Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 12-29-2011, 07:59 PM

Yu may be right although the dispute over Isaiah would come up at any time because it's a central issue in the use of the term. They would argue about it anytime. The main approach used was not Christian texts but to prove the Christ was based on Jewish texts. Of course there's alot of confusion in his Christian argument. But seeing as how he doesn't mention apostolic succession even once or even a mention of Paul or an identification of the gospels as inspired writ would seem to make it earlier than Nicaea, although we note that even the Nicaean Creed forgot about the virgin and crucifixion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I suppose it is just as easy to say that Dialogue with Trypho emerged closer to the 4th century, and is neither a dialogue nor a description of what mainstream Jews were tpiredhinking even in the 4th century. And of course, that this entire "dispute" would exist as early as the middle of the second century makes no sense. No Jew would care about the ideas of a tiny sect among many...

The wriqtings attributed to Justin Martyr do NOT reflect those of supposed apologetic writers of the 4th century.

Supposed 4th century writer made references to the numerous passages of the Pauline writings, Acts of the Apostles, Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. 4th century apologetics also mentioned numerous Bishops of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and other parts of the known world but all these are all missing in the writings of Justin Martyr.

The writings of Justin Martyr do NOT appear to be 4th century at all.

"Dialogue with Trypho" attributed to Justin Martyr is an extremely significant book since it appears to be the ONLY source of antiquity where the opinion of a Jew is expounded to an apologetic source.

It is Trypho the Jew who tells the reader that Isaiah 7.14 was manipulated and does NOT state that a "virgin shall conceive" but "a woman shall conceive" and that the so-called prophecy was fulfilled during the time of Hezekiah.

Dialogue with Trypho

Trypho the Jew also alerts the reader that the Jesus conception story is like Greek Mythology.

Dialogue with Trypho

Quote:

Moreover, in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower.

And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs, and rather[should] say that this Jesus was born man of men...

"Dialogue with Trypho" is an extremely significant writing most likely written before the 4th century.

Duvduv · 12-29-2011, 08:02 PM

Any new thoughts about who put together the texts and when?

aa5874 · 12-31-2011, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Any new thoughts about who put together the texts and when?

I thought you had some ideas when "Against Marcion" was written.

In any event, If we review the evidence so far it would appear that "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian was written at least AFTER "Church History" or at least AFTER c 300 CE.

It is quite clear that the author of "Church History" and even writers AFTER Eusebius did NOT claim that "Against Marcion" was written by Tertullian and seem unaware of such books and did NOT quote a SINGLE passage from what was supposed be one of the LARGEST Work of Tertullian.

It is most Remarkable that FIVE BOOKS "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian suddenly SURFACED and was not in the hands of any Apologetic source up to 100 years after they were supposedly written.

And even more fascinating, the author "Tertullian" even claimed there were THREE versions of "Against Marcion". Not one of those versions were quoted in "Church History".

Duvduv · 12-31-2011, 03:23 PM

What would have been the agenda of a campaign against Marcion two hundred years after he lived? And wouldn't this call into question the idea that the book attributed to Irenaeus was written in the second century before Tertullian?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Any new thoughts about who put together the texts and when?

I thought you had some ideas when "Against Marcion" was written.

In any event, If we review the evidence so far it would appear that "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian was written at least AFTER "Church History" or at least AFTER c 300 CE.

It is quite clear that the author of "Church History" and even writers AFTER Eusebius did NOT claim that "Against Marcion" was written by Tertullian and seem unaware of such books and did NOT quote a SINGLE passage from what was supposed be one of the LARGEST Work of Tertullian.

It is most Remarkable that FIVE BOOKS "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian suddenly SURFACED and was not in the hands of any Apologetic source up to 100 years after they were supposedly written.

And even more fascinating, the author "Tertullian" even claimed there were THREE versions of "Against Marcion". Not one of those versions were quoted in "Church History".

aa5874 · 12-31-2011, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

What would have been the agenda of a campaign against Marcion two hundred years after he lived? And wouldn't this call into question the idea that the book attributed to Irenaeus was written in the second century before Tertullian?...

I have already shown that the author of "Against Heresies" 2.22 did NOT know of Paul and did know that Paul preached Christ CRUCIFIED since 37-41 CE and BEFORE Jesus could have been forty years old.

There appears to be at least 2 authors of "Against Heresies" and more than one author who used the name Tertullian.

In Prescription Against Heretics attributed to Tertullian it is claimed Clement was ordained by Peter but amazingly in "Against Heresies" it is claimed Clement was the third bishop AFTER Peter.

The writings attributed to Clement of Rome, Tertullian and Irenaeus were either heavily mutilated or invented most likely in the 4th century and beyond

Duvduv · 12-31-2011, 04:13 PM

Personally I just could never buy the idea that major texts about "heresy" by any apologists conveniently sanctioned by the official Church could ever have been written in the second or even third century.
I firmly believe that Eusebius's claim that Justin Martyr wrote a book against Marcion is totally false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

What would have been the agenda of a campaign against Marcion two hundred years after he lived? And wouldn't this call into question the idea that the book attributed to Irenaeus was written in the second century before Tertullian?...

