Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Yes it is strange.

Just like most all other early Christian writings, its parts appear to have been assembled and then latter expanded upon by unknown others.

Even if Justin's writings first actually entered human history at the time generally accepted, they do not actually relate any earlier church history, only its already mythologized legends drawn from writings similar to what we now have.

And as you note, other than mentioning The Memoirs, and that the church meets and reads from these on Sundays, he tells us virtually nothing concerning his contemporary church(s), and mentions no locations, nor any of its prominent leaders.

Not even so much as the name of that 'old man' whose conversation allegedly had converted him.

Then there is the following 'adopting the dress of a philosopher'. One might well wonder whether this was a common mode of one 'adopting' the Christian religion?

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.
_one that never mentions, never acknowledges, never gives any credit to any contemporary Christian. No mentions of his local church's founders, nor of any other member of that congregation past or present. No brethren, no fellow workers, no companions in his ministry. Nothing.

Yet if the initial writings 'Justin' had been composed late in Chrristian history, it inconcievable that they would not have incorporated Pauline theology that was by then well familiar to the entire Christian world.

So yes Duvduv, there are things that are bad rotten in Denmark.
And I do not 'buy' that Saint Justin's writings are authentic in all of their parts. Nor St Clement's, Nor Saint Ignatius's, nor Saint Irenaeus's....

I believe we have been fed a line of fabricated Christian horse shit from the beginning, and we are still trying and failing to digest it. Best to just puke it all out and be done with it.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

....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?

Originally Posted by aa5874

How in the world could Justin be the Church's foremost spokesperson???

Originally Posted by aa5874

How in the world could Justin be the Church's foremost spokesperson???

Originally Posted by mountainman

By common forgery undertaken by the Church's foremost heresiologists.

The question is in which century did this mass forgery happen.

Dear Paul appears to have exchanged letters with Seneca in the 4th century.

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Originally Posted by aa5874

Justin was NOT the Church's foremost spokesperson.

Originally Posted by Whelas

JUSTIN MARTYR: (c. 100-165): Saint, Martyr, a foremost
Christian Apologist. A Gentile ex-Pagan of Samaria, turned
Christian, and supposed to have suffered martyrdom in the reign of
Marcus Aurelius, in whose name he forged a very preposterous
rescript. His principal works, in Greek, are his two Apologies, the
first addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, whose reply he also
forged; the second to "the sacred Senate" of Rome; his Dialogue
with Trypho the Jew, and his Hortatory Address to the Greeks. He
describes himself and fellow Christian Fathers as "we who formerly
used magical arts." (I Apol. ch. xiv.) The burden of his arguments
is Pagan "analogies" of Christianity, the contents of many of his
chapters being indicated by their captions, as "The Demons Imitate
Christian Doctrine," and "Heathen Analogies to Christian Doctrine,"
in chapters xiv and xv of his First Apology, and elsewhere. His
whole faith in Christ and in Christianity, he declares, is
confirmed by these heathen precedents and analogies: "Be well
assured, then, Trypho, that I am established in the knowledge of
and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is
called the Devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just
as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false
prophets in Elijah's days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of
Jupiter, was begotten by [Jupiter's) intercourse with Semele, and
that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that
being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended
to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I
not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced
by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? ... And when he [the
devil] brings forward AEsculapius as the raiser of the dead and
healer of all diseases, may I not say in this matter likewise he
has imitated the prophecies about Christ? ... And when I hear that
Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving
serpent counterfeited this also." (Dial, with Trypho, ch. lxix;
ANF. i, 233.)



Father Justin accepts the heathen gods as genuine divine
beings; but says they are only wicked demons who lead men astray;
and he says that these "evil demons, effecting apparitions of
themselves, both defiled women and corrupted boys." (I Apol. ch. v,
eh. liv, passim.) The devils "having heard it proclaimed through
the prophets that the Christ was to come, ... they put forward many
to be called the sons of Jupiter, under the impression that they
would be able to produce in men the idea that the things which were
said in regard to Christ were more marvelous tales, like the things
which were said by the poets. The devils, accordingly, when they
heard these prophetic words, said that Bacchus was the son of
Jupiter, and gave out that he was the discoverer of the vine"; and
so through many twaddling chapters, repeating the argument with
respect to Bellerophon and his horse Pegasus, of Perseus, of
Hercules, of AEsculapius, etc., as "analogies" prophetic of
baptism, sacraments, the eucharist, resurrection, etc., etc. The
Pagan myths and miracles are true; therefore like fables of the
Christ are worthy of belief: "And when we say also that the Word,
who is the first-born of God, was produced without sexual union,
and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified. and rose
again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from
what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.
... But as we have said above, wicked devils perpetrated these
things. And if we assert that the Word of God was born in a
peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as
said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury
is the angelic word [Logos] of God. ... And if we even affirm that
He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept
of Perseus. And in what we say that he made whole the lame, the
paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very
similar to the deeds said to have been done by AEsculapius." (I
Apol., chs. xxi, xxii; ANF. i, 170; cf. Add. ad Grace. ch. lxix;
Ib. 233.)

