aa5874

Logically it would be those who wrote Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters.

Again, please read the writings ATTRIBUTED to Justin Martyr to see the Big Black Hole.

Duvduv

In other words you are conceding that you cannot explain to us WHAT the black hole is, who determined its existence and why the epistles had to be written to fill it.
And the First Apology has no chapter on "The Black Hole."
So maybe you'll have to help us and answer the questions I am asking.

aa5874

You seem to be prepared to continuously make illogical statements.

Please, again once you read the writings attributed to Justin Martyr you will OBSERVE that there is NOTHING--ZERO--NIL about the ACTIVITIES of the Disciples and Paul as stated in Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters.

That is the BIG BLACK HOLE.

Justin Martyr wrote about ACTIVITIES of the magician SIMON Magus who was worshiped as a God in Samaria during the reign of Claudius but did NOT write of the Activities of SIMON Peter after the supposed Ascension.

In Acts SIMON Peter was like SIMON Magus the Magician and Miracle Worker in "First Apology".

In Acts SIMON Peter raised the dead, caused people to DIE, and was so powerful that his Shadow could PERFORM Miracles--See Acts 5.12-15

Acts 5.Justin Martyr wrote about SIMON Magus instead.

First Apology SIMON PETER was INVENTED in Acts to fill the Big Black Hole.

Duvduv

Why is that a "black hole"?? The writings attributed to Justin are not part of the Christian scriptures or canon. Who says that it was due to those writings that someone (whoever it is and whenever) decided to write the epistles, which formed part of a "canon" long before there was any church authority to determine such things.

I think we are back to square one. Meaning that if the epistles attributed to "Paul" arose AFTER the Justin writings, then one would still have to explain why the epistles did not integrate teachings stated explicitly in Justin's writings about the historical Jesus figure, and this is true ONLY if the writer(s) of the epistles and the Justin texts knew of each other.

But if they emerged unbeknownst to each other from different places, this is not a problem, especially since the Justin writings themselves were not intended to provide a source of first century teachings for the public.

aa5874

Again, please FIRST read the writings attributed to Justin Martyr.

How many times must I remind you that there is NO mention of the ACTIVITIES of the disciples and Paul???

Again, your statement is NOT logical. If Justin wrote BEFORE the Pauline writings were composed then he would NOT have known of them.

Please, are you NOT aware that it was claimed even by Church writers that Christians BELIEVED all sorts of things about God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost???

The Preface to De Principiis
Again, your statement is NOT logical. Justin wrote about the teachings of the supposed Jesus, the Son of a Ghost, who was believed to have lived in the 1st century.

It is most logical that Justin wanted people to know what HE BELIEVED about the supposed 1st century teachings of Jesus.

Duvduv

OF COURSE I know that "Justin" would not have known about the epistles if they followed the Justin writings. I was simply including both directions for the view that the epistles did exist before Justin writings.

But again, you are simply ignoring the basic point: IF the epistle writer knew about Justin's writings, wouldn't he have included something of Justin's "proof" for Christ that is repeated over and over??

The only other possibility is that the epistles emerged from another place than did the Justin writings, and not that they were all centrally PRODUCED by the central movie studio one after the other (although the writings deemed to be of the 1st century were ultimately endorsed as the canon in the Byzantinian empire of the
4th and 5th centuries).

aa5874

Please, again you have Identified the Big Black Hole. Justin Martyr did NOT prove Jesus did Exist. Justin's Jesus was NOT known to the Jews.

Dialogue with Trypho Please, I ALREADY told you that Justin Martyr's writings were NOT composed in the 4th century and they are most likely from the 2nd century because they are compatible with the dated recovered Texts of antiquity.

aa5874

Again, to reconstruct the past, to do History, Credible sources are IMPERATIVE.

If I wanted to find out about Abraham Lincoln or Robin Hood then I must LOCATE Credible sources.

If I wanted to get the Biography of my great, great................grandfather then I NEED fundamental Credible sources.

It is EXTREMELY SIMPLE.

Go to any court trial or any investigation of the PAST--Credible sources are of ABSOLUTE Necessity.

The NT is NOT a Credible source--it is filled with Discrepancies, stories that did NOT happen and contradictions.

Writings attributed to Clement of Rome, Ignatus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius and many more are NOT Credible ---they are NOT compatible with the DATED Texts from antiquity.

As soon as we Identify Credible sources then the Past can be EASILY reconstructed.

History is a piece of cake with Credible sources.

Even Scholars have REJECTED the dating, chronology and authorship of the Gospels.

Even Scholars claim the Gospels were MOST likely anonymous.

And this is PRECISELY what is found in the writings ATTRIBUTED to Justin.

Even Scholars claim Acts of the Apostles is a work of fiction.

Writings attributed to Justin Martyr did NOT mention Acts of the Apostles and its fiction contents.

The writings attributed to Justin Martyr appear to be Credible Sources.

We can NOW reconstruct the history of the Jesus cult of Christians based on Justin Martyr and the sources that are Compatible with the recovered DATED Texts.

aa5874

The writings attributed to Justin Martyr are EXTREMELY EXTREMELY Significant because they show that the development of the Jesus cult of Christians WITHOUT the Pauline "revelations" and teachings.

Justin Martyr's claims about Jesus has ZERO input from the supposed Paul.

Justin's teachings about Jesus is virtually ENTIRELY from Hebrew Scripture or the Memoirs.

Justin Martyr DEMONSTRATED that Acts of the Apostles and Pauline letters were NOT necessary for the development of the Jesus cult.

And further, writings attributed to Aristides, Minucius Felix, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Tatian and Arnobius SHOW that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters had ZERO influence on their Brand of Christianity.

In effect, it was the Belief in a GOD that was the Fundamental Primary Influence of the Development of Christianity.

Now, Belief in Gods PREDATE the Jesus story.

The development of Christianity did NOT need the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters are LATE writings and had NO impact on 2nd century Christian sources.

Duvduv

That's interesting.....the NT texts are not credible documents from the first century, but texts attributed by the Church's heresiology department named Justin ARE credible from the second century??
Come on, AA. There is no evidence beyond church claims that the texts attributed to a guy named Justin were written in the 2nd century. Just like there is no solid evidence at all beyond church's claims and histories from the Heresiologist Department that any Jesus sects existed before the 4th century.

But what is important is that the texts that did emerge could not have emerged from the same ideological source or place at the same time.