aa5874

You have just merely repeated the same baseless hypothesis.

You have not established that the NT books were regarded as witnesses to words and deeds more than sacred texts.

Justin referred to the memoirs of the apostles one hundred and fifty (150) years after the so-called birth of Jesus, Irenaeus referred to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John about twenty-five (25) years later.

There is not even any information available to determine when the memoirs of the apostles were written. Justin already stated that the memoirs were written by the apostles, giving their names at least once, could not be regarded as a distraction, when Justin had given the name of John, an apostle of Jesus, who wrote a 'revelation"

How can you show that Justin did consider the memoirs less sacred than the OT texts?

Again, your explanation is extremely dubious and is in fact without merit ,whatsoever.

andrewcriddle

IF one is talking about a special vision/revelation given to someone it is obviously relevant to say who had the vision. It is not as obviously relevant, when dealing with what you regard as witnesses of recent events, to make clear exactly whose written version of events you are using.
Even today one may say that something has been in the News without specifying exactly which article with which byline one is talking about.
The phrase APOMNHMONEUMATA TWN APOSTOLWN the "memoirs of the apostles" or the apostles notes/jottings, would be an unusual way of referring to sacred texts. Also, the way in which Justin (probably) and his pupil Tatian (certainly) preferred a harmony of the Gospels to the originals, indicates a greater interest in the events described in the texts, than in the texts themselves.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

You are not making much sense.

Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" and Tertullian in "Against Marcion", during the very 2nd century, mentioned there were gospels that were named after Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and it should be obvious to you that it is most likely that Irenaeus and Tertullian either saw or was aware that the words Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written on their texts as the authors.

It should also be obvious to you that it is most likely that the texts which Justin called the Gospels did not have the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John written on them, since when he quoted passages from gMark and gLuke, it would be erroneous and misleading to say that Mark and Luke were apostles.

Mark and Luke were not apostles yet Justin quoted passages from "memoirs of the apostles" that are only found in gMark and gLuke.


Again, this all unsubstantiated meritless speculation not based on any facts at all.

Based on Justin Martyr "First Apology", "the memoirs of the apostles" were regarded as sacred, these memoirs were read every Sunday at the Churches in the cities and the country.

No mention of Mark or Luke who were not apostles.

First Apology LXVII Justin Martyr's First Apology contradicts you.

The memoirs of the apostles were indeed very sacred according to Justin and may have been the only sacred source outside of the OT, at least during Justin's time, since he never mentioned the Acts of the Apostles, the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, the epistles to seven the Churches and "Paul".

Minimalist

Um, actually it was Antoninus Pius who reigned from 138-161....much later than Titus. Perhaps that was when xtianity really got going?

andrewcriddle

The memoirs of the apostles were dealing with sacred things, that is why they were read in church. That is not the same as being a sacred text, strict sense.

The accounts of the martyrs were read in church, they dealt with a subject very precious to the early church, but they were not sacred texts in the strict sense, (for example they were highly subject to rewriting).

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

Sacred texts are a sacred things in any strict sense.


The memoirs of the apostles dealt with sacred things called the SACRED WORDS of the HOLY THING called the Son of the God of the Jews.

First Apology by Justin Martyr Let's not get distracted from the fact that the memoirs of the apostles contained the sacred words of the Son of God of the Jews

Dialogue with Trypho by Justin Martyr.

andrewcriddle

I entirely agree that the words of Jesus Christ found in the memoirs of the apostles are sacred to Justin.

I may not have been making myself clear.

I entirely agree that the memoirs of the apostles contain what Justin regards as sacred material. What I am questioning is whether the memoirs of the apostles are in themselves sacred texts. IE does Justin value them mainly as a source of information about what Jesus said and did or does he also value and regard as authoritative the way in which these texts interpret their material.

If as is IMO true, Justin is only really interested in the memoirs of the apostles as a source of information about Jesus; then the identity of the person who wrote down a particular piece of material is much less important than if the written text is regarded as inspired and sacred in its own right.

Andrew Criddle

djrafikie

If the bible is comprised of inspired and sacred texts, and god is apparently working in our world, right now, why do we not continue to see equally inspired and worshipped texts?
Whats the point in having a pope if people don't worship his writings on a par with any of the other biblical writers (which they don't. some have fleeting popularity, but aren't revered in the same way).
Whats the point in having a priest if his works don't command the same respect? Are their musings "less holy" or is it just easier to respect the babblings of strangers of they are no longer alive to shatter the illusion?
/rant.

Do you actually worship god?
Or a book?

sschlichter

oops, my bad, doesn't change the answer to the question.

djrafikie

erm.. punctuation, not present in much of the torah, or latin vulgates.
added later..
we all accept it can change meanings, right?
it was all added much later.