Duvduv

The whole thing is highly suspect. What does anointed mean to the writer and what was it intended to mean to the reader?
Anointed to do what and by whom? Under whose leadership?
And even if the writer conceived of a Logos-Son philosophy in a Greek sense, it still has no appreciable meaning to be explained to the uninitiated.

aa5874

Whether or not you understand what 'anointed' means has no little value since we have sources that claim that people are Christians because they are Anointed and made ZERO mention of Jesus.

Theophilus to Autolycus 1 Theophilus destroys any claim that one must believe in Jesus to be called a Christian in antiquity which CORROBORATES Justin Martyr.

Duvduv

However, AA, you are forgetting about the central point: that this case does not explain WHO or WHAT a "Christian" believes in fact when speaking to an uninitiated reader. The writer says nothing beyond explaining some generic philosophy and then says "You what a Christian is? It's someone who's been anointed!"
To which any thinking person would say, "Anointed by whom to do what and where?"

Someone can write a generic letter and said "You know what a Jew is? it's a person who believes in God!" So what? What is that supposed to mean?

On the other hand, if the letter had previously existed in a form unrelated to the word Christian, it could easily be upgraded to a Christian document. After all, why go through the process of doing everything from scratch when you can plagiarize other writings and insert your own points here or there? No one will care especially if it's one of many documents that seemingly complement one another.

aa5874

Who would fabricate 2 books in the 4th century about Christians being anointed that nobody understood when they could write about Jesus, the disciples and Paul???

I EXPECT fraudsters and Interpolators to write books like "Against Heresies" to give the FALSE impression that people of antiquity were aware of the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

Which fraudster and interpolator would write 2 books and claim to be a Christian but did NOT mention Jesus the LORD, MESSSIAH, SON OF GOD and SAVIOR???

It is rather easy to identify writings that were NOT interpolated. So easy, so simple.

Writings that do NOT claim that there were four Gospels, do NOT use and do NOT acknowledge Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters are most likely NOT manipulated or from the 4th century Church.

Duvduv

The way you describe it makes sense only if you assume a CENTRALIZED hierarchical authority with his hands on everything. However, in a world where this was not that case, and people were producing and changing things all over the place, it is absolutely believable that such writings were adopted and adapted without much thought to an OVERALL or OVERARCHING centralized agenda of a uniform religion.

But what we see in anti-heresy writings is some authority seeking to assert itself as the historically true tradition of the religion, which could have easily taken place LATER than some of the poorly doctored writings, INCLUDING the pauline epistles.

A better question from your perspective is simply WHY didn't the centralized church authority, once it emerged, remake the texts from scratch with more uniformity?? The only response that could exist is that by that stage the texts as they were known were too strongly embedded among the masses who adhered to them, and thus it would have been much too difficult to remake them from scratch and have the existing texts discarded, including the four different gospels and all the epistles attributed to "Paul" and at the same time accepted by the growing masses of the religion.

aa5874

Your argument is NOW admittefly self-contradictory. You speculated that texts were manipulated yet is now admitting some texts were NOT.

Well, that is PRECISELY what I have been telling you all along.

There are Texts that for some reason were LEFT fundamentally UNALTERED even though they contradicted the History of the Church as described by Eusebius.

For example, if a fraudster or interpolator wrote "First Apology" attributed to Justin Martyr it would be EXPECTED that he would address his APOLOGY to Claudius or Nero some time in the 1st century BEFORE the Fall of the Temple but NOT 100 years later in the mid 2nd century to the Emperor Antoninus.

Duvduv

The fact that the letter is addressed to Antoninus is of little consequence. There is no way of knowing when it was inserted into the composite. I didn't say there are parts unaltered. I said that it is possible that "Christians" adopted pieces of texts they found around from other sects and adapted them as they went along.

Justin fits into the pattern to the extent that he does not include all aspects of orthodoxy more perfectly though he is a heresiologist, since his text would had to have included Paul and explicity refereneces to the official gospels.

But apparently by the time the authority did become centralized, Justin was accepted as "good enough" to support their teachings in a complementary manner ("let's include him too").

Remember, Justin NEVER says where his sect is, never says WHO their leaders are, WHERE they originated, WHO his Old Man was, HOW they found out about the Christ, etc. So that means that it was written before a time of a clean hierarchy of central authority.

The view that there were "bishops" contradicts the essence of the orthodox, which implies uniform hierarchy. Not only that, but an Arian bishop would not be considered a "bishop" or vice versa. How could they all meet in Nicea as equals if there were so many heretics?!

I don't think there was any centralized hierarchy in the fourth century at all. So the heresiologists may even actually be from the fifth century. Thus the world of the Nicene Creed is merely a legend. Perhaps even the Constantinople Creed got backdated into the 4th century.

Imagine the idea that the Orthodox themselves couldn't cover up the very late dispute over christology! I would ask them how it was possible that a fundamental pillar of their religion that they believed originated in around 35 CE took over 300 years to clarify among their own clergy?

I have even asked Christians about this, and they haven't been able to give me a satisfactory answer.

Duvduv

Can anyone shed any light as to how single set of contradictory verses in Galatians 1 could have escaped some smoothing out for so long?

Indeed, the autobiographical section starting in chapter 1:11 abruptly ends at chapter 2:15 with no transition back to the discourse to the letter's recipients. The writer even interrupts his description of his devotion to Judaism to refer back to his mother's womb, and then wanders off to talk about his "immediate response."
Anyway at the very beginning (below) there is a contradiction that goes unexplained:

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.

Duvduv

The flow of the logic from chapter 1 over to chapter 3 makes more sense where the author is addressing his audience (harshly) without interruption:

Chapter 1:6 - 9
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel — 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!
Chapter 3:1 - 4
3 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?[a] 4 Have you experienced[b] so much in vain—if it really was in vain?

aa5874

Your assertion is NOT logical. The fact that the 'Apology' is addressed to Antoninus implies that it was composed during the reign of the said Emperor and other information in the Apology appears to confirm the time of composition.

First Apology Justin writings show a Big Black Hole for the Jesus movement which is NOT expect if it was manipulated

Based on your own view, 150 years after the birth of Jesus Justin ONLY met an old man by accident and did NOT even know his name. Justin seem not to know of Christians or Jesus Christ before the unknown old man.

This cannot be the work of a fraudster of the 4th century who wanted people to believe that there were Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Pauline letter, Bishops and Churches all over the Roman Empire since the 1st century.

Justin Martyr Single-handedly DESTROYS the Entire History of the Church AFTER the supposed Ascension.