Duvduv

Yes, I am aware of this. But don't forget that he is specific about his Jesus being at the time of Pilate in Bethlehem, born to Mary, AND when he is talking about the pagan gods he is presumably arguing that physical offspring were produced by the gods.
If you want to argue that the extra stuff about his parentage is interpolation, can you describe how this can be so? IF his Jesus originally is NOT physical, how do you reconcile all these points if the parentage material cannot be proven to be interpolation beyond speculation??
If it can be shown that these are interpolations, then we could ask the question as to when and why and through whom the celestial platonic Christ figure became a historical man, despite the fact that Justin uses biblical verses to prove that his Christ is the messiah.......

aa5874

Well, please state EXACTLY how Jesus was conceived. Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost. Surely Jesus was NOT humanized he was SPIRITUALIZED.

Jesus of the Gospels was BELIEVED to be the SEED of a HOLY SPIRIT or the seed of God and born of a Virgin.


I really don't know what you want to prove.

In any event, the idea of the Spiritual Messiah or Christ was AFTER the FAILURES associated with the Expectation of the Physical Messianic ruler.

It is CLEAR that Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius STATED that the Jews did EXPECT a PHYSICAL Messianic Ruler at around c70 CE but the Expectations of Jews ENDED in Disaster with tens of thousands of Jews dead, some starving to death, and the Jewish Temple fallen.

See Wars of the Jews 6.5.4, Suetonius Life of Vespasian and Tacitus Histories 5.

The SPIRITUAL MESSIAH was later offered as an ALTERNATIVE but was REJECTED by the Jews.

In fact, the SPIRITUAL MESSIAH was the "Anti-Christ" of Jews.

The Jesus of the NT, the Spiritual Christ, Hated the Jews and claimed the Father of the Jews was the Devil.

John 8:44 - The Gospels, with the Spiritual Messiah born of the SPIRIT, were AFTER the Failed Expectation of a Physical Messianic ruler and AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

Duvduv

I was trying to get to the crux of reconciling the text of Justin with your arguments that in fact he did not believe in the physical Jesus. Were the references suggesting a physical Jesus just cleverly inserted interpolated, and if so, how can this be shown?
And how do you prove that the gospelist historical Jesus preceded the celestial Christ idea? After all, he acts as an actual man and has parents according to Matthew and Luke, and a father Joseph according to Mark and a mother according to john.
In any event Justin's Jesus is not the same as the Jesus of the epistles, whose name is "exalted above all names " etc.
Please elaborate. Thanks

aa5874

I really don't understand what you are saying. I have NEVER stated that Justin Martyr's writings were cleverly interpolated.

J Justin Martyr seems to BELIEVE his Jesus did EXIST but born WITHOUT sexual union which is COMPATIBLE with the "Memoirs of the Apostles".

First of all, you are wrong about gMark.

The author of gMark CLEARLY implied that Jesus himself was the Carpenter, and NEVER stated that Jesus was the Son of the Carpenter or the Son of Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - Remarkably, the author of gMark did NOT even mention Joseph at all or that he was the husband of Mary or the father of Jesus.

NOWHERE is Joseph in gMark.

Secondly, you seem not to understand that people of antiquity BELIEVED that Ghosts did actually EXIST and could reproduce.

Jesus of the NT was the seed of a SPIRIT or a Holy Ghost.

Please, read the Mythology of the Greeks and Romans of the 1st century.
Well, there are many versions of the Jesus stories. Some were early and some were late.

The "Memoirs of the Apostles" appear to be an earlier version of the Jesus story and the Pauline version seem to be a later version and AFTER Justin Martyr's "Memoirs".

Up to the 3rd century, Origen seem to be using a similar version to Justin Martyr.

Based on the writings of Theophilus of Antioch and Athenagoras, 2nd century writers, it would appear that the Logos even predated the Jesus Christ stories.

It is AFTER Justin Martyr, AFTER the mid 2nd century that we encounter many writings WITHOUT the name Jesus but with CHRIST or the Son of God.

Tertullian's "Apology" does NOT mention Jesus just Christ.

Theophilus of Antioch "To Autolycus" does NOT mention Jesus.

Athenagoras in "Plea for the Christians" does NOT mention Jesus.

Tatian "Address to the Greeks" does NOT mention Jesus.

Minucius Felix "Octavius" does NOT mention Jesus.

Writings WITHOUT Jesus are likely to be after the mid 2nd century than before. There were Christians AFTER Justin Martyr that did NOT believe the Jesus story but still claimed that they were Christians because they were ANOINTED.

Duvduv

I stand corrected about Mark where only Mary is mentioned, though the point is still valid.
About Justin, see chapters 34 and 47 from the First Apology.
Also how do you understand the dialogue with Trypho?

aa5874

Again, people of antiquity BELIEVED Ghosts and Phantom existed.

Now, you read "Against Marcion" 4.7 Marcion's PHANTOM EXISTED at the very same time as the Ghost Child called Jesus.

Justin BELIEVED people saw the Child of the Ghost.

Marcion BELIEVED people saw the PHANTOM.

And the Marcionites used to LAUGH at Justin with his Ghost story.

Read "First Apology" LVIII The PHANTOM BELIEVERS RIDICULED THE GHOST BELIEVERS.

And they called themselves Christians.

Duvduv

This is getting increasingly confusing. I asked you specifically about two chapters in Justin and you replied by quoting Marcion from Tertullian and talk about Justin's ghost Jesus.
I still don't see the response to my questions.

tanya

1. Magus: I cannot find Magus, corresponding to "the Big", or "the Great", in any Greek Dictionary. I do find Magus corresponding to "magician", or "sorcerer".

2. I did find Paul = "small":

3. dictionary results:

http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/efts/dicos/woodhouse_test.pl?keyword=^Small,%20adj.

Small: μικρός

Runt: νάνοσ

short: μικρός

To cut short a person, to make to stop: pauein

tiny: πολύ μικρόσ

large: μεγάλος

huge: πελώριος

big: μεγάλος

Duvduv

Is it conceivable that the original meaning of Paulos im the epistles was not meant as an individual's personal name but as an anonymous pseudonym for letters which were merely for fictional didactic purposes that did not reflect a historical event?

So the writers signed themselves "The Small One " as a literary device?
In any case I still can't see that the epistles originated with orthodox forgers because they could never have resisted inserting references such as quotes from the gospels to show that the author knew about the historical Jesus story.

Doug Shaver

You are learning why most of us who have been here a while usually pay no attention to aa5874.