Duvduv

Aa5874, we've been through this before. We know that Justin mentions Mary. However could you reread my posting and address the substance of what I wrote? And please comment on the episode concerning the Old Man? Did you note how the Apology is really rather confused and incoherent in its basic points?

Duvduv

On the basis of the mishmash of the Apology who can rely on this source as evidence from the second century as opposed to a later time?! It looks like the Apology was an early product before gospels and epistles were ultimately finalized.
Is there ANYTHING reliable that is certainly from the second century? The answer for me is a big NO.
Does that mean there were no small sects around that had Judeo Platonic beliefs? The answer is also NO. There may have been but not reflected in these texts.

aa5874

Writings attributed to Justin Martyr are some of the few writings that do NOT appear to be manipulated and are compatible with non-apologetic sources like Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger.

Writings attributed to Justin Martyr have EXPOSED a Black-Hole of about 120 years for the history of the Church.

From the supposed ascension of Jesus to Justin's own time he UTTERLY failed to name any person outside of the NT Canon who was known to be a Christian and did NOT mention a single character in Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings except the Magician Simon Magus.

Virtually all other apologetic sources of antiquity that mentioned the Jesus story contain bogus information to mask the 120 year black-hole from the supposed ascension of Jesus like Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were FABRICATED to mask the fact that there was no known history of the Church until the 2nd century when the Jesus story was invented.

Duvduv

And who was Justin's Old Man? Why does Justin brush over what he told Justin about the Christ? Is it because the author didn't or couldn't explain anything about it? At least to say where this old man came from and how Christ could have been predicted by Jewish prophets 5000 years ago? This is so convoluted that if it was really written by Justin in the second century then my name isBarack. Obama!
He talks about "we" bur never explains who "we" is. Deacons? What deacons?
The Apology as presented is a load of lies and rubbish. Why serious scholars would take it seriously is beyond me.
The only interesting part is the stuff about the rituals even though this Justin doesn't tell us who or where such rituals take place, etc.

GakuseiDon

I don't think Justin's was a unique approach. The above could be said about nearly all the extant letters by Christians throughout the first few centuries, for what it's worth.

GakuseiDon

The Old Man is the Knowledgeable Stranger, The One Who Knows The Truth. Consider the scenario, as Justin frames it. Trypho, a man who likes to approach philosophers when he is out and about, encounters a stranger in philosopher robes (Justin) and approaches him, to learn.

In turn, Justin tells Trypho the story of how Justin, when he was out and about, encounters a stranger who was a philosopher, from whom Justin learned the Truth. What was the Truth? That the prophets had proclaimed the coming of Christ and predicted what was happening in the present. In turn. Justin explains to Trypho how the prophets proclaimed the Christ, and how Jesus fulfilled those prophecies.

I don't think it is convoluted. Those reading Justin's Dialogue with Trypho would probably have no idea who Justin is. So Justin is the Old Man to his audience.

I think naming the Old Man would be futile, unless Justin was suggesting it was Christ himself, as some have speculated.

aa5874

Well, you need to point out the Lies of Justin Martyr.

Come on, Duvduv. You MUST be able to show that Justin lied.

You will NOT ever be able to show that Justin Martyr did NOT meet an Old Man so you are wasting your time.

Now, you should know that all dialogue in antiquity unless it was written down at the time of conversing were basically re-created since there was NO means of recording any "LIVE" conversations so, again, you will NOT ever be able to prove that Justin did NOT have a dialogue with Trypho.

But, please state exactly what did Justin lie about.

You have NOTHING??

Duvduv

I already did. Were there Hebrew prophets 5000 years before Justin?
Did anyone prophesy the Christ? Was there Acts of Pilate that told all the acts of Jesus?

Duvduv

What you propose is not what Justin was arguing. He simply told a story of how he learned of the Christ factually. And the reader is not supposed to wonder who the old man was, what his background wad or even who the Christ is for those unfamiliar with what Justin is talking about. And he's writing to serious people so many pages with the expectation he'll be taken seriously.

GakuseiDon

I think the options are:
(1) That is what Justin wrote
(2) That is an abridged version of what Justin wrote
(3) Someone else wrote it as a forgery of Justin
(4) Someone else wrote it and it was attributed to Justin

If (1), then we need to understand the writing style of the time, and see how Justin fits in. If he is consistent with the Christian literature of the time, then we can say that we don't know why he wrote that way, but we shouldn't be surprised.

If (2), then we get an idea of what was important to Christians following Justin. In this case, it was the "philosophical school" approach to promoting Christianity.

If (3) or (4), then we need to ask: why would the forger write in this way? Similar point to (1).

I recommend sitting down and reading through all the articles on the Early Christian Writings website, one by one. It's a good way to familiarize yourself with the topics that interested early Christians, and how they expressed themselves on those topics.

The First Century writings concentrate on justification of beliefs by referencing the Hebrew Scriptures. Then in the first half of the Second Century, emphasis changes to Christianity being a philosophy, backed up by Hebrew Scriptures. Finally, towards the end of the Second Century, the Gospels start to become revered, in the same way as the Hebrew Scriptures were. Justin fits well into that arc.

My question to you is: If the Dialogue of Trypho is the work of someone later, why did he write in that style that you think that Justin wouldn't have written in? Why did the forger not include details about Christ, the leaders, etc, as highlighted earlier?