aa5874

Again, you are back with your ambiguous "Catholic" BS. You MUST Identify your Sources and be specific.

You are cluttering my thread with all sorts of No Source stories about "Catholics".

If you you don't have any Sources then I don't want to hear them.

Duvduv

Shesh, I really think it is hopeless and useless to continue engaging a person such as AA who is not the slightest bit interested in discussing anything of substance. You wrote a very long reply to him and he ignored it. I learned this lesson the hard way. There is no point.

aa5874

I am tired of all the ambiguous "Catholic" BS from Sheshbazzar because he does NOT provide any Sources or Evidence.

This is BC&H.

I present my sources so why he doesn't do the same??

There is NO evidence whatsoever that the writings of Justin Martyr were composed in the 4th century or by unknown ambiguous "Catholics".

A supposed 2nd century writer Tatian considered a Heretic by the very Church did acknowledge Justin in his "Address to the Greeks".

As I have said before the FACT that there is a writing called "Against the Galileans" attributed to Julian the Emperor of Rome in the 4th century where Julian claimed the Galileans [Jesus and his disciples] was a "Monstrous Tale composed by the Wickedness of men" then it cannot be ASSUMED that all writings of antiquity were writing by the Church.

Against the Galileans Against the Galileans was NOT written by the Church--well it is the same thing with the writings of Justin. They were NOT composed by the Church.

The writings of Justin Martyr suggest that that the "history" of the Galileans was a fiction of men composed by wickedness and that the fable has induced men to believe the Monstrous tale is the truth.

Sheshbazzar

Nothing ambiguous about it. The emergent 'orthodox' and 'catholic' church organization produced ALL of these so called 'Patristic' writings, to supplement and expand upon the 'gospel' and 'Pauline epistles' that they had formerly forged.

None of the stories in the NT are actual history. It is ALL religious fiction from beginning to end, contrived as propaganda to control mens mind's, and thus seize the Power to govern and exploit humanity to the advantage of the conspiring 'orthodox' and 'catholic' hierarchy.

Its not rocket science, but only the old but clever religious 'witch doctor' methodology for grasping psychological and social control, which has been employed upon primitive societies by their leaders since the dawn of time.

A lot of staged pomp and mysterious rigmarole, more than a little 'slight of hand', and public deception to impress the largely superstitious and uneducated populace, then set them against each other by instigating infighting about the 'words', 'wishes', or nature of the cult god, then use their 'God given' 'authority' to ostracize, tax to death, and eliminate all enemies of the 'catholic orthodoxy'.

These are the roots of, and these are the methods that were employed in the formation of the 'Christian' form of religion, and in the development of the early 'catholic' and 'orthodox' church; Words that in time came to be capitalized and to identify the specific branches of this ancient mind control religious cult.

Just did. I have no need to employ the made up names of your favored but non-existent Catholic 'saints'.

Your off on the wrong tangent. I have NOT claimed that "the writings of Justin Martyr were composed in the 4th century".
Only that they are not the genuine untampered with products of any 2nd century writer named Justin Martyr,
-no more than the Catholic Church's "Gospel Which is According to Saint Matthew" ever originated with any real 'Apostle' named Matthew.
The Church invented both The 'Gospel' and that name ('Matthew') which they latter added to it.
_And that the contents of these old church writings were continually modified, 'updated' and expanded for centuries in an attempt to keep them in relative state of conformity to the evolving questions and complexities of the orthodox and catholic theology.
[There was a limit to how much The Church could get away with backdating and stuffing into the mouths of Jesus and Paul, particularly as the stories became well known and accepted-
Other mouth-pieces were needed. voila!' The 'writings' of long since long dead and gone 'Church Fathers', 'Clement', Justin', 'Origen'......thus no one could question them, and no one could argue with them. ]
_And to use these latter added portions of text to insert false testimonies about earlier theological ideas and practices, so as to misrepresent and (ab)use these ancient Church Father's 'words' to support, and to give a patina of legitimacy to the Church's latter theological innovations and additions.
There was a lot of animosity and infighting going on in the early Christian church. Different factions produced their own religious propaganda. Of course the 'orthodox' and 'catholic' power structure regarded these as 'Heretics', and when it was in their hand to do so, set out to purge any and all opposition and 'heresy' from their midst.

