aa5874

You really don't know what you are talking about.

Trypho did make Justin understand that the Jesus story was just like Greek Mythology when Justin insisted that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Trypho did make it clear to Justin that use of Isaiah 7.14 has NOTHING whatsoever to do with prophecies of the birth of the Messiah but was fulfilled with Hezekiah.

Trypho destroys Justin---Isaiah 7 is about Hezekiah and the birth of Jesus is a monstrous Myth Fable

Dialogue with Trypho

Sheshbazzar

You're still prevaricating aa. Changing the subject is not addressing the questions posed.

Based upon the content of Justin's texts I am stating how he came by that Philosophers 'costume'.

Tell us how it was that you think Justin got his Philosophers 'dress' and 'costume' aa.
Name and document what person, council, or congregation it was that ever bestowed any Philosopher's 'dress' or 'costume' on Justin.



Based upon the content of Justin's texts I am stating how he came to be Christianities foremost spokesperson; That NO person, council, nor congregation ever selected, elected, appointed, or commissioned Justin to ANY position of authority.

Justin's remaining writings indicate that he assumed that position of being a Church 'Authority' solely upon his own self-assumed 'authority'.
By means of arrogantly disdaining and over-riding all elected leaders and teachers of the then contemporay church to establish and promote HIMSELF.
That is why Justin does not, cannot, and never does name anyone else in his adapted religion.

Tell us what was the NAME of the foremost Christian spokesperson, and notable Apologist the Christian Church circa 100-150 CE. aa.

All of the evidence points towards the person known by the name of 'Justin' the Martyr as being that individual.
All of the evidence points points to Justin being a self-promoter one that had little to no real interaction with, and who had NO support from any contemporary Christian community that he could assert. Cloting in this case does not make the man, it betrays the man.

Tell us the NAME of the foremost Christian spokesperson, and notable Apologist the Christian faith circa 100-150 CE. if it in fact was not Justin. aa.

aa5874

I have not changed the subject at all. You invented a story that "a stranger just pops in from outside of the existing Christian community, buys himself a philosophers coat, and wallah! He is transformed into Church's foremost spokesperson".

You are the inventor. I am not in the inventing business.

I no longer accept inventions as evidence from antiquity.

Now are you aware of Aristides and that he wrote an Apology BEFORE Justin Martyr??

Who did Aristides represent when he wrote his Apology to Hadrian c 117-138 CE.

[U]Aristides' "Apology"

Sheshbazzar

I didn't invent the story. That's simply what the internal evidence of Justin's texts indicate did happen.
If any established Christian institution had ordained him, he would have been shouting it from the rooftops, but no ...
Justin has to depend upon playing 'dress-up' to impress the Plebs, hoping that mere cloths and fabricating a fake Jew story would serve to 'make the man', but sporting a 'costume' and lying through one's teeth, will never completely conceal the shallow person lying underneath.

And obviously, you lact the ability to critically analyse religious texts so as to percieve what is present, and what is pregnantly lacking.
Justin TELLS you his background was not Christian, he never tells you that he joined any church, never tells you that anyone ever baptized HIM, never names a single member, leader or personal co-worker, or friend in his Church.
In short he writes like so many of the would be Christian Philosophers and Apologists that post on this forum, yet have not had fellowship with any actual chuch in decades, and actually having no daily or weekly Christian fellowship, their writings are likewise dried up and utterly void any of the personal love and the human relationship stories that are part and parcel of any truly socially interacting religious life.
Justin was so deficient in his religious life that he had to fabricate a fake Jew to commune with. Might have well as named him 'WILSON' the Jew'

Beside the point. You are no ultimate authority, and nobody much cares what it is that you do or do not accept.
The world has kept on rolling without an aa to dictate what everone else must think, and it will continue to rotate even after aa is no longer present to dictate what everyone else must think.
You want to remain ignorant of the significance of what it is that Justin tells us, -and what it is that he doesn't tell us. That is your perogative. But don't expect everyone else to bury their head in the sand and chant 'na na na' along with you.
Do you wish to present a claim that Aristides was the foremost Christian spokesperson and Christian Apologist between 100 and 150 CE aa?

aa5874

Of course you invented the story because it is NOT found in the writings attributed to Justin Martyr.