I have already shown that the author of "Against Heresies" 2.22 did NOT know of Paul and did know that Paul preached Christ CRUCIFIED since 37-41 CE and BEFORE Jesus could have been forty years old.

There appears to be at least 2 authors of "Against Heresies" and more than one author who used the name Tertullian.

In Prescription Against Heretics attributed to Tertullian it is claimed Clement was ordained by Peter but amazingly in "Against Heresies" it is claimed Clement was the third bishop AFTER Peter.

The writings attributed to Clement of Rome, Tertullian and Irenaeus were either heavily mutilated or invented most likely in the 4th century and beyond

Duvduv · 12-31-2011, 04:36 PM

Where does ORIGEN fit into this scheme of things?
Did the post-Nicene authors have so much time on their hands so as to be able to write all these books of apologetics?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

What would have been the agenda of a campaign against Marcion two hundred years after he lived? And wouldn't this call into question the idea that the book attributed to Irenaeus was written in the second century before Tertullian?...

I have already shown that the author of "Against Heresies" 2.22 did NOT know of Paul and did know that Paul preached Christ CRUCIFIED since 37-41 CE and BEFORE Jesus could have been forty years old.

There appears to be at least 2 authors of "Against Heresies" and more than one author who used the name Tertullian.

In Prescription Against Heretics attributed to Tertullian it is claimed Clement was ordained by Peter but amazingly in "Against Heresies" it is claimed Clement was the third bishop AFTER Peter.

The writings attributed to Clement of Rome, Tertullian and Irenaeus were either heavily mutilated or invented most likely in the 4th century and beyond

aa5874 · 12-31-2011, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Personally I just could never buy the idea that major texts about "heresy" by any apologists conveniently sanctioned by the official Church could ever have been written in the second or even third century.
I firmly believe that Eusebius's claim that Justin Martyr wrote a book against Marcion is totally false...

It seems the author of Church History merely Parroted the words of Justin Martyr but may have not seen the actual text.

First Apology

Quote:

...But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you...

That is all we will know about Justin Martyr's treatise against the heresies.

"Church History"

Quote:

10. To this he adds: “And we have also written a work against all the heresies that have existed, which we will give you if you wish to read it.”

Duvduv · 12-31-2011, 05:35 PM

A very convenient throw-away sentence by "Justin." Good old Eusebius is there to provide the "gospel truth" about all the alleged heresies and about alleged books that NO ONE ever saw, even in a a few sentences.

I think Eusebius should really have the searchlights put on him. Why should we base all types of theories and explanations on his so-called History of the Church anyway?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Personally I just could never buy the idea that major texts about "heresy" by any apologists conveniently sanctioned by the official Church could ever have been written in the second or even third century.
I firmly believe that Eusebius's claim that Justin Martyr wrote a book against Marcion is totally false...

It seems the author of Church History merely Parroted the words of Justin Martyr but may have not seen the actual text.

First Apology

That is all we will know about Justin Martyr's treatise against the heresies.

"Church History"

Quote:

10. To this he adds: “And we have also written a work against all the heresies that have existed, which we will give you if you wish to read it.”

aa5874 · 12-31-2011, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

A very convenient throw-away sentence by "Justin." Good old Eusebius is there to provide the "gospel truth" about all the alleged heresies and about alleged books that NO ONE ever saw, even in a a few sentences.

I think Eusebius should really have the searchlights put on him. Why should we base all types of theories and explanations on his so-called History of the Church anyway?!...

I do NOT accept that all of Church History was written by the same author. Based on "Against the Galileans", it would seem the TF was INTERPOLATED after Eusebius was dead.

From the interpolations in Josephus it must be understood that writings that were composed in the 1st century by Josephus were mutilated by fraud at least 150 years later.

I expect that "Church History" attributed to Eusebius is itself mutilated solely to DECEIVE.

When Julian asked his readers to present Well-known writers who wrote about Jesus and Paul the challenge implies that Josephus was NOT known to have written about Jesus or Paul and also that Tacitus did NOT write any thing about Jesus or Paul.

[Examine "Against the Galileans"]

Quote:

....for nowhere did either Jesus or Paul hand down to you such commands. The reason for this is that they never even hoped that you would one day attain to such power as you have; for they were content if they could delude maidservants and slaves, and through them the women, and men like Cornelius 66 and Sergius.

67 But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters....

Why did Julian ask his readers such a question if he was aware of Tacitus Annals, Josephus Antiquities, Eusebius Church History and Origen "Against Celsus and Commentary on Matthew.

The answer is obvious they forgeries may not have been carried when Julian lived but after he was dead.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-29-2011, 08:02 PM	#132
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Any new thoughts about who put together the texts and when?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.