This 'Tatian' was allegedly a student of 'Justin Martyr' (it is impossible at this late date to verify if ANY of the Catholic reported 'history' has any basis in fact)
Tatian was a member of the Church -The 'catholic' and 'orthodox' one- until his views, demonstrated by his writings as not being in full conformity with those of 'The catholic' and 'orthodox Church, caused him to be expelled from the 'communion' of The 'catholic' and 'orthodox Church.
So Tatian did not recieve the status of 'Sainthood' within The 'catholic' and 'orthodox Church. But that -is- according to The 'catholic' and 'orthodox' Church's tale, where he began.

Seems that I asked you for to "quote to me from the writings of those CONTEMPORARY, non-religious and non-Catholic writers whose writings support and confirm your Catholic version of history."
Referencing the works of the religious writer, and former 'catholic' Church member, 'Tatian' most certainly does NOT serve to fill that request.


I have never claimed they were. Many religious writings were written by non-'christians', whatever could be borrowed and adapted to 'Christian' usages was.
Emperor Julian was prominent enough, and in sufficient power, that The Catholic Church was unable to supress public knowledge and record of his well known opinions and rulings that went against, and withstood the 'monsterous tale' fabricated by the wicked Catholic Church.

Julian calling them 'Galileans' at that late date, was a spit in the eye of 'The Holy Roman Catholic Church' that now prided itself on its impressive and officious sounding title
You wish.

'Justin' -if there ever was such a character-, according to the very Church accounts that you are borrowing this Horse-shit from, was a member of the 'catholic' and 'orthodox Christian Church.
In fact in the Christian Church of that day, 'Justin Martyr's' writings would have represented the most 'orthodox' and 'catholic' writings that the Church could produce.
Real, or only a 'talking head' front man, 'Justin' was for centuries, one of the first and foremost of voices of Catholocisim.

I hold that these 'Justin's' writings (just like 'Matthew's', and 'Paul's') were composed by the Church, and were added to, and diddled with by The Catholic Church for centuries to present the evolving 'catholic' and 'orthodox' views.
What we got now, identified as being 'Justin Martyr's' writings, are not, and never were.
'Justin Martyr' is a product of, and was used by The Catholic Church's in the same way that 'Paul of Tarsus' was.
Neither one of which ever existed or wrote in that fashion fed to us by 'Catholic' Christian Church 'History'.

? You ought to proof-read the horse-shit you post.




.

Sheshbazzar

The purpose and point of my replies is not to educate aa, but to point out the flaws in his reasoning and methodology to others.

It is my hope, that out of all of this prolonged wrangling, the readers will learn to become a lot more skeptical of the claims of the provenance of Christian writings and 'History'.

aa5874

You are cluttering my thread with BS.

You have NO Sources--No Evidence for your "Catholic stories".

Name your sources--produce the evidence for your Speculation about YOUR CATHOLICS.

You are totally incapable of showing that Justin Martyr is NOT Credible.

Justin Martyr described Jesus as a Myth--born WITHOUT sexual union-- and that the Jesus story was like the Myth Fables of the Greeks and Romans.

Justin Martyr destroys the HJ argument that Jesus was human with a human father.

Newton's Cat

Why does Mark say that Simon of Cyrene had two sons (Rufus and Alexander)?

Simon bar Kochba's son, RUFUS continued the revolt after Simon's death.

Why Cyrene?

There was a major Jewish uprising against the Romans in 116 that started in Cyrene.

The earliest actual authenticated reference to Christians seems to have been by a Jewish rabbi in the late 130s

Just as in modern times authors often write historical novels (set 100 years ago for instance) but the characters and storyline actually refer to contemporary scenes ... so did the author of Mark.

As an aside: Saul became Paul in Acts in a scene in which Sergius Paulus and Barjesus were present.

Sheshbazzar

Too bad (for you) that you have not thought through the further implications of your 'Theory' and 'argument'.

"Justin Martyr described Jesus as a Myth--born WITHOUT sexual union-- and that the Jesus story was like the Myth Fables of the Greeks and Romans."

Your favorite 'catholic' and 'orthodox' Christian saint and writer lived and wrote in the 2nd century CE.
(well, at least that is what both The Catholic Church, and you accept---after all -they- TOLD you so.
And we all know that The Catholic Church would never lie about anything. Right aa???)

That means aa, that your favorite 2nd century Catholic Saint -'Justin' had never met, and was in fact actually totally unacquainted with any person who may have been executed in Judea way back in the 30s CE.