What???!!! Your inventions without a shred of evidence show that you have no ability to critically analyze religious text. Typically, inventors do NOT require any evidence just a vivid imagination.

Justin never claimed he was the Church's spokeperson.

Again, you invent your own stories about Justin without a shred of evidence. It is you who is hiding your deficiencies with inventions.

You seem to know that Justin bought a philosopher's coat but now claim Trypho was an invention.

I am seeing a disturbing pattern--whatever you invent about Justin suddenly is true.
You seem not to understand what an argument is.

My argument is that the Jesus story and cult originated iin the 2nd century based on actual recovered dated manuscripts and compatible sources like Justin, Aristides, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger.
You are the one who claimed Justin buys a philosophers coat and became the Church's foremost spokesperson between c 100-150 CE.

Who did Aristides represent between c 117-138 CE.

Who did Ignatius represent between c 98-117 CE??

Are you aware of a character called Ignatius who supposedly wrote Seven Epistles to Churches between 98-117 CE??

Sheshbazzar

Yes. I did. Based upon what I percieve from the contents and tenor of Justin's writings, examining what he did write, and what he did not write, but should have. I have quite clearly stated my view regarding Justin.

Reading Justin's writings, Alhough they are somewhat informative of the 2nd century CE., they are in many aspects of very dubious value.
I believe Justin was inventing much of his 'Christian' theology as he wrote it, borrowing heavily from and inserting material drawn from his personal pagan Platonic philosophical background, and was not accurately reporting upon the actual theology and beliefs held by the majority of his contemporary Christians.
Thus what Justin wrote cannot be trusted to accurately reflect the details of what his contemporary Christians actually believed or did.
Justin is not presenting us with the present realities of his age, but how it would be believed and percieved in his personal idealised church, with his personal ideal beliefs and proclivities presented as being the then present day Christian facts, which they were not, another reason that he could not bring in the names of any of his Christian mentors or companions; If they had been aware of the content of Justin's writings, their reactions would have been; WTF??

From what I read in Justin, I am not the least impressed by the quality or integrity of the writer his self. His writings to me scream FAKE! and PHONEY! from beginning to end.
That is how I see it. Thus that is what I state. And that is what I stand by. It is what it is. If you don't like it, that is your problem.

Whom and what do you aa, think Aristides represented beteween c.117-138 CE?
Whom and what do you aa, think Ignatius represented between c 98-117 CE??

There are 7 letters of Saint Ignatius that are generally regarded as authentic. Are you aware of their contents aa?
If you haven't read them lately, take the time.

Are you persuaded aa, that these Ignatian writings are authentic in all of their parts, and all are accurate copies of writings originating with a real Ignatius before c. 117 CE ?

Should I need advise you to review those works before replying?

aa5874

My argument is that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century and that the authors of the short gMark, the long gMark , and gMatthew were NOT aware of the Pauline Pauline writings.

All the writings under the name of Paul represent the TEACHINGS of Paul, that is, if Paul did actually exist and did Personally visit the Seven Churches and stayed with them for a considerable time then we would expect him to repeat and TEACH information from all his so-called Epistles.

For example, if Paul personally visited the Jesus cults in Rome, Galatia, Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonica and Colosse then it is expected that he would have TAUGHT them all that Jesus died for our sins was buried and resurrected on the Third day according to the Scriptures found in the letter to the Corinthians.

Effectively, if Paul did exist and did actually visit Churches "all over" the Roman Empire then the Entire Pauline corpus should have been known among the Jesus cults of the Roman world.

So, let us examine what should have been known about the post-resurrection by the Jesus cults "all over" the Roman Empire.

This is the Pauline TEACHINGS throughout the Roman Empire.

1 Cor.15 So if Paul was ALREADY dead long before the Jesus stories were composed then the Pauline TEACHINGS about the post-resurrection visits by Jesus should have been in circulation DIRECTLY in the Churches of the Roman Empire and also transmitted Orally by those who actually HEARD Paul.

Here is where the problem begins for the Pauline writings.

When the author of the short gMark was ready to composed his story of Jesus he wrote Nothing of any post-resurrection visits--Nothing--Zero.

When the author of the Long gMark wrote his story he did NOT use the Pauline Teachings of the post-resurrection visits by Jesus.

The long gMark author claimed Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, two unknown persons and the eleven and then ASCENDED.

In the Long gMark the resurrected Jesus appeared to 14 persons--Not Over 500 people as stated by Paul.

In the long gMark, it is NOT claimed Jesus visited Paul.

When the author of gMatthew was ready to write the Jesus story the author claimed Jesus appeared to Mary and Magdalene and the Eleven.

In gMatthew, the resurrected Jesus appeared to 13 persons--NOT over 500 people as stated by Paul.

In gMatthew, there is NO mention that the resurrected Jesus visited Paul.

The first Three authors of the Jesus stories were NOT aware of the Pauline post-resurrection story and they were all composed after Paul was "all over" the Roman Empire PREACHING, TEACHING and Documented that he and Over 500 people was Seen by Jesus.

This is extremely important.

The Pauline writings are historically bogus and DESTROY the very Jesus stories in the very Canon.

In the Gospels, it is claimed Jesus would come back to earth a second time.

In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus would come back to earth in the clouds.

Mark 13.26 In the Canonised Gospels, the resurrected Jesus ASCENDED and there is NO mention whatsoever that Jesus visited Paul and over 500 people at once.

In Acts, the Resurrected Jesus ASCENDED after around 40 DAYS of the resurrection.

There is NO mention whatsoever that Jesus visited Paul and over 500 people at once before Jesus ASCENDED.

Jesus would have to COME BACK to earth a SECOND Time for Paul and the over 500 people to see him.

The Pauline writer INADVERTENTLY admitted the Second Advent of Jesus.

Paul SAW Jesus AFTER the Ascension.

Paul was a Persecutor AFTER Jesus Ascended.

Paul could have ONLY seen Jesus in the Second Advent.

The Pauline writings are Historically bogus and were composed AFTER the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

Sheshbazzar

You inquired about St. Ignatius. Buying time aa? or reviewing the writings of St. Ignatius?

Thought, as you brought up the name, that you wished to use the writings of St. Ignatius to prove something. Do you?

Sheshbazzar

St. Ignatius Epistle to The Ephesians. chapter XI c. -117 CE.
Chapter XII
Chapter XVI
So Saint Ignatius, whose name you thought to bring up here aa, extensively copies the Apostle Paul's style, and theology, replete with word for word quotations from Paul's writings. Who testifies of his personal devotion to and knowledge of... 'the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul, the holy, the martyred'.... all before c. 117 CE.
His c. 117 CE. 'Paul' by his writings existed long before the 2nd century CE. Is this a 'sword' you would really like to bring into this fight?

Chili

As I see it Paul did exist but those churches did not exist. Not to tell you that you have it all backwards again, but those seven churches were the prevailing moods as the modes op perception wherein people go worng, and that just goes to show that Paul was right even if he was not as a traveling salesman himself (which he could not be if those churches did not exist).

He was Pope, and should make known the difference between right and wrong by writing down the workings of the Church.

Please know that just as Judaism has the 'Torah of tradition' to deliver, so must Rome endure a dark age wherein the spice of life is added to get a flavor of its own.

In case you wonder, that is why in John the infancy is missing and Nathanael just came tumbling down a fig tree with no vile in him. The fig tree is symbolic of the 30 years it takes before one ever can bare fruit in kind.