aa5874

There are writings attributed to Lucian, a 2nd century Non-Apologetic source, that mentioned Christians in Palestine who worshiped a crucified man.

See "Death of Peregrine" by Lucian of Samosata

We also have Recovered Dated Texts of the 2nd century.

The Evidence suggests that there was a Christian community in the 2nd century.

Duvduv

But this is NOT EVIDENCE of any actual Johannine, Matthean or any other alleged communities who revered one or another gospels exclusively as part of some gentile Christian religion.

Diogenes the Cynic

The communities did not need to have used their own Gospels exclusively, but they had to have existed because those books did not copy themselves, and they would not have been copied unless somebody was reading them.

The Johannine appendix is an explicit self-identification as a community as well. "WE know this testimony is true."

Maybe there is simply a difference of perception of the word "communuty" here.

Duvduv

Why does the author have to have represented a "community" for which there is no evidence at all rather than simply a commissioned writer to represent certain ideas that were circulating around in his locale (which did not have to be part of any "community" actually located somewhere)?

Good old Justin talks incessantly about his beliefs and never explains the source of his teachings, those of his Old Man, and does not explain about any communities.....BECAUSE THE WRITER HAD NONE.

Similarly, there is no actual empirical evidence for texts written or held by Marcion or "Marcionites", and no evidence that "Luke" who wrote a gospel was the author of Acts except for the claims of Eusebius and Jerome.

aa5874

Again, please read the writings of Justin Martyr.

The Septuagint or Hebrew Scripture and the Memoirs of the Apostles were the Fundamental sources of Justin's Belief.

Again, Justin did Mention that Christians in the cities and country Met on Sundays and described events at such meetings.

See First Apology attributed to Justin Martyr.

Duvduv

Please stop grasping at straws. The fact is that the Apology waxes incessantly about the religious views of "Justin" who tells us nothing about where his Old Man heard about the Christ, where the communities are located, who their leaders are, etc.

A line or two should raise your eyebrows, AA, especially since you too look for interpolations. In this case it may just as well be a throwaway statement that tells his readers (i.e. the Emperor!) nothing at all about this so-called sect, which based on the Apology could be a group meeting in his living room.

aa5874

What are you grasping at??? The writings attributed to Eusebius??? You have NOTHING at all to support your claim that there were NO Jesus cult of Christians until the 4th century.

Again, ACTUAL TEXTS have been recovered and DATED to the 2nd century so you are wasting your time.

I will Not REJECT ACTUAL RECOVERED DATED EVIDENCE and accept your IMAGINATION and FAITH BASED BELIEFS.

My arguments are based on Actual Dated Recovered Texts and writings that are compatible with them.

Don't you understand that I NO longer accept Presumptions, Speculation and Imagination as evidence???

Whenever you imagine anything--also imagine the opposite.

Now, even "Against the Galileans" is compatible with the Recovered Dated Texts---the Emperor Julian did NOT know of any WELL-KNOWN author who wrote of Jesus and Paul when writing about events during the time of Tiberius and Claudius.

Duvduv

I am sorry to say I do not know what your point is. The so-called text "Against the Galileans" is ascribed to Julian the Apostate of the mid 4th century, is written by a Judeophile and mentions Jesus and Paul, but so what? What does that have to do with anything?

outhouse

a community could have been a few people, from one house where they would meet, to a group of houses.

again how you define community


The scripture itself is evidence. were talking about a very very illiterate culture, a single person/author/scribe would have no reason to put this all together as it wasnt cheap to do unless said scribe had backing



luke and act based om writing styles are obviously the same person, or scribe. Content from the same exact time period from teh exact cultural earmarks are also evident

Duvduv

Outhouse, I think it's pretty straightfoward what a Justin was referring to about his people to the extent that he was appealing to the emperor. It was not a sect of people meeting in living rooms here or there or on a back porch. There is no indication at all where his groups were, which centers, who leaders were, who teachers were, where the Old Man found out about Christ, what his background was. The author of the story was pretty much winging it for the sake of providing a polemic for the emerging empire-sponsored sect.

In any event, there is still no evidence that any of the gospels was THE gospel of a particular sect. It cannot even be inferred by the text of the gospels themselves, and definitely not by any independent or external source, since no one describes a Johannine or Matthean sect, and there are no fragments of any gospelist writings, polemics or apologetics. The four gospels, like the epistles, are always presented as a set. No one disputes the "authenticity" of one of the four gospels in relation to any other gospel or gospels. The claim that certain other sects preferred one or another gospel in the writings of someone like Epiphanius about the Cerinthians is hopelessly confused, as is a description of the Ebionites by Eusebius. Including the fact that it is highly unlikely that a whole group would rely on a single story book for their messianic faith.