Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 05-05-2009, 06:42 PM

Hi Arnoldo,

Actually, it doesn't bare witness for a good dating.

We only have a terminus post quem of 150-160 for Justin Martyr's works. The references to Marcion being alive and the Bar Kochba war may be there to establish the setting of the works. If the works are not by an historical Justin, but a later writer, the works could be written as late as 202-204 when the orthodoxy-heresies debate really begin.

If written in 202-204, almost immediately, the passage in Matthew about the Roman legion tomb witnesses and the deception of the Jews could have been inserted by anyone who read the Justin Martyr work, or more likely, by the same writer who wrote the JM works and showed such a passionate hated for the Jews. So it would be more correct to say that Matthew knows Justin rather than Justin knows Matthew.

Confusing the date of setting with the date of composition is always a big mistake. In many Western Hollywood movies there are references to Civil War veterans. This establishes the date of the setting of these stories as somewhere circa 1865-1890. However, no Western movies were actually created in this time period, as movie technology had not been invented. The vast bulk of these movies were made between 1930 and 1970.

Please note that Justin's Apology to the Emperor is a fantasy work. No address ever took place.

Likewise his discussion with Trypho and the Jews is also a fantasy discussion. The work is actually two teachings. In the first teaching, Jesus, who is the Old Man by the Sea, teaches Justin that he knows Philosophy better than the Philosophers. In the second teaching, Justin teaches the Jews that he knows the Jewish scriptures better than the Jews. The writer in both cases shows a great ignorance of both Philosophy and Jewish scriptures, but does show a tremendous and unbridled hubris.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Tertullian makes a similar claim (available on one of my web pages).

For my money, both Justin and Tertullian are probably repeating this Jewish accusation from the gospel of Matthew, not necessarily from having personally heard the accusation from Jewish contemporaries. If this is so, then it is all the more unlikely that Justin (and Tertullian) can be leveraged as support for the empty tomb. It is all down to the gospel of Matthew.

Ben.

More importantly it bears witness for the possible dating of Matthew in the first century (and no later than 150 A.D.) The following is an excerpt from Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho;

Quote:

CHAPTER CVII -- THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST DID NOT CONVERT THE JEWS. BUT THROUGH THE WHOLE WORLD THEY HAVE SENT MEN TO ACCUSE CHRIST.

"And though all the men of your nation knew the incidents in the life of Jonah, and though Christ said amongst you that He would give the sign of Jonah, exhorting you to repent of your wicked deeds at least after He rose again from the dead, and to mourn before God as did the Ninevites, in order that your nation and city might not be taken and destroyed, as they have been destroyed; yet you not only have not repented, after you learned that He rose from the dead, but, as I said before you have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilaean deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven. Moreover, you accuse Him of having taught those godless, lawless, and unholy doctrines which you mention to the condemnation of those who confess Him to be Christ, and a Teacher from and Son of God. Besides this, even when your city is captured, and your land ravaged, you do not repent, but dare to utter imprecations on Him and all who believe in Him. Yet we do not hate you or those who, by your means, have conceived such prejudices against us; but we pray that even now all of you may repent and obtain mercy from God, the compassionate and long-suffering Father of all.

CHAPTER CIX -- THE CONVERSION OF THE GENTILES HAS BEEN PREDICTED BY MICAH.

"But that the Gentiles would repent of the evil in which they led erring lives, when they heard the doctrine preached by His apostles from Jerusalem, and which they learned through them, suffer me to show you by quoting a short statement from the prophecy of Micah, one of the twelve [minor prophets]. This is as follows: 'And in the last days the mountain of the Lord shall be manifest, established on the top of the mountains; it shall be exalted above the hills, arid people shall flow unto it. And many nations shall go, and say, Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and they shall enlighten us in His way, and we shall walk in His paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among many peoples, and shall rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into sickles: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. And each man shall sit under his vine and under his fig tree; and there shall be none to terrify: for the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken it. For all people will walk in the name of their gods; but we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever. And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will assemble her that is afflicted, and gather her that is driven out, and whom I had plagued; and I shall make her that is afflicted a remnant, and her that is oppressed a strong nation. And the Lord shall reign over them in Mount Zion from henceforth, and even for ever.' "

CHAPTER CX -- A PORTION OF THE PROPHECY ALREADY FULFILLED IN THE CHRISTIANS: THE REST SHALL BE FULFILLED AT THE SECOND ADVENT.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...guetrypho.html

arnoldo · 05-05-2009, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

So it would be more correct to say that Matthew knows Justin rather than Justin knows Matthew. . .

