aa5874

Please, please, please why are you telling me about the "majority of people" when your ideas are UNKNOWN to any one or supported by a few???

I don't play "Majority/Minority" games. I deal with ACTUAL Dated sources and writings that are compatible with them.

Justin Martyr is a most Meticulous writer. He Identifies his sources many, many times and never claimed he had multiple versions of the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Justin Martyr did NOT mention the Four FAKE authors of the Gospel stories like Irenaeus, did NOT write about the ACTIVITIES of the disciples and Paul, and did NOT acknowledge Paul as an early evangelist which indicates that Justin's writings PREDATE "Against Heresies".

Duvduv

Yeah, right. He's so meticulous that he won't name a single name, community, predecessor, colleague of his so-called Christian world. He doesn't even say a word about the name and background of the Old Man. Meticulous, right........

aa5874

Please, why would the later Church claimed Justin met an unknown old man instead of bishops of Rome like Hyginus, Pius I, and Anicetus, or Church writers like Irenaeus, Polycarp, or Hegesippus???

The fact that Justin implied that he did NOT know of and did consult any well-known Christian leader or Bishop on his QUEST for the truth shows that the Jesus cult was in its INFANCY stage at around the mid 2nd century.

Before Justin was converted he Consulted with KNOWN philosphers of the 2nd century on his QUEST for the Truth about God.

We would expect a later Church writer to claim Justin consulted with the writings of Paul and the Christian Bishops of the Roman Empire.

Justin NEVER even mentioned a Bishop of any Church or the Bishop of his own.

The writings of Justin SHOW that the Jesus cult was in its early stage up to the mid 2nd century which is COMPATIBLE with the DATED Texts.

mountainman

The later Church presents an unknown old man (in addition to Christian Bishops LISTS of Rome and Alexandria and the capital city of Persia) as another Christian. That's all they had to do - continue to assert that the "Jesus Story" in Constantine's Bible had some sort of antiquity. They succeeded, didn't they?

Duvduv

AA asks why the author of Justin didn't mention these other names as the Old Man which would lend more integrity to Justin. Well, who says the author of the work even heard of these names when he wrote his text??

Sheshbazzar

If Justin had stated that the old man's name was Fotunatius the son of Lucranius, and that he had been ordained by Bishop Gladatius of Sacrofano, and that his companions were Stephanos, Aqulinius, and Honorarius, What exactly would that information add to the legitimacy of his accounts?

Why should anyone expect me, or any contemporary preacher to necessarily ever make any mention our Jack Van Impe or Benny Hinn?

Duvduv

Good point. Of course the absence of any information about the Old Man, how he found out about this nascent Christian religion, his name, place of origin, etc. just adds to the lack of integrity of the whole Justin scenario, who says nothing about the so-called Christian communities, where they existed, who his colleagues were, etc. because when it was written none of these things could be known about any Christ sect back in the 2nd century because such sect DIDN'T EXIST in the second century, The writer wasn't creative enough to think up something beyond a philosophical discussion. And that assumes that the Apology was written by a single individual or the same person as the Dialogue (Monologue) with Trypho.

aa5874

Again, you are not making much sense. You are arguing that writings attributed to Justin were written by later apologists but that they did NOT know that they should have put in more fiction.

You give the absurd impression that your supposed late author was a complete idiot.

You seem to have no ability to apply any logic or basic understanding to what you have read

1. The very FIRST thing you should ascertain or understand is the History of the Church as stated by the 4th century Church writers.

It is IMPERATIVE and OBLIGATORY that you first establish what the 4th century Church writers wrote about the state of affairs of the Jesus cult in the supposed 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries.

2. The History of the Church as stated by 4th century Church writers is NOT compatible with the writings of Justin Martyr.

3. The 4th century Church writers did NOT use the writings of Justin Martyr to corroborate the ACTIVITIES of the supposed early Church---they used writings attributed Ireneaus, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline letters, Hegesippus, Papias, Ignatius, Polycarp, An anonymous letter attributed to Clement of Rome, and others.

The writings of Justin Martyr were NOT composed by the Later Apologetic sources of the 4th century since they contradict the History of the supposed early Church as stated by 4th century Church writers.

Duvduv

AA, the Byzantine Regime Church did not emerge in an adult form at one time. It emerged over time, so what's the problem?!
In terms of the Justin writings, there is no way of knowing how many individuals may have contributed to their writing and when. You yourself would have to wonder why the Justin writings mention elements of the Jesus story that do not appear in the epistles that ostensibly did not even exist yet. That's why it could have been more than one author. After all, why does Justin mention Mary and verses of Tanakh relevant to the Davidic messiah but the author(s) of the epistles which ostensibly came out later DID NOT?

Why is it so hard to understand that the Old Man was not named Polycarp etc. if the author never knew of Polycarp etc. or even some more illustrious name like Timothy or that the Old Man was a disciple of an apostle or the grandson of one of the apostles, etc.??

The fact that this information does not appear simply means that the author was not very creative at that stage in the emergence of the Christ belief.
But his lack of creativity indicates the lack of a scenario that provides the NAMES, PLACES and COMMUNITIES of Justin's so-called Christ sect of the 2nd century because they did not exist.
Who ever heard of someone valiantly appealing to the leader of an empire on behalf of his virtually unknown people without providing some data about the sect that makes the appeal meaningful? Especially if there were multiple sects, including ones that were heretics against the true sect of Justin, and who or what made them heretics in relation to some apostolic succession or tradition (which Justin doesn't even mention).

Again, the great Old Man - nothing, not even a name.
Communities and locations - nothing, not even city names.
Predecessors, colleagues - nothing, not even names.

aa5874

Again, you are NOT making much sense. You keep changing your story.

If you don't know who, how, when and why Justin Martyr's writings were composed then your posts are of no real value.

If you don't know when the Church was established and what was the History of the Jesus cult in antiquity then what is your point??

Your Speculation and Presumptions are worthless.

We have writings atrributed to 4th century Church writers and we have writings attributed to 2nd century Apologetic source like Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian.

It is a rather SIMPLY EXERCISE to see which of them is NOT compatible with the History of the Jesus cult.

Justin Martyr's Incompatibility Stands out like a sore thumb.

The writings of Justin Martyr are NOT a product of the 4th century Church and are NOT derived from 2nd century Apologetic sources like Irenaeus and Tertullian.