aa5874

You have merely asked three questions.

Were there Hebrew prophets 5000 years before Justin?

Did anyone prophesy the Christ?

Was there Acts of Pilate that told all the acts of Jesus?

You have NOT answered them. You very well know that if you answer your own questions that you may be ACCUSED of lying just like you are accusing Justin Martyr.

Rhetorical questions are NOT evidence that Justin lied.

So far you have been UNABLE to produce a single shred of evidence that Justin lied but simply do NOT believe what he wrote. That is all.

Your belief or unbelief is NOT evidence of anything.

Duvduv

There were no Hebrew prophet seven thousand years ago and none who predicted a Christ. Especially given the fact that the writer to the emperor doesn't even tell him who the Christ is.
And there were no Acts of Pilate detailing the actions of the Christ.
The author was highly confused. He was like some amateur undergrad student in the library and maybe not even that good.
He writes to an emperor without even explaining what this Christ is all about.
He just pontificates about how great his group is and doesn't even mention the names of colleagues or senior leaders or anyone else but himself.
He probably can't because he invented most of it with his encyclopedia in front of him and a vivid imagination. I am sure he didn't discuss the old man because there was no old man.

And the Apology wasn't even probably written in the second century or perhaps somebody came across a short letter or something from the second century and decided to have fun with it or submit it to his Creative Writing class.

Duvduv

The great bogeyman Marcion earns only passing mention in chapter 58. Not much considering how much ink was spilled by others about him. Eusebius probably noticed this problem for apologetica and said that Justin wrote a whole book on him. Of course not even a shred of information is brought about it by Eusebius and for a very good reason. There was no such book.
Not even for the literate classes. All the ink spilled was evidently for rhetorical purposes to contrast their truth from falsehood with alot of hype and invention even if Marcion did exist. So much for Justin's Apology.

aa5874

Please SHOW exactly where Justin Martyr wrote that there were Hebrew prophets seven thousand years ago?

I cannot locate such a statement by Justin Martyr in "First Apology",
"Second Apolgy" or "Dialogue with Trypho".

You are accusing Justin Martyr of Lying so you MUST provide the evidence.

Duvduv

See my message #7045617 again and chapter 31 of the First Apology.

aa5874

"First Apology" 31

You cannot prove at all that Justin Martyr was lying at all, you MERELY do NOT believe him.

Your belief or unbelief of Justin Martyr's statement does NOT make him a Liar.

You must present statements by Justin that he must have known that was False or that he knew could not possibly be true.

If you want to find LIES in Apologetic sources you NEED to look at "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

Duvduv

aa5874, I don't know if Justin really existed, or if the books were written by him if he did exist. But anyone analyzing the content closely of the Apology will come up with the same conclusion as to its content and context.

Why do you have to be so protective of Justin and his rambling (or the incoherent rambling of the "undergrad" who wrote the book or parts thereof)??

aa5874

Your assertion is clearly erroneously. This very discussion is proof that your claim is not logical or accurate since I do not agree with your conclusions about Justin.

Your own statement shows that you are inclined to make assertion about Justin Martyr that are erroneous. Why do you imply the author was an "undergrad"?

You really don't know who wrote the book.

Now, you seem not to understand that:

1. Justin did NOT provide the bogus information about the dating, authorship and chronology of the Canonized Gospel----it was "Irenaeus".

2. Justin did NOT provide the bogus information about the authorship, dating and chronology of Acts of the Apostles---it was "Irenaeus".

3. Justin did NOT provide the bogus information about the authorship, dating and chronology of the Pauline writings---it was "Irenaeus".

4. Justin did NOT provide the bogus information about the succession of Bishops of Rome---it was "Irenaeus".

5. Justin did NOT provide the bogus information about the the Great Dissension of the Church of Corinth---it was "Irenaeus".

6. Justin did NOT provide the bogus information that there was orthodoxy in the Church--it was "Irenaeus".

7. Justin Martyr did NOT provide the bogus information that Marcion used the Pauline writings and gLuke---it was "Irenaeus".

8. Justin Martyr did NOT provide the bogus information about Polycarp and Papias--it was "Irenaeus".

Yoy really don't understand that the supposed History of the EARLY Church is based virtually ENTIRELY on the bogus information in "Against Heresies".

ALL the LIES in "Against Heresies" were used in "Church History" attributed to Eusebius.

Up to today, the LIES in "Against Heresies" of the supposed early Church are being propagated even by Scholars.

Justin Martyr's writings do not have the LIES found in "Against Heresies" so I consider that Justin Martyr as a credible source and was NOT manipulated by apologetic sources.

If the writings of Justin Martyr were manipulated then they would contain IDENTICAL or similar LIES as found in "Against Heresies".

Duvduv

Not necessarily. The Justin book could still also be bogus but in a different way. I agree with your list of points, however, by looking at the actual content of what Justin is writing, you can see how incoherent it is, in its own right, having nothing to do with Irenaeus or anyone else.

I take each thing on its own merits of content and in relation to the context in which it is offered. Just because Irenaeus is bogus doesn't make Justin the gospel truth. No one knows anything significant about Irenaeus, and I do not believe the book under his name was written in the 2nd century. But Justin on his own has very serious problems as I have pointed out.

aa5874

What is incoherent in the writings attributed to Justin Martyr? You are just making wild assertion that are unsubstantiated.

Justin Martyr's writings are internally sound quite unlike the writings attributed to Irenaeus.

Let us compare the statements about the crucifixion of Jesus in "First Apology" and "Dialogue with Trypho" by Justin Martyr with statements in "Against Heresies" and " Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching" attributed to Irenaeus who was supposedly a Bishop of the Church.


First Apology Dialogue with Trypho Now observe the confusion in the writings attributed to a supposed Bishop of the Church of Lyons. He did NOT know when Claudius was Emperor and did NOT know when Pilate was governor but still claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old.

Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching Do you see the MASSIVE LIE by the Bishop? It is virtually impossible that a Bishop of the Church, Irenaeus, did NOT know when Cladius was Emperor and Pilate was Governor when he was ALSO aware of the Four Canonized Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

And now look at a ANOTHER MASSIVE LIE. He will claim Jesus was crucified when he was about 50 years old when he was aware of the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

Against Heresies 2.22 We know who the LIARS are. Their stories have MASSIVE holes. The writings attributed to Irenaeus are a Pack of Lies.

Now, all you have to do is just SIMPLY and EASILY look for the writings that have the same or similar bogus information about the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline writings and the succession of bishops.

Let us begin. The List is LONG

1. Writings under Irenaeus.

2. Writings under Tertullian.

3. Wrings under Clement of Rome.

4.Writings under Clement of Alexandria.

5. Writings under Origen.

6. Writings under Eusebius.