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Thank you for the suggestion, I never considered the possibility that Justin was a source for Matthew rather than vice versa.

arnoldo · 05-05-2009, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Let me see. 150 AD. 120 years after the alleged empty tomb. How could this be anything other than one religious group automatically gainsyaing the claims of another religious group?

What about the data furnished by the
author of the Gospel of Peter .......

they saw again three men come out of the sepulchre,
and two of them sustaining the other (lit. the one),
and a cross following, after them.

And of the two they saw that their heads reached unto heaven,
but of him that was led by them that it overpassed the heavens.
And they heard a voice out of the heavens saying:

Hast thou preached unto them that sleep?

And an answer was heard from the cross, saying:

"Yea."!

I'd say the apocryphal author of the gPeter
was being very skeptical of the empty tomb
and took it into his own hands to create a
far more popular fictitious account.

We need to understand that the party who
wrote the canonical books was not the same
party who wrote the non-canonical books.
The latter is an utter mimicry of the former.

Heretics were killed for being mimics.
Tradition demanded the canon be true.
The authorship of, and the secreting or hiding of
Unauthorised fictions about Jesus were
punishable by death.

I didn't know that under Roman law the christians or jews had the authority to kill anyone during the second century but you are right that the Gospel of Peter was considered heretical due to it's docetic influence.

Quote:

Before this discovery the following is all that was known of the Gospel of Peter: 1. Serapion, Bishop of Antioch 190-203, writing to the church at Rhossus, says (Eusebius, H. E., vi., 12, 2): "We, brethren, receive Peter and the other Apostles even as Christ; but the writings that go falsely by their names we, in our experience, reject, knowing that such things as these we never received. When I was with you I supposed you all to be attached to the right faith; and so without going through the gospel put forward under Peter's name, I said, `If this is all that makes your petty quarrel,1 why then let it be read.' But now that I have learned from information given me that their mind was lurking in some hole of heresy, I will make a point of coming to you again: so, brethren, expect me speedily. Knowing then, brethren, of what kind of heresy was Marcion-[Here follows a sentence where the text is faulty.]... From others who used this very gospel-I mean from the successors of those who started it, whom we call Docetae; for most of its ideas are of their school-from them, I say, I borrowed it, and was able to go through it, and to find that most of it belonged to the right teaching of the Saviour, but some things were additions." From this we learn that a, Gospel of Peter was in use in the church of Rhossus in the end of the second century, but that controversy had arisen as to its character, which, on a careful examination, Serapion condemned.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...spelpeter.html

aa5874 · 05-05-2009, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Please note that Justin's Apology to the Emperor is a fantasy work. No address ever took place.

Likewise his discussion with Trypho and the Jews is also a fantasy discussion. The work is actually two teachings. In the first teaching, Jesus, who is the Old Man by the Sea, teaches Justin that he knows Philosophy better than the Philosophers. In the second teaching, Justin teaches the Jews that he knows the Jewish scriptures better than the Jews. The writer in both cases shows a great ignorance of both Philosophy and Jewish scriptures, but does show a tremendous and unbridled hubris.

I find Justin Martyr's "First Apology" and "Dialogue with Trypho" far more credible than many of the church writings like those of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Polycarp, 0rigen or Eusebius.

Justin Martyr in his writings did not ever claimed to have witnessed any implausible event or claimed he personally knew any one who witnessed any implausible event and participated in the very event.

There are no claims by Justin that he could speak in tongues or had the gifts of the Holy Ghost or claimed that he knew anyone who had the gifts of the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues.

Justin Martyr did not write about the martyrdom of anyone who miraculously failed to expire by the intervention of angels or some supernatural power.

There are no revelations from Jesus to Justin.

The writings from Justin, I find, are very plausible and are virtually filled with information of antiquity about paganism where he showed a picture where there was really no orthodoxy in Christian beliefs up to the middle of the 2nd century.

And most interestingly, Justin Martyr's writing is virtually free of, and isolated from, the fiction called Acts of the Apostles or the Pauline letters upon which other church writers are fundamentally based upon, like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters are products of fiction, Justin Martyr wrote nothing about them.

It appears to me that Justin Martyr truly believed in Jesus, he believed the gospels or memoirs of the apostles represented the truth about Jesus Christ.

I cannot find any post-ascension fiction in the writings of Justin Martyr, but there is such fiction in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius to name a few.

From Justin Martyr's writings, it would appear to me that there was no gospel named "according to Matthew", and there was no author known by the name Matthew who wrote a gospel, but there were Jesus stories with information similar to present day gMatthew called memoirs of the apostles or gospels.

Again from Justin, it would appear that up to the middle of the 2nd century there was no Pauline influence it was the stolen body story that was prevalent at that time.

If Paul was actually telling people in the churches all over the Roman Empire that over 500 people saw Jesus after he resurrected, it would have made very little sense for the author of Matthew to have fabricated a later false story that the disciples stole the body of Jesus.

So, for the NT's chronology to make sense Matthew's "stolen body story" must have preceeded Paul's "Over 500 story".

mountainman · 05-05-2009, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I'd say the apocryphal author of the gPeter
was being very skeptical of the empty tomb
and took it into his own hands to create a
far more popular fictitious account.

We need to understand that the party who
wrote the canonical books was not the same
party who wrote the non-canonical books.
The latter is an utter mimicry of the former.

Heretics were killed for being mimics.
Tradition demanded the canon be true.
The authorship of, and the secreting or hiding of
Unauthorised fictions about Jesus were
punishable by death.

I didn't know that under Roman law the christians or jews had the authority to kill anyone during the second century

Eusebius is being permitted to be an authority
both for the history of the orthodox canonical
new testament, and for the supposed history
of the non-orthodox non-canonical new testament
literature.

The foundation of the chronology of the mainstream
belief systems surrounding the apocrypha is to be
found in Eusebius via Tertullian, Eusebius via Irenaeus,
Eusebius via Serapion but most importantly in the
identification of the largest number of non-canonical
books, via Eusebius himself as the primary source.

Can anyone be allowed to suspect that Eusebius simply
retrojected the appearance of the gPeter and other books
into the past at the time he was attempting to present
a harmonius acceptance of the NT canon at Nicaea?

I can understand the reluctance of people in this forum
to suspect Eusebius of providing fraudulent and false
information, texts, references, names, dates and places
with respect to the most holy of new testament canonical
literature. What I do not understand is the reluctance of
people in this forum to be suspicious of Eusebius' assertions
regarding the gnostic Hellenistic heretics - specifically
the Eusebian assertions regarding the chronology of the
"other books of the bible ... the NT apocrypha".

Surely everyone MUST I repeat MUST understand that
Eusebius is a completely and utterly hostile witness
with respect to the books written by the (docetic) heretics.

Quote:

but you are right that the Gospel of Peter was considered heretical due to it's docetic influence.

