Duvduv

I know that. Didn't you read my posting? All I said was that absolute uniformity with the orthodox church would not apply before a time of hierarchical authority. But a creative writer advocating for a particular theology could still put a text together in the 4th century. At a time of religious competition involving this new trend. So what's the problem?

aa5874

The problem is that your present position still does NOT make sense. Why does a creative writer have to write about the 2nd century when there is NO benefit to the writer???

It is NOT logical that some creative writer composed the writings of Justin in the 4th century and it turned out that Justin Martyr's writings is corroborated by the Surviving Dated evidence

Duvduv

But we don't know what the original document looked like. Maybe it had the name Constantine on it and the church office backdated it into rhe second century. Other changes could also have been made.There just isn't enough reason to consider it authentic from the second century. As many holes as Swiss cheese. Then along came the unknown Irenaeus later on when there was greater central hierarchical authority. But most of all Eusebius who sets the stage for dating and placement of events and people.

aa5874

So why are you are arguing with me??? I am NOT arguing from Imagination I am arguing for what is written. I am using what is found presently but you seem to arguing from a Big Black Hole of Speculation.

I cannot waste time speculating about what could have, should have or might have been written. I have what is written as soon as we locate other information then I can EASILY review my position.

How do you know about the Nicene Creed?? May it was the Jerusalem creed or the Marcion creed or...................... any creed

Duvduv

Whatever was going on was in the context of the emergence of the Byzantine regime which include many legends. All I can do is observe and consider the context and content of what is ascribed to it.
As far as evidence is concerned, you have a very narrow view of what constitutes evidence based on your observations. Context and content are also evidence that contributes to inferences that cannot be proven empirically.

Duvduv

Besides, AA, even Christian demographics only believe there were a few tens of thousands of Christians in the mid second century. So even according to that, it stretches credulity that a Justin speaking for a very tiny insignificant sect wd write the emperor with the expectation that his letter would be read when he doesn't even use the opportunity to say ANYTHING about his sect, its leaders, location etc.
It really makes no sense that it was writen by a Justin in mid 2nd century.

Duvduv

Aren't we dealing here with two "hands" at least who worked on letters, whereby one hand was writing ideas related to regular monotheism about God and the other "hand" was writing about the Son-Christ, and these got combined even in a single "Pauline epistle"??

The brief letter to Titus is rather unusual. Not only does it contain the two saviors in two verses in Chapter 3, but it identifies "Christ" as "God" in Chapter 2. Just remove the salutation at the beginning and a couple of phrases referring to the Christ, and you have something completely different.

We also see that prepositional phrase starting with "through" :

4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

Chapter 2 with that description that doesn't appear in Galatians, for example:
. 12 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

aa5874

You are the one who has SPECULATED that Justin's writings were NOT written in the 2nd century but have failed to show that a fraudster or Interpolator would write books claiming to be from around the 2nd century that shows a Big Black Hole for the History of the Church which TOTALLY Contradicts another supposed 2nd century writing called "Against Heresies".

Your position does NOT make sense.

You don't seem to remember or realize that Justin claimed that nearly all of Samaria WORSHIPED Simon Magus as a God and that people who followed the teachings of Simon Magus were called CHRISTIANS and NEVER mentioned anything about Acts of the Apostles.


First Apology 26 Justin Martyr's writing could NOT come from anyone who was familiar with Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

Justin Martyr show that the name Christian was NOT used by only Jesus believers since the time of Claudius.

Justin DESTROYS Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters.

Duvduv

In Romans 4:25 the author says that Jesus WAS RAISED which fits in with a letter focused originally on God's work rather than the Christ. In 1 Corinthians 15 Jesus is also RAISED from the dead. Yet in all the Creeds of the 4th century Jesus ROSE on the third day.

And when it comes to according to the scriptures the Antioch creeds only refer to the virgin birth being according to the scriptures, meaning Isaiah 7:14. Yet, none of the creeds describe Jesus as the fulfillment of the prophets as the Davidic messiah/seed of David.

So it makes one wonder whether the explicit reference to rising from the dead according to the scriptures in the Constantinople Creed was the impetus for it to appear in 1 Corinthians 15:4 or vice versa, especially given the fact that the epistle does not mention a virgin birth "according to the scripture".

To make it even more confusing, WHY did neither the gospels, Constantinople Creed or 1 Corinthians 15 choose not to name WHICH scripture refers to his rising on the third day which is Hosea 6:2, which has nothing to do with resurrection. Indeed, all Jewish commentaries explain that this refers to a prophecy of the suffering of the destruction of the two temples and the third temple. Be that as it may, one can only wonder why the THREE DAY period was so important in relation to the resurrection, since it would still be important whether it was after 1 day or 5 days.

aa5874

Well, I know you are confused that is PRECISELY why you ask so many questions and speculate.

I am NOT confused.

The Jesus story was NOT composed in the 4th century based on the DATED evidence from antiquity.