Duvduv

Spare me. DO you really mean to claim authenticity for a book claimed to written by a guy in the 2nd century when he does not even describe the emergence of his sect, the origins, the teachers, leaders, locations, etc. of this great sect that needs the intervention of the emperor himself?? And in terms of "testimonies" this is about all you have to go on.....??

And you know full well that a regime emerged in the fourth century intent upon establishing a NEW IMPERIAL RELIGION that needed its apologists and advocates to disseminate and publicize this new religion as it went along. And there is no independent corroboration for the existence of a "Justin" in the second century? In fact there is more "corroboration" for a 1st century Jesus if you think about it than there is for a second century Justin........And yet one would stubbornly claim that the 1st century Jesus is a myth but the second century Justin is a fact.

aa5874

Again, you need to actually read the writings attributed to Justin Martyr. The writings of Justin Martyr are COMPATIBLE with the Recovered DATED Texts which SHOW THAT the Jesus cult and story was ALREADY known and ESTABLISHED before the 4th century.

Well, the same Eusebius that you RELY on for the history of the 4th century Regime also claimed JUSTIN MARTYR LIVED DURING THE REIGN OF ANTONINUS.

Your 4th century Regime Corroborated Justin Martyr.

Church History 2 Again, the writings attributed to Justin Martyr are CORROBORATED by Apologetic and Non-Apologetic sources are Compatible with the dated recovered Texts of antiquity.

The Jesus story was KNOWN and ESTABLISHED BEFORE the 4th century and AFTER the 1st.

Duvduv

I don't suppose Eusebius had any opinions about when his Jesus or Paul lived, by any chance, did he?
And there is no evidence for anything to do with a guy who supposedly wrote a book or two. None. Nada.
Yeah, right......."on behalf of OUR religion, my foot." How convenient. How did the opinions of this biased propagandist achieve SO MUCH unquestioned legitimacy?!

Justin, one of our distinguished writers?????? Anyone with a brain can see that in the Monologue with Trypho he spends most of his time propagandizing, and in the Apology he writes very poorly, seeking the intervention of the emperor for a sect that he does not even explain or describe. It looks more like they were books written by college students trying to imitate Mark Twain.

J-D

There are no credible sources to show your methodology being practised anywhere in the world by anybody but yourself.

aa5874

How do you know what Eusebius wrote?? You believe the propaganda of the 4th century regime.

It is clear to me that you are totally confused and have nothing but your imagination.

You cannot reconstruct the past from Speculation.

One must START with the HARD EVIDENCE and work outwards.

We have the HARD EVIDENCE so the NEXT step is to locate writings of antiquity that are compatible with the actual recovered DATED sources.

The DSS and NT Manuscripts have been Recovered and DATED and they SHOW NO 1st century Jesus story.

They show that the Jesus story and cult was from sometime in the 2nd century and LONG BEFORE the 4th century.

Please, you seem not to understand that Paleography is an acceptable method of dating ancient manuscripts and is NOT only used on NT manuscripts.

You seem not to understand that C 14 tests are carried out on the MEDIUM, the material used, and NOT on the writing itself.

Duvduv

When I refer to Eusebius that is a shorthand for the writings attributed to a guy named Eusebius that may or may not have actually been written by him. But you must decide whether you want to rely on dating of scraps of parchment or on the context of biased church historians.

Why would Justin be called "one of OUR distinguished writers" when his theology does not correspond to that of the church, makes no mention of Paulist teachings or Paul, and is full of contradictions and confusion?

Since Justin did not know of Pauline theology, I would still like to find out where his sect learned of the cancelation of the Law and the messiah prophecies for the gentiles. If this preceded Justin and his Old Man, it would be interesting to know where it came from since it does not involve the writings of "Paul." Of course the Constantinian empire would have found its rationale for this bible-based monotheistic ideology for gentiles first and then put together the sources for it, including Justin and then Paul. They may have forgotten to incorporate into the epistles ideas found in the writings of "Justin" which preceded the epistles, but since Justin was already identified with the SECOND CENTURY, it was more likely that they needed a FIRST CENTURY source prior to the destruction of the Temple and near the time of Jesus.

aa5874

Why do you continue to mis-represent the recovered Dated NT Manuscripts?? Please, you must be credible if you want to be taken seriously.


PAPYRUS 45 contains about 30 pages and is dated around c 250 CE.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_45

PAPYRUS 46 contains more than 100 folios is dated between 175-225 CE.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46

PAPYRUS 66 contains about 78 pages and is DATED around c 200 CE.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_66

PAPYRUS 75 contains about 102 pages and is dated between 175-225 CE.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_75

Why would Justin claim Josephus wrote the "TF"???

Once you read the writings attributed to Justin you would have immediately recognized that he used Hebrew Scripture.

Justin mentioned the book of Isaiah by NAME over SEVENTY Times and Moses over ONE HUNDRED times.

In Fact, Justin mentioned the NAMES of almost all the major and minor Prophets and almost all the books in Hebrew Scripture.

Justin Martyr had NOTHING from Jesus or Paul, Only Hebrew Scripture, the Memoirs, the Acts of Pilate and Revelation.

Duvduv

If you wanted to name the additional manuscripts why didn't you do so in the first place?. But we know what paleography entails.
In the other matters your reply avoids my challenges.

anethema

the current discussion is almost the same as dems & reps. Nobody seems to be talking the same language. the solution is commen ground. History demands what aa is talking about. theology or what passes for it doesnt demand anything but conjecture and assumptions. if we continue to argue this way the theologions win.

J-D

That's true. But aa5874 never makes any attempt to explain in other people's languages, or to understand them.