At most, all your loony-tunes religious nut 'Justin' ever had to go on in making up that complex written religious theological horse shit that is attributed to him, were rumors and traditions, that even he could not have verified.
(Would you now like to take up an argument that 'The Memoirs of the Apostles' really did date to the 1st century? :-)

Certainly what this religious fruitcake 'Justin' wrote was nothing more than an account of a 2nd century CE -goyim- invented mythology and a likewise invented and adapted Platonic -goy- 'theology'.

Thus such 'Justinian' statements as "the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union"
Actually inform of us of nothing pertaining to any real 1st century Jewish personage that may or may not have existed.
'Justin's' garbage religious testimony only informs of the type of -goyim- 'theological' religious lunacy that came to the fore in the 2nd century CE.

'Justin's' religious claims and long winded rantings about his theology and how his 'God' and 'Jesus' were related, has no more connection to the real world, or to any real history of the Jews religion than the shoutings and rantings of the most insane and unstable of today's New York 'street preachers'.
What 'Justin' writes cannot be validly taken as any accurate accounting of anything known or believed in 1st century CE Judea.

What 'Justin' writes about are 2nd century CE -gentile- beliefs, and a developing 'Christian' theology that is based upon the theological reasonings and writings of known and popular ancient Greek philosophers, syncretised to ancient Jewish writings and Mesopotamian-Egyptian symbology, all mixed in with dozens of ideas, practices, and 'holy days' culled from the various 'pagan' -unsophisticated 'folk' cults.
Whatever 'tradition' could not be suppressed, was co-opted and now called 'catholic' and 'Christian'.
Which by the way, remains the officially endorsed practice of The Holy Roman Catholic and Christian Church to this day, in every country and culture to which 'Catholicism' spreads.

In sum, whatever stupid fabricated mythological horse shit you may quote from the writings of the -goy- 'Justin's' 2nd century religious mythology, it has nothing at all to do with the realities of any actual 1st century Jewish person that may or may not have lived, or have been thought by some to have been that Messiah promised in the Prophets.

"Justin Martyr destroys the HJ argument that Jesus was human with a human father."

Justin Martyr's writings are non-contemporary catholic religious shit, and are of no value at all in determining anything regarding any 1st century CE Jesus.

Your 'Theory' in this matter is screwed and demolished.





.

aa5874

You are cluttering my thread with your "Catholic" BS. Where do you get your Catholic stories from???

Name your sources for your "Catholic" BS.

In Church History attributed to Eusebius the author did NOT acknowledge the Memoirs of the Apostles as stated by Justin.

In Church History attributed to Eusebius the author did NOT acknowledge that it was the Memoirs of the Apostles that was READ in the Churches on Sundays.

In fact, virtually all Church writers that mentioned Jesus stories called Gospels did NOT identify or name the Memoirs of the Apostles as described by Justin.

Scholars have Rejected the date, authorship and chronology of many books in the NT as stated by Eusebius in Church History and claim that the Gospels were really Anonymous.

Well, the Memoirs of the Apostles had NO named or identified author.

Justin Martyr writings are compatible with the consensus of Scholars--the early Gospels had NO named authors.

Justin Martyr is a Credible Source.

Justin Martyr wrote the History of the Church from the time of Tiberius to Antoninus c 37-150 CE and it is a Big Black Hole.

Justin's Entire History of the Jesus cult was confined to the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Sheshbazzar

It won't work aa, anyone that reads my statements will be aware that you are avoiding confronting and addressing the points I raised.

Your Source was the catholic and orthodox voice of his day.
And was thus honored by The Catholic Church's, both the 'Roman' and 'The Eastern Orthodox' as being a Catholic 'Saint'.

Justin as a 2nd century CE Christian religious writer was not a contemporary of any 1st century Jesus. Never met him, and never knew him.

Whatever Justin may have wrote (theological garbage culled from the writings of the Philosopher Plato) is of no value at all in determining the nature of any unknown 1st century Jewish citizen.
Justin's ridiculous theologically driven 'description' of Jesus is not worth the ink that was expended.

Quoting Justin in an attempt to prove something about the 'nature' or the manner of 'birth' of Jesus is a stupid exercise .....unless you happen to be a 'closet' Catholic in need of spreading Catholic religious propaganda.

There is no connection between that theological drivel that Justin composed, and any actual 1st century personage.
It cannot be used as proof that any such Jesus lived, likewise it cannot be used to prove that no Jewish citizen named Jesus did not live, and have rumors spread about him.