written form in the 2nd century.

I have SHOWN you the RECOVERED DATED TEXTS and that WRITTEN stories about Jesus were DATED to the 2nd-3rd century.

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

Duvduv · 09-28-2012, 08:52 AM

I DIDN'T SAY THEY HAD TO BE "DISTINCT"!! Apologists simply find ALLUSIONS.
And the Memoirs are not disinct either! No names, do distinctions among the sources. Nothing distinct about that at all.

aa5874 · 09-28-2012, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I DIDN'T SAY THEY HAD TO BE "DISTINCT"!! Apologists simply find ALLUSIONS.
And the Memoirs are not disinct either! No names, do distinctions among the sources. Nothing distinct about that at all.

You did NOT say that they had to be "DISTINCT"???

Look at your previous post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Furthermore, you know as well as I do that church apologists have "found" references to epistles wherever they were hunting for them in the Justin writings....

Why, Why, Why are you now back-pedalling??

You claimed they "FOUND" REFERENCES to epistles.

Now, you ADMIT it was ALLUSIONS--NOT references.

Your story keeps changing from post to post.

Look you are going to change again.

What are you going to change in your next post??

Do you mean ALLUSIONS or ILLUSIONS??

You can change your story and say They "Found" ILLUSIONS because ILLUSIONS are NOT DISTINCT references.

aa5874 · 09-28-2012, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Thanks for this interesting and provocative post, aa5874.

Some of those mentioned here, (at least Irenaeus and Eusebius) discuss the writings of Justin Martyr.

Do you happen to know, off hand, whether or not Eusebius' son, Jerome, had also discussed the writings of Justin Martyr? How about one of Jerome's contemporaries: Hilary of Poitiers?

My impression from scanning some of their works, is that neither of these two authors mentions Justin.

If true, do we know why they neglected to mention him? What about Origen? Tertullian? Who else describes Justin's works, apart from Ireneaus and Eusebius?

You appear to be in Error.

"De Viris Illustribus" attributed to Jerome did Mention Justin.

["De Viris Illustribus 23

Quote:

Justin, a philosopher, and wearing the garb of philosopher, a citizen of Neapolis, a city of Palestine, and the son of Priscus Bacchius, laboured strenuously in behalf of the religion of Christ, insomuch that he delivered to Antoninus Pius and his sons and the senate, a work written Against the nations, and did not shun the ignominy of the cross. He addressed another book also to the successors of this Antoninus, Marcus Antoninus Verus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus.

tanya · 09-28-2012, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You appear to be in Error.

"De Viris Illustribus" attributed to Jerome did Mention Justin.

Thank you for that correction of my oversight. Much appreciated.

Would you happen to know whether Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, or Hilary of Poitiers had noted Justin's contributions, perhaps, in the context of refuting one or more "heresies"?

Thanks again for illustrating, very competently, my error with Jerome.

Duvduv · 09-28-2012, 10:15 AM

I honestly don't know what you are talking about. I was simply answering your assertion that I claimed they had to be distinct, which is not what I had said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I DIDN'T SAY THEY HAD TO BE "DISTINCT"!! Apologists simply find ALLUSIONS.
And the Memoirs are not disinct either! No names, do distinctions among the sources. Nothing distinct about that at all.

You did NOT say that they had to be "DISTINCT"???

Look at your previous post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Furthermore, you know as well as I do that church apologists have "found" references to epistles wherever they were hunting for them in the Justin writings....

Why, Why, Why are you now back-pedalling??

You claimed they "FOUND" REFERENCES to epistles.

Now, you ADMIT it was ALLUSIONS--NOT references.

Your story keeps changing from post to post.

Look you are going to change again.

What are you going to change in your next post??

Do you mean ALLUSIONS or ILLUSIONS??

You can change your story and say They "Found" ILLUSIONS because ILLUSIONS are NOT DISTINCT references.

aa5874 · 09-28-2012, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Thank you for that correction of my oversight. Much appreciated.

Would you happen to know whether Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, or Hilary of Poitiers had noted Justin's contributions, perhaps, in the context of refuting one or more "heresies"?

Thanks again for illustrating, very competently, my error with Jerome.

I am not aware of all who mentioned Justin but Tatian and Irenaeus, supposed contemporaries of Justin did mention him.

Address to the Greeks

Quote:

The demons do not cure, but by their art make men their captives. And the most admirable Justin has rightly denounced them as robbers

Against Heresies 1.28

Quote:

A certain man named Tatian first introduced the blasphemy. He was a hearer of Justin's, and as long as he continued with him he expressed no such views...

tanya · 09-29-2012, 07:14 AM

With regard to your myth theory, one component of it, a feature with which I am in agreement, not that my opinion matters in the slightest, is the late appearance of Paul's epistles, well after the gospels had been created.

To that end, I was looking for confirmation that neither Justin nor his student, Tatian, had commented on Paul's epistles. Their failure to acknowledge his epistles would serve to highlight the likelihood that Paul's epistles first saw the light of day in the late second century, at the same time as Irenaeus' texts.

However, I did run across this short bit from Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, IV, 29.6, which asserts that Tatian had been aware of Paul's contribution:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eusebius

6. But their original founder, Tatian, formed a certain combination and collection of the Gospels, I know not how, to which he gave the title Diatessaron, and which is still in the hands of some. But they say that he ventured to paraphrase certain words of the apostle, in order to improve their style.

That's not very informative.

Do you know of any quotes from the extant writings of Tatian, which could shed light on this question: had Tatian encountered the writings of Paul? We saw how other apologists claimed, incorrectly, as you have explained, that Tatian's teacher Justin, provided no evidence of having encountered Paul's letters--both authors simply quoted from the same Jewish scriptures.

So, is this assertion from Eusebius, a century after the fact, just hot air, or is there some grain of truth to his allegation? Isn't it peculiar, that notwithstanding his enormous library, even Eusebius was tongue tied, when it came to explaining how Tatian combined the four gospels.....one could almost read that as acknowledging absence of original text by Tatian, himself.

Given that Tatian was viewed as an heretic by the time of Eusebius, if not much earlier, then, one wonders what else, could he have written, or not written as the case may be.....I hadn't realized, until this inquiry, that Tatian was the teacher of Clement of Alexandria. Did Clement too, consider Tatian an heretic?

Maybe Clement has something to offer, regarding Tatian's knowledge of Paul's epistles?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-28-2012, 08:52 AM	#534
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I DIDN'T SAY THEY HAD TO BE "DISTINCT"!! Apologists simply find ALLUSIONS. And the Memoirs are not disinct either! No names, do distinctions among the sources. Nothing distinct about that at all.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.