Sheshbazzar

So you wish to claim that everything that Justin Martyr (allegedly) wrote is a factual accounting?
Or do you wish to be able to just pick and choose such selected statements from Justin's (alleged) writings that you can employ to support your 'position'?

Your replies above have simply dodged answering the question of whether these writings (allegedly) produced by Justin Martyr are CREDIBLE.
And whether this 'Justin' can be trusted as being a CREDIBLE WITNESS.
After all it is you yourself that above stated;
So is what Justin (allegedly) wrote CREDIBLE or not?

Is not your argument really that -only the portions you want to pick and choose- (and need) to give support to your 'position' are all of what Justin (allegedly) wrote that you are willing to accept as being credible?

That you choose to 'select' some portions of Justin's (alleged) writings to legitimize your arguments and 'position' is no evidence that this 'Justin' is a CREDIBLE witness, or his (alleged) writings are CREDIBLE reports on 2nd century CE beliefs.

Duvduv

<SIGH>............

aa5874

Please, all you have to do is to show that writings attributed to Justin Martyr are NOT Credible.

That is all.

Some people, even Scholars, use writings attributed to Paul for the history of the Jesus cult but I consider Paul a LIAR because he claimed JESUS DIED and simultaneously asserted that HE SAW JESUS ALIVE. See 1 Cor. 15

The Pauline writer is a LIAR because he claimed he MET Peter in Jerusalem and stayed with him for 15 days when Peter was a Fictitious character in the Jesus story. See Galatians 1.18-19

The Pauline writer is a LIAR because he claimed he Received his Gospel from No man but from the Revelation of the Resurrected Jesus. Even if Jesus did Exist he could NOT have revealed anything to the Pauline writer AFTER he was dead. See Galatians 1 and 1 Cor. 11

I USE writings that are Compatible with the Recovered Dated Texts and those attributed to Justin Martyr, Aristides, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Tatian, Minucius Felix, Arnobius, Julian the Emperor, and Excerpts from Celsus' "True Discourse" as stated in Origen "Against Celsus".


Again, if you are arguing that Justin Martyr is NOT Credible then PRESENT the evidence.

That is all.

Duvduv

That's NOT all, because you don't believe Paul ever existed in the first century. So HOW. could a nonexistent person be a liar? And there are plenty of reasons to reject a second century existence for Justin, and the reasons are just as good as the reasons for a nonexistent Paul in the first century.

aa5874

Please, when I say "Paul" I refer to the author of the Pauline writings as STATED in the Recovered Existing Codices.

The writer under the name of PAUL is a LIAR. The Pauline writings as found Canonised are a PACK of LIES.

Again, if your argument is that Justin is NOT credible then SIMPLY present the evidence,.

The author of Acts is NOT Credible because in Acts of the Apostles It was implied that the author was a contemporary of Jesus and claimed that author himself traveled with Saul/Paul and that he [Saul/Paul] met Peter and the other Apostles.

The Apostles are fictious characters in the Jesus stories. They had NO real existence.

The author of Acts is NOT Credible.

Please, Identify where Justin Martyr is NOT Credible??? That is all.

There are PLENTY of reasons why Justin is Credible.

Justin did NOT mention the FOUR Canonised Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline letters, and the Non-Pauline letters.

Don't you even realise that Justin Martyr's writings may HELP you to IDENTIFY your 4th century writings???

Based on Justin ALONE, ALL the books in the Canon, except for Revelation, could have been composed anytime AFTER the mid 2nd century.

Duvduv

I have already pointed out several times where the content and therefore the very existence of a second century Justin are not credible. In view of it I cannot see why you consider a second century Justin to be more credible than a first century Paul given each one's context.

aa5874

You have pointed out NO such thing. You have merely stated what you IMAGINE.

TedM

Since the truth is that you don't even believe Paul was a real person, why are you calling him a LIAR? How can a non-existent person be a LIAR? Should I now call YOU a LIAR since you are claiming that a non-existent person EXISTED as a LIAR?

Do you not see how absurd these kinds of statements are? Can't people have appearances of a formerly dead person in a dream--and conclude that the person is alive? Can't the word 'SAW' reflect something other than a literal viewing?

Don't bother responding. I refuse to get worked up over this nonsense coming from you.

aa5874

What nonsense!!! Don't you see that I am referring to the Pauline writer.

The Pauline writer is called Paul.

Now, the Pauline writer is a LIAR when he claimed Jesus was DEAD and that he SAW him Alive.

1 Corinthians 15:15 KJV

TedM

Yeah but Paul didn't really exist, so who cares what this writer wrote--EVERYTHING WAS A LIE since HE was falsely impersonating.

Why do you spend hour after hour showing the so-called 'lies' in writings that you believe were written by false impersonators in the first place? Why not just call the whole thing a lie and move on with your life and do something actually productive?

My comment about dreams and not being literal just went WOOOOOSSSHHHH right over your head.

Anyway, my response to all this is: SO WHAT?