aa5874

Please, read the writings atrributed to Justin Martyr and stop making unsubstantiated assertions.

The writings atrributed to Justin Martyr are COMPATIBLE with the DATED recovered Texts of antiquity and is corroborated.

Please, if you ACTUALLY read "Church History" attributed to Eusebius you will notice that the writings attributed to Justin are NOT used to corroborate the Activities of the disciples and Paul.

It was the writings attributed to IRENAEUS that was employed.

Again, please read the writings attributed to Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Eusbius.

Again, the writings ATTRIBUTED to Justin Martyr are COMPATIBLE with the ACTUAL recovered DATED Texts.

Justin Martyr had NO known history of the Activities of the Disciples and Paul in the time of Claudius but he wrote about SIMON Magus--NOT SIMON Peter and NOT Paul.

200 years AFTER Justin Martyr, the Emperor Julian in "Against the Galileans" CORROBORATED the writings of Justin when the Emperor implied that there was NO known mention of Jesus and Paul by any writer of that time.

Once you cannot IDENTIFY any Credible sources then all your claims about the 4th century are of no real value.

The following sources are Compatible with the Actual recovered Dated Texts.

Writings attributed to Justin Martyr, Aristides, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Tatian, Minucius Felix, Arnobius and Julian the Emperor

Sheshbazzar

And of course it is this 'credible' Justin that reports that Jesus Christ was a known figure long before he ever heard of him.
Ergo, Justin's accounts are no indication of when the Jesus Christ cult actually began.

There is no reason to expect that Justin would have been privy to or informed of every story or legend about Jesus and his words and actions that had ever arisen among those cultist whom had preceded him.
What Justin might evidence that he was personally unaware of regarding Jesus or his followers cannot be justly expanded into an argument that no such stories or followers ever existed before Justin wrote of what he heard of or believed.
We have no rational reason to expect that Justin was omniscient regarding all aspects and beliefs held by those scattered Christians whom had preceded him.
That Justin did not know or report on some facet, or line of tradition within the Christian religion is in itself no absolute evidence that all others were likewise lacking in holding such traditions.

Once it is allowed that Justin himself was not the actual inventor and originator of beliefs in Jesus Christ, then that which preceded, yet is unrecorded and unreported, must and will remain an open question until such earlier evidence and reports may come to light.
This 'case' regarding the origins of the Jesus Christ cult can never be conclusively closed, nor any valid verdict ever rendered until this known to have existed earlier evidence be brought to light and considered.


Only playing the Devils Advocate here with regards to the flaws that Christian apologists will most certainly find as sufficient reason to dismiss aa's assertions and position.

I don't believe any 'Jesus' (or by any other spelling or pronunciation of name) was ever born, ever lived, or ever did those things reported by the NT, nor that there was any actual 'Paul' acting or preaching a gospel as that one that is described in the fictions of Acts and the Epistles.



.

aa5874

No Christian Apologist can even dare attempt to publicly dimiss and respond to my argument because I will EXPOSE the Christian Apologist's argument as ABSURD, hopelessly illogical and based on Presumptions, forgeries, fraud and Fiction.

I am in CONTROL. My argument is SOLID and cannot be contradicted by Christian Apologists. This is BC&H--Not Sunday School.

Now, why won't Christian Apologists DIMISS your Beliefs???

Please, if you can present your Beliefs and state that you believe there was NO Jesus and NO Paul as described in the NT then you must NOW understand that my argument is ALSO reasonable.

My argument is that NO Jesus' CULT of Christians existed Before c 70 CE and did not do those things reported by the NT, nor was there any actual 'Paul' before c 70 CE who was acting or preaching a gospel as described in Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles Based on the Abundance of evidence in writings attributed to Justin Martyr, Aristides, Minucius Felix, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Hippolytus, Ephraim, Tatian, Arnobius, Julian the Emperor and the recovered DATED Sources.

The writings of Irenaeus about the authorship, dating and chronology of NT books have been DISCREDITED even by Scholars so I cannot accept them.

Sources that RELIED on Irenaeus or the sources of Irenaeus cannot be trusted to re-construct the past.

These are some of the writings that cannot be trusted to re-construct the history of the Jesus cult of Christians.

The anonymous letter attributed to Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome.

aa5874

The history of the Jesus cult of Christians has been Resolved--Credible Sources have been found.

The Jesus cult of Christians is from around the mid 2nd century.

To reconstruct the Past--To do history or develop any theory--CREDIBLE SOURCES ARE IMPERATIVE---CREDIBLE DATA is a MUST.

