aa5874

Don't you even realize that You have answered the same questions yourself??? Did you NOT say that Justin was made a Saint by the Greek Orthodox Catholic Church LONG BEFORE the Roman Catholics??

You just have to present the Credible sources of antiquity that you used.

Duvduv and others want your Credible Sources of antiquity so that they can see that the Greek Orthodox Catholic Church was LONG BEFORE the Roman Catholic Church.

Did you use the writings of Ignatius, Papias, Polycarp, Hegesippus, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Eusebius???



Now, name the Credible sources of antiquity for your history of Saint Justin and the Greek Orthodox Catholic Church.

You still have NOT shown that writings attributed to Justin are NOT Credible.

Remember you claimed the Greeks and Egyptians were deeply in 'Christian theology' BEFORE the Romans.

Sheshbazzar

I made the claims. You are welcome to produce your evidence that refutes them.

aa5874

What a load of BS. You have been asking me for evidence that there was NO Jesus story in the 1st century yet now that you claim that the Greek Orthodox Catholic Church acknowledged Justin as a Saint LONG BEFORE the Roman Church all of a sudden I must LOOK for evidence.

You have NOTHING to refute. You are reading from a BLANK page.

You are engaged in a NO Source--NO Evidence--NO Proof argument.

I have found Credible Sources of antiquity that are Compatible with the DATED Recovered Dead Sea Scrolls and NT Manuscripts that show NO Jesus story and Activities of the disciples and Paul.

I NAME my SOURCES--the DATED Recovered Texts, writings attributed to Justin Martyr, Aristides, Minucius Felix, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Arnobius, Julian the Emperor and Ephraim the Syrian.

The history of the Jesus cult MUST be derived from Credible Sources. The history of the Jesus cult originated in the 2nd century.

Sheshbazzar

I don't buy your hokey 'theory' that in the space of less than 65 years, humanity and the 'church' went from NO "Jesus Christ" known at all, to that elaborate and highly developed theology that is found within 'Justin's ' writings.
'Justin' is NOT credible as being a 2nd century writer. And yours is NOT a credible claim.
I've got popcorn, plenty of beer, and a lot of patience. And I'll wait for more evidence, and an explanation that makes a lot more sense than yours.




.

aa5874

Again, you are engaged in a NO Source--No Evidence--NO Proof Argument.

Name the credible source of antiquity for your history of the Saint Justin Martyr and Greek Orthodox Catholic Church that was LONG BEFORE the Roman Catholics.

Now, in "Against the Galileans" Julian the Emperor challenged anyone to show that well-known authors wrote about Jesus and Paul.

This implies that up to the mid 4th century that Julian the Emperor did NOT know of any writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius or Pliny the younger that mentioned Jesus and Paul.

Against the Galileans The Jesus story had NO influence on the Roman Empire in the 1st century but in the 2nd century there were multiple non-apologetic sources that show that the Jesus story did have some effect on the Roman Empire.

Duvduv

How the hell can AA keep referring to the Apology as "credible proof" when he cannot demonstrably, empirically PROVE that the text was written when he says it was?

His only "credible proof" is his own say-so. Or that of the church. He keeps demanding "credible proof" for the hypotheses of others but for his own hypotheses all he does is repeat the mantra CREDIBLE PROOF when he knowns perfectly well that he CANNOT EMPIRICALLY PROVE that the Apology was written in the second century.

Why does he constantly repeat his mantra and not admit this plain ordinary fact?!

If someone in the twenty first century publishes a text addressed to Abraham Lincoln that he says was written in the 19th century, is that demonstrable "Credible Evidence" that it was written in the 19th century?!!

aa5874

How can you argue that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 4th century WITHOUT any Credible Sources of antiquity???

You are engaged in a NO Source--No Evidence--No Proof argument. You have NOTHING but a Blank sheet of paper and your Imagination.

The History of Mankind can ONLY be assembled from Credible Sources.

How can so-called Scholars use the NT to argue that there was an HJ and that the Pauline writings were composed before c 68 CE??

So-called Scholars ADMIT the NT is NOT historically reliable and have deduced that the Pauline writings have been manipulated but in their Blind folly use the very Discredited Sources.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are garbage historically.

I cannot accept the NT as a Credible historical source because it is NOT Compatible with the DATED Recovered Texts like the DSS and NT manuscripts and it is filled with KNOWN Lies, fiction and Implausibilities.

The main character Jesus Christ was a Phantom, the Son of a Ghost and God the Creator. The NT is NOT history but a Compilation of Myth Fables like those of the Greeks and Romans.

Now that we have the Dated DSS and NT manuscripts they clearly show NO Jesus story in the 1st century and before c 68 CE.

They show 2nd-3rd century Jesus stories.