Quote:

Before this discovery the following is all that was known of the Gospel of Peter: 1. Serapion, Bishop of Antioch 190-203, writing to the church at Rhossus, says (Eusebius, H. E., vi., 12, 2): "We, brethren, receive Peter and the other Apostles even as Christ; but the writings that go falsely by their names we, in our experience, reject, knowing that such things as these we never received. When I was with you I supposed you all to be attached to the right faith; and so without going through the gospel put forward under Peter's name, I said, `If this is all that makes your petty quarrel,1 why then let it be read.' But now that I have learned from information given me that their mind was lurking in some hole of heresy, I will make a point of coming to you again: so, brethren, expect me speedily. Knowing then, brethren, of what kind of heresy was Marcion-[Here follows a sentence where the text is faulty.]... From others who used this very gospel-I mean from the successors of those who started it, whom we call Docetae; for most of its ideas are of their school-from them, I say, I borrowed it, and was able to go through it, and to find that most of it belonged to the right teaching of the Saviour, but some things were additions." From this we learn that a, Gospel of Peter was in use in the church of Rhossus in the end of the second century, but that controversy had arisen as to its character, which, on a careful examination, Serapion condemned.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...spelpeter.html

PhilosopherJay · 05-06-2009, 09:00 AM

Hi aa5874,

I agree with much about what you say.

Justin is unique in many ways. The facts as presented by Eusebius and from a naive reading of the texts will explain that uniqueness, but I believe that uniqueness can also be explained if we see him as someone at the beginning of the orthodox/heresies division (which I do not see happening before 200, otherwise the fact that Clement of Alexandria doesn't know it is most difficult to explain.)

We also have to examine his own personal educational situation. He is unfamiliar with the gospels in their canonical form, the letters of Paul and Acts of the Apostles, because they are just being appropriated into the new orthodoxy at this time. He does have a smattering of knowledge about philosophy and Hebrew scriptures.

As far as him being credible, I think we have to be careful. The ideas that he presents are not fantastic in one sense, but are fantastic in another sense. They are not the simple fantastic ghost stories and fairy tales that we encounter in typical ancient works, but a more fantastically Platonic version. For example, he puts forward the idea that the devil read the prophesies of the Jews and somehow had the Greek and Roman Gods (the devil's demons) perform miracles that resembled them before Christ came. That explanation for why Jesus' miracles resembles those of the Greek and Roman Gods certainly is just a little "fantastic."

Also a little fantastic is believing that the emperor, Antonius Pius, the head priest of the Roman State religion would listen, along with his sons, to a speech denouncing the Roman Gods as evil demons. Antonius Pius had deified his wife Faustina in 141. So besides attacking the Gods Pius sacrificed to on a daily basis, Justin was also insulting the memory of the Emperor's dead wife.

Justin's accusations could not have sounded more insane and offensive to an ordinary Roman of the time. Imagine someone arguing seriously to the Pope that Jesus Christ is really the devil.

Note also that at the end of the Apology, Justin gives a letter by Hadrian defending the Christians, as if Antonius Pius would not know the policy of the Emperor whom he had served for 20 years and had adopted him as son and heir. Imagine this dialogue:

Your policy, President Obama, stopping torture is wrong. I will prove it. Here are the directives of President Bush authorizing it.

or

Your policy, Herr Hitler, discriminating against the Jews is wrong. I will prove it. Here are the laws passed against such discrimination by your predecessor Van Hindenburg.

Both arguments are ridiculous and inauthentic. One can imagine a bad dramatic writer 50 years from now writing the first scene, and one can imagine a bad dramatic writer putting forward the second scene today. They just don't seem credible as contemporary writings.

There is an important recent article by Andrew Hofer, The Old Man as Christ in Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho", Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 57, No. 1 (Feb., 2003), pp. 1-21 which argues persuasively that the mysterious Old Man that Justin meets who turns him into a Christian is actually supposed to be Jesus.

It makes perfect sense (Dial: 1):

Quote:

I expected forthwith to look upon God, for this is the end of Plato's philosophy.

"And while I was thus disposed, when I wished at one period to be filled with great quietness, and to shun the path of men, I used to go into a certain field not far from the sea. And when I was near that spot one day, which having reached I purposed to be by myself, a certain old man, by no means contemptible in appearance, exhibiting meek and venerable manners, followed me at a little distance. And when I turned round to him, having halted, I fixed my eyes rather keenly on him.

"And he said, 'Do you know me?'

I replied in the negative.

"'Why, then,' said he to me, 'do you so look at me?

"'I am astonished,' I said, 'because you have chanced to be in my company in the same place; for I had not expected to see any man here.'

"And he says to me, 'I am concerned about some of my household. These are gone away from me; and therefore have I come to make personal search for them, if, perhaps, they shall make their appearance somewhere.

Justin expects to look upon God from his study of Plato's philosophy. The next person he immediately meets is a mysterious stranger who is surprised that Justin can actually see him. (This is Justin's way of saying to the reader, "Hint, hint, Gods normally walk around unseen, only after studying Plato's philosophy can you get to see them.")

This is Justin's encounter with the mysterious Spirit/God Jesus. Just like Paul's encounter with Jesus, only the privileged can see him.

The ending of the encounter also indicates that the Old Man by the Sea is Jesus:

Quote:

But pray that, above all things, the gates of light may be opened to you; for these things cannot be perceived or understood by all, but only by the man to whom God and His Christ have imparted wisdom.'
"When he had spoken these and many other things, which there is no time for mentioning at present, he went away, bidding me attend to them; and I have not seen him since. But straightway a flame was kindled in my soul; and a love of the prophets, and of those men who are friends of Christ, possessed me; and whilst revolving his words in my mind, I found this philosophy alone to be safe and profitable.

Only God and his Christ can impart wisdom, the man goes away and suddenly Justin finds he has wisdom. If only God and his Christ can impart such wisdom and Justin suddenly has such wisdom, then the reader/listener can only understand that the man who gave him the wisdom must have been the Christ.

Martyr, naturally means "eyewitness." It is my opinion that Justin gets the name Martyr because he here claims to have seen the Christ. His alleged willing death for death is just a convenient myth created after the term martyr developed its different meaning of one who dies for his/her religion some time in the Third century.

It is clear by the style of the dialogue, where both the old man and then Justin assumes the role of Socrates that Justin has been inspired by his recent reading of Platonic dialogues.

While Justin claims to have studied philosophy before his conversion to Christianity by his encounter with the God Jesus, his adoption of the literary style of Plato suggests that he was a convinced Christian first who started reading Plato later to justify his conversion.

In all his writings, he quotes no philosophy book except Plato's Timaeus. This suggests his knowledge of philosophy was shallow at best. His own confession, in chapter 2, is that he studied Stoicism for "a considerable time," (but never got around to discussing God) Aristotle, "for a few days" and Plato "a little while". My guess is that he was first a Christian who later studied Philosophy under three different teachers for several weeks and read a few works by Plato. At that point he had his revelation that Plato did not have the whole truth, because he had not studied the Hebrew prophets, so he declared himself a "Christian Philosopher" and started his study of Hebrew scriptures.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Please note that Justin's Apology to the Emperor is a fantasy work. No address ever took place.

Likewise his discussion with Trypho and the Jews is also a fantasy discussion. The work is actually two teachings. In the first teaching, Jesus, who is the Old Man by the Sea, teaches Justin that he knows Philosophy better than the Philosophers. In the second teaching, Justin teaches the Jews that he knows the Jewish scriptures better than the Jews. The writer in both cases shows a great ignorance of both Philosophy and Jewish scriptures, but does show a tremendous and unbridled hubris.

I find Justin Martyr's "First Apology" and "Dialogue with Trypho" far more credible than many of the church writings like those of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Polycarp, 0rigen or Eusebius.

Justin Martyr in his writings did not ever claimed to have witnessed any implausible event or claimed he personally knew any one who witnessed any implausible event and participated in the very event.

There are no claims by Justin that he could speak in tongues or had the gifts of the Holy Ghost or claimed that he knew anyone who had the gifts of the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues.

Justin Martyr did not write about the martyrdom of anyone who miraculously failed to expire by the intervention of angels or some supernatural power.

There are no revelations from Jesus to Justin.

The writings from Justin, I find, are very plausible and are virtually filled with information of antiquity about paganism where he showed a picture where there was really no orthodoxy in Christian beliefs up to the middle of the 2nd century.