If I wanted to find out what happened YESTERDAY --I NEED CREDIBLE SOURCES.

If I wanted to find out what happened 10,000 years ago--I NEED CREDIBLE SOURCES.

No matter how far back we go--We ALWAYS NEED CREDIBLE DATA.

So, we KNOW the fundamental tools to reconstruct the past.

The Fundamental Tools to reconstruct the Past are CREDIBLE SOURCES.

The Four Canonised Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters are NOT Credible sources so we cannot use them for the history of the Jesus cult of Christians.

Even Scholars and Historians, like Bart Ehrman, have Publicly Admitted that the New Testament is filled with Discrepancies and Contradictions. See "Did Jesus Exist?" page 182.

So, writings of antiquity that RELIED on the NT are most likely NOT Credible.

Sources of antiquity that RELIED on the FAKE authors, FAKE dates of composition, FAKE chronology and even FAKE contents of the NT Canon cannot be trusted.

We MUST FIRST find Credible Sources to do History.

Now that we haveActually Recovered Ancient Texts and have DATED them by Paleography and C 14 we can Examine Apologetic and Non-Apologetic sources to find out if any of them is COMPATIBLE with them.

The writings attributed to Justin Martyr, Aristides, Minucius Felix, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Tatian, Arnobius, Julian the Emperor, Lucian and Celsus appear to be Compatible with the DATED Recovered Texts of antiquity.

The CREDIBLE SOURCES of antiquity SHOW that the Jesus cult of Christians are really from the 2nd century.

There is NO known actual history of Jesus, the disciples and Paul in the 1st century BEFORE c 70 CE.

The History of Jesus and the disciples BEGAN and ENDED in so-called prophecies in Hebrew Scripture and the supposed Memoirs of the Apostles.

Without the Prophecies in Hebrew Scripture and the Memoirs of the Apostles we would know NOTHING of Jesus and the disciples BEFORE c 70 CE.

The Credible sources of antiquity and the Recovered DATED Texts SHOW that the Jesus cult of Christians was in its INFANCY stage around the mid 2nd century.

The Credible sources of antiquity SHOW that the Jesus story had an IMPACT on the Roman Empire sometime in the mid 2nd century.

J-D

And soon you will be INVINCIBLE!

aa5874

The writings attributed to the 2nd century writer Justin are EXTREMELY important because he ATTEMPTED to prove that Jesus Christ did EXIST in the time of Pilate.

The writings of Justin Martyr SHOW that all claims in non-Apologetic sources of a character called Jesus the Christ before c 70 CE are FORGERIES.

In “Dialogue with Trypho”, Justin stated quite clearly that Trypho the Jew claimed that Christ had NOT come or was NOT even known up to the mid 2nd century.

“Dialogue with Trypho 8 Trypho claimed CHRIST was INVENTED.

Justin Martyr will SHOW that there were NO known historical independent sources that Jesus did exist in the time of Pilate.
Justin Martyr in his bid to PROVE Jesus did exist did NOT make any reference to Antiquities of the Jews, Tacitus Annals, Suetonius or Pliny the younger.

Justin Martyr used supposed Predictions in Hebrew Scripture as PROOF that Jesus existed
Justin Martyr used writers that PREDATE Jesus by hundreds of years as Evidence that Jesus did exist.
Writings attributed to Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Micah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, the Psalmist, and the books of Genesis, Exodus, Kings and Samuel are used to PROVE Jesus did exist.
Up to the mid 2nd century, Justin Martyr made ZERO reference to an independent non-apologetic source for Jesus in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

Duvduv

And, you argue that the epistles emerged AFTER these claims of Justin without even once invoking any of Justin's claims from biblical predictions about the Christ. Indeed, and strangely enough, "Justin" attempts to tell us about the virgin birth (which is never mentioned in the epistles) from the Tanakh prophetic writings and not from any finalized gospel nativity story.....

In any case, Trypho is simply saying that the true Messiah is UNKNOWN in his own generation OR TO HIMSELF until he reveals himself after being anointed officially by Elijah who precedes him, and this is true according to rabbinic Judaism. This would not necessarily mean that a messiah had not yet come, but if he had, EVERYBODY would know about it.....

aa5874

Again, what you say does NOT make much sense.

If Jesus Christ did come and nobody knew him and Jesus himself did NOT even know he was Christ how in the world can you show or argue that he did really come???

Again, please read the writings attributed to Justin Martyr.

He used so-called prophecies in writings that PREDATED the Jesus story by hