aa5874

In "Against Celsus" 1.47 a writer under the name of Origen claimed that Josephus should have written that that cause of the Fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple was Jesus Christ instead of James the Just.

But, No present day Josephus contains any such claim.

Anyhow, it has NOW been found. Origen was ACTUALLY using Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho.

In Dialogue with Trypho Justin called Jesus Christ the JUST ONE and claimed the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple was because the Jews had slain the Just One.

Dialogue with Trypho XVIThe author appears to have ADDED "James" to the phrase which originated in Dialogue with Trypho.

And it appears that Origen may be the first writer to mention a character called James the Just.

[u]Against Celsus 1.47 Origen has been BUSTED. The author of "Against Celsus" manipulated the writings of Justin Martyr and then attributed the corrupted phrase to Josephus.

Mandelbrot

Quite a strained logical leap on your part. Tell me, is there any other possibility?

aa5874

To those who have lmited knowledge of the writings of antiquity it may appear strained.

You perhaps are NOT aware of the massive forgeries in Apologetic sources.

Now unless you are claiming that it is NOT possible that Origen used Justin Martyr then your statement has NO effect on my position.

Justin Martyr did claim that the calamities in Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple was because the Jews killed the Just ONE and Celsus also referred to James as the Just.

Sheshbazzar

A speculation about what is in the end only a possibility, it runs into the same problem as aa often complains about when such barely supported speculations are posited by others.
Remember aa, you are not interested in listening to possibilities but only in DOCUMENTED and established historical facts.

Today, what is sauce for the geese is also the sauce for the gander.

stephan huller

To those who have passing familiarity with the lunacy of this poster, it also appears to follow a pattern. You inevitably find 'relationships' between text which on their own are interesting and worthy of discussion. But your conclusions are insane and you are inflexibility confirms the original diagnosis. Please visit a doctor.

aa5874

You seem to think that people who do not agree with you are mad. Please tell us who else you think is mad.

Please, please, please!!! Even experts do not agree about any matter.

Now, you appear to lack knowledge of the written statements of antiquity about James--the Just one.

You also appear to lack logical deductive skills.


It is claimed that James called himself the JUST one when he was stoned supposedly c 63 CE

[u]Church History 2.23. 17. Now, Justin Martyr made statements about a character called the Just one

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho XVI Now, it is EXTREMELY critical that you understand that Origen could have thought that Justin Martyr refered to James the Just one

Origen's Against Celsus 1.47 It can be argued that Origen used Justin's Dialogue with Trypho when he erroneously claimed it was Josephus.

This is basic.

And, by the way unless you are arguing that it is NOT at all possible that Origen could have used the writings of Justin Martyr in error then your response has ZERO effect on my claim that Origen is Busted.

Sheshbazzar

"could have" sure, and by that same token of logic, damn near anything within the Gospels other than the miracles, likewise "could have" happened.
The Gospels "could have" really all been written in the 1st century by Apostles named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Acts "could have" as well been composed after Paul's Epistles, 'long as we can dream up a possible 'could have' scenario.

'Could have' is a mighty slippery slope aa. You don't get to use your 'could haves' in your arguments unless you are also ready to concede to others their rights to likewise base their arguments and reasonings on their chosen 'possiblies' and 'could haves'.

aeebee50

I do not see how Justin could be an eyewitness to anything with Jesus Christ. Justin wasn't even born. I would have to do a whole lot of studying to even understand him and writing does not seem accurate. It seems like he wanted to be a Martyr.

Duvduv

..Or that there was more than a single manuscript version of Josephus circulating around when that writer commented about James the Just. But it's rather funny that this type of issue is the only inconsistency or complaint that this famous apologist had to mention. Imagine if he had commented on the contradictions and inconsistencies in the epistles and the gospels!

Besides, it's also possible that when referring to James he happened to use the words "the Just" because it was believed that that James was generically known by that name.