And most interestingly, Justin Martyr's writing is virtually free of, and isolated from, the fiction called Acts of the Apostles or the Pauline letters upon which other church writers are fundamentally based upon, like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters are products of fiction, Justin Martyr wrote nothing about them.

It appears to me that Justin Martyr truly believed in Jesus, he believed the gospels or memoirs of the apostles represented the truth about Jesus Christ.

I cannot find any post-ascension fiction in the writings of Justin Martyr, but there is such fiction in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius to name a few.

From Justin Martyr's writings, it would appear to me that there was no gospel named "according to Matthew", and there was no author known by the name Matthew who wrote a gospel, but there were Jesus stories with information similar to present day gMatthew called memoirs of the apostles or gospels.

Again from Justin, it would appear that up to the middle of the 2nd century there was no Pauline influence it was the stolen body story that was prevalent at that time.

If Paul was actually telling people in the churches all over the Roman Empire that over 500 people saw Jesus after he resurrected, it would have made very little sense for the author of Matthew to have fabricated a later false story that the disciples stole the body of Jesus.

So, for the NT's chronology to make sense Matthew's "stolen body story" must have preceeded Paul's "Over 500 story".

aa5874 · 05-06-2009, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

I agree with much about what you say.

Justin is unique in many ways. The facts as presented by Eusebius and from a naive reading of the texts will explain that uniqueness, but I believe that uniqueness can also be explained if we see him as someone at the beginning of the orthodox/heresies division (which I do not see happening before 200, otherwise the fact that Clement of Alexandria doesn't know it is most difficult to explain.)

We also have to examine his own personal educational situation. He is unfamiliar with the gospels in their canonical form, the letters of Paul and Acts of the Apostles, because they are just being appropriated into the new orthodoxy at this time. He does have a smattering of knowledge about philosophy and Hebrew scriptures.

I am primarily interested in what Justin Martyr wrote.

Justin Martyr wrote about the stolen body story, he appears to be completely un-aware of the the Pauline 500.

But, the over 500 story should have been widely known since it should have been circulated for over 100 years in the Roman Empire and in the churches founded by Paul. Justin Martyr must have attended a Pauline church or knew persons who attended the Pauline churches.

Justin wrote nothing whatsoever about Paul, his letters, his churches, his mysteries, his revelations or his 500 story. Absolutely nothing.

After one hundred years of Paul's 500 story circulating all over the Empire in the churches, every Jesus believer would have know some of the 500 by name and even the addresses of those who saw Jesus in a resurrected state.

Perhaps a great grandmother or father of Justin would have been one of the 500.

If gMatthew was written after the Paul 500, then the author of Matthew perhaps would have named a few of 500. The author of Matthew did no such thing.

The author of gMatthew must have attended a Pauline church, he must have heard about Paul's 500. He did not.

The author of Mark, Luke and John did not name anyone of the 500, perhaps the most important eyewitness evidence to obliterate the skeptics, only Paul gave the number "over 500".

The authors of gMark, gLuke and gJohn must have attended some Pauline churches and heard about the Pauline 500. They did not.

Only Paul.

Paul was after Justin. The stolen body was widely known. The stolen body preceded the Paul 500 story.

The evidence seems to suggest that Justin's writings are credible.

mountainman · 05-06-2009, 04:01 PM

Thank you Philosopher Jay for these analytical gems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Justin expects to look upon God from his study of Plato's philosophy. The next person he immediately meets is a mysterious stranger who is surprised that Justin can actually see him. (This is Justin's way of saying to the reader, "Hint, hint, Gods normally walk around unseen, only after studying Plato's philosophy can you get to see them.")

This is Justin's encounter with the mysterious Spirit/God Jesus. Just like Paul's encounter with Jesus, only the privileged can see him.

....[trimmed]....

and

Martyr, naturally means "eyewitness." It is my opinion that Justin gets the name Martyr because he here claims to have seen the Christ. His alleged willing death for death is just a convenient myth created after the term martyr developed its different meaning of one who dies for his/her religion some time in the Third century.

Manichaeans.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.