Justin Martyr, Aristides, Minucius Felix, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Tatian and Arnobius are all considered 2nd and 3rd century writers and their writings do NOT match the "History of the Church" as written by Irenaeus and Eusebius but they MATCH the recovered dated Texts.

We have Compatibility--We have a Match with the DATED Texts.

Those 2nd and 3rd century writers SHOW that an actual human Jesus was NOT required in the 1st century for the start of the Jesus cult of Christians.

ALL that was required was a BELIEF in GOD and Hebrew Scripture.

The Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century based on the abundance of evidence from Dated Sources of antiquity and COMPATIBLE Texts.

Sheshbazzar

You are going to have to do one hell of a lot better than that.

Like begin to address where and when and from whom your 'Justin' would have learned all of that evolved 3rd century Christological theology he writes about -before 150 CE, and in a religion that according to you, had existed for much less than 50 years.

How many Christians were in this church that had been around for much less than 50 years aa, that it would require a "petition in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused...For we are accused of being Christians, and to hate what is excellent (Chrestian) is unjust.
Again, if any of the accused deny the name, and say that he is not a Christian, you acquit him, as having no evidence against him as a wrong-doer; but if any one acknowledge that he is a Christian, you punish him on account of this acknowledgment"
_that has already become so large, so widespread, and so notoriously well known, that even admitting to be a Christian would cause the administrators of governments to single them out for unjust treatment, which is the excuse given for the writing of 'Justin's' "First Apology"?

Going back to one of your earlier arguments, in which you implied that 'The Memoirs of the Apostles' and 'Acts of Pontius Pilate' may have been composed as late as the same year that 'Justin' was converted.
It would be very interesting to hear what year you think that might have been aa.

But you have not at all been very forthcoming regarding the chronology of your credible 2nd century witnesses life.

But let's say, he was...oh... perhaps an old man of 20 when he first heard about "Jesus Christ" and 'Christianity', and as you have previously argued, Christianity and the name "Jesus Christ" had been invented and introduced to the world only months (or was it only weeks) before.
Giving 'Justin' a little time to learn and to absorb all of these complex teachings, theology, and doctrines of this religion -that had only existed for a few months upon his conversion, but miraculously produced this load of Christian theological crap, as were, overnight-
He takes up writing his "First Apology" in what year aa?

Naw, I don't expect to be able to extract any answers from you.

_So I'll just have to make a guess. Being the nice guy that I am, I'll guess that ol' Justin would have attended these Christian services and worshiped and learned about his God "Jesus Christ" and Christian doctrine for at least a whole 5 years before needing to compose his "First Apology".
Thus now his "Jesus Christ" religion is an entire whopping 5 years old! more or less, (per your suggested chronology) but already has so many countless thousands of followers that being recognized by the courts for their form of religion are already being are singled out for these unjust prosecutions that require Justin to be writing a "petition in behalf of those of all nations..." to the Emperor.

Is that about right aa?

Most scholars think Justin Martyr died around 169 CE give or take couple of years. Hard to tell what it is you think.

But accepting the dates given by the majority of sources, and subtracting those 20 years or so in which Justin had never even heard of "Jesus Christ" or Christianity (according to your 'Theory') the name 'Jesus Christ' and the Christian religion had only been around for about 50 years when Justin Martyr was martyred.
'He' wrote an incredible amount of Christian religious material in an incredibly short time.
Even more incredibly Justin's writings were both 'catholic' and 'orthodox' from the beginning, from the first day that he began to write about a religion and a church, that (according to your 'Theory' as you have presented it in this thread) was virtually unknown before he began.
This certainly proves that 'Saint' Justin was able to perform miracles!

You here are welcomed to reintroduce your speculations on how late "The Memoirs of The Apostles" and "The Acts of Pontius Pilate" that your witness cites were composed.

Duvduv

AA, you won't answer my question or Shesh's, will you? You prefer pressing "replay" on your mental MP3 rather than engage in any meaningful discussion. Maybe it's the medications.

tanya

Hi aa5874,
I think you know this, though it may not be evident in reading some of your responses here on the forum, but we possess no extant writings from Julian the emperor of the Roman empire in 360 CE.

As with Marcion, we depend on criticisms of his works, to understand what he wrote.
Therefore, it is difficult to draw conclusions about what he did not reference, since we know only bits and pieces of parts of his many volumes devoted to the subject of the Gallileans.

I find fascinating Julian's knowledge of, and modest respect for, Judaism. His criticisms of Gallileans is that they have practiced polytheism, contravening their Jewish heritage. I see nowhere, in our limited, very limited, knowledge of Julian's original text, that he was familiar with Justin Martyr, or his works.

I hope you will correct me, if I err on that point. Thanks.