Father Justin also retails to the Emperor the old fable of
Simon Magus and his magical miracles at Rome, and attributes it all
to the work of the devils. For "the evil spirits, not being
satisfied with saying, before Christ's appearance, that those who
were said to be sons of Jupiter were born of him, but after he
appeared, ... and when they learned how He had been foretold by the
prophets, put forward again other men, the Samaritans Simon and
Menander, who did many mighty works by magic; ... and so greatly
astonished the sacred Senate and people of the Romans that he was
considered a god, and honored with a statue; ... which statue was
erected in the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this
inscription in the language of Rome: 'Simoni Deo Sancto -- To Simon
the holy God" (I Apol. chs. xxvi, lvi; ANF. i, 171, 182; cf. Iren.
Adv. Haer. ch. xxiii; ANF. i, 347-8; Euseb. HE. II, 13.) We have
seen this much embroidered "tradition" myth exploded, and the
statue discovered and deciphered, it being a simple private pious
monument to a Pagan god!

Father Justin in many chapters cites and appeals for Christian
proofs to "The Testimony of the Sibyl," of Homer, of Sophocles, of
Pythagoras, of Plato. (Add. ad Grace. chs. 18-20; ANF. i, 279-280.)
Of the Sibyl, so often quoted: "And you may in part learn the right
religion from the ancient Sibyl, who by some kind of potent
inspiration teaches you, through her oracular predictions, truths
which seem to be much akin to the teachings of the prophets. ... Ye
men of Greece, ... do ye henceforth give heed to the words of the
Sibyl, ... predicting, as she does in a clear and patent manner,
the advent of our Savior Jesus Christ," quoting long verses of
Christian-forged nonsense. (Ib. chs. 37-38; ANF. i, 288-289.)




-- extracted from Joseph Wheless,
"FORGERY IN CHRISTIANITY", 1930

Originally Posted by NOTES on BULLNECK

Personal Appointment of his Bishops

Constantine personally appointed his Bishops in the new Roman religion. Each Bishop was responsible for a small region called a diocese, and enjoyed the local control of the area in all matters of Roman religion. The more important administration responsibilities was work involving financial and administration duties. In total it has been estimated that the empire hosted in this fashion as many as 1800 of Constantine's new bishops. Constantine often referred to himself as "Bishop of bishops", the reference having twofold significance in that the Greek "episkopos" (bishop) also means "spy".

That he was perceived to be involved in their activities, was also associated with the extremely desireable tax-free status that this new Roman religious order enjoyed. Promotions to the positions available in the new Roman religious order were thus advantageous for the wealthy.

Originally Posted by aa5874

Justin was NOT the Church's foremost spokesperson.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Show us that Justin was NOT the foremost spokesman of the Christian Church circa 150 CE. -Name- who was.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Tell us the NAME of the foremost Christian spokesperson, and notable Apologist the Christian faith circa 100-150 CE.

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are the one who claimed Justin was the Church's foremost spokeperson from 100-150 CE.

Originally Posted by aa5874

When the Church presented their History it was Irenaeus who was used for as the foremost spokeperson of the 2nd century Jesus cult.

Originally Posted by aa5874

How in the world could Justin be the Church's foremost spokesperson???

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, why do you put so much importance to the Talmud?? What about the Hebrew Bible?? Surely, you must know of the contradictions and discrepancies in the Hebrew Bible. Strange that you would think that all Christian writings are corrupted.

You keep on posting the same repetitive nonsense instead of actually analysing the writings attributed to Justin when you have been shown that Justin Martyr's writings contradict the History of the Jesus cult as stated by the Pauline letters, Polycarp, Acts of the Apostles, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Jerome and other Church writers.

1. In Church History 6. 25 it is claimed that there were FOUR Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that were authentic and known in the Church.

Justin Martyr DENIES such a thing---It was the Memoirs of the Apostles that were read in the Churches on Sundays.

This is "Church History" attributed to Eusebius.
Church History 6.25.4

This is "First Apology" attributed to Justin.

First Apology LXVII The 4th or 5th century Church did NOT write First Apology or Dialogue with Trypho. Justin knows NOTHING of Four Gospels written by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John that were the ONLY INDISPUTABLE Gospels of the Church.

Originally Posted by aa5874

Justin was NOT the Church's foremost spokesperson.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Show us that Justin was NOT the foremost spokesman of the Christian Church circa 150 CE. -Name- who was.