TedM

It IS possible that this refers the the invention of the man Jesus, but I might pull a Doherty and ask: Why doesn't he just say so? And, Why doesn't he or Justin reference this anywhere else in the dialoge?

On the other hand IF the 'groundless report' was about his resurrection -- the very act that all of Christianity identified as the 'proof' of Jesus as the Messiah -- then Trypho and Justin DO address that elsewhere in the report, as we would expect him to.

My money is on the latter reading.

GakuseiDon

Yes, definitely. It's a shame that so much focus is on Paul, because Doherty's views of the Second Century apologists are bizarre. Anyway: Justin later has Trypho respond thusly:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...guetrypho.html

And Trypho replied, "Now, then, render us the proof that this man who you say was crucified and ascended into heaven is the Christ of God. For you have sufficiently proved by means of the Scriptures previously quoted by you, that it is declared in the Scriptures that Christ must suffer, and come again with glory... now show us that this man is He."
...

And Trypho said, "Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man [born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man [born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He [the Christ]."

The debate is interesting in its focus on the Hebrew Scriptures and the words of the Hebrew prophets. Justin tells us in the letter that he became a Christian by reading the Hebrew prophets, and felt a "love" for the prophets rather than for Jesus.

For Doherty, this is evidence that Justin was converted to a Christianity that had no sense of Christ as a distinct human character, an historical man capable of being "loved" as one would love the prophets.

For me, it is an indication of the importance of the Old Testament, from the time of Paul until the Gospels became authoritative, in showing Jesus was "Christ".

aa5874

Well, examine the Synoptics

Mt 16:20 - Mr 8:30 - Lu 9:21 - It is CLEAR that Jesus was NOT known as Christ and did NOT want the Jews to know he was Christ in the Synoptics.

And further in the Synoptics, when Jesus demanded that his disciples tell NO Jew, No Roman, No Man that he was Jesus Christ that he was Christ he was called a by the name of DIFFERENT prophets or John the Baptist.

Quite Remarkably, the Synoptics show that the Jews did NOT consider Jesus as CHRIST during his supposed lifetime.

Now, if Jesus died EBFORE he was called Christ then this means the JEWS would have been STILL SEARCHING for a LIVING Messiah after the supposed crucifixion of Jesus.

There is NO such thing as a Posthumous Messiah just as there is no such thing as a Posthumous Emperor of Rome.

If Vespasian had died BEFORE he was declared Emperor then Josephus' prediction that Vespasian was the Messiah would have been DEEMED a FAILURE.

Who could have called Jesus the CHRIST after he was dead?

It was NOT the Jews.

TedM

Are you kidding? It WAS the Jewish Christians in Judea, and then Paul who preached the resurrected Christ. You have to be dead before you can be resurrected, aa. Of course most Jews rejected the concept, but if ALL Jews did so we wouldn't have Christianity in the first place because it all started with the Jews proclaiming a risen Jesus as their Christ and Messiah. This is so basic.

aa5874

What!!!

Are you serious??

Even If Jesus did actually EXIST he STILL could NOT have resurrected on the THIRD day if he really died.

You DON'T have to be actually dead or to have actually lived for someone to write a MYTH fable about a resurrection.

Don't you understand that the Gospels may have been MYTH fables?

Marcion's Phantom, even without birth and flesh, was said to be in Capernaum in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius but it should be obvious to you that the Phantom did NOT have to exist to claim it was in Capernaum.

In Plutarch's "Romulus", the MYTH character Romulus DIED and was taken up to the gods

Please, get familiar with MYTH fables since the Jesus story is NOTHING different based on Justin Martyr, a Christian writer.

See First Apology 21

People of antiquity BELIEVED that the offspring of a Holy Ghost could have LIVED in Nazareth.

TedM

Once again, aa, your rambling answer had absolutely nothing to do with what you originally said and my response to it. Go ahead and see for yourself. Once again your are demonstrating a serious comprehension problem. I'm converting to the 'give up on trying to have a real conversation with aa' cult. We are done. I'm free, thank God. :wave:

aa5874

It seems as though you have ran out of words or something. You keep on saying "we are done" but break your own promise.

I will ALWAYS respond to your post when they are not based on written sources of antiquity or are NOT logical.

Didn't you write this?

Nobody has to die in fiction stories about a resurrection.

TedM, once you are claiming that all of history is ambiguous and speculative then you really cannot make any effective arguments about the "history" of Jesus.

If you argue that Jesus was born in Nazareth then you are INHERENTLY discrediting the gospels and must find a credible historical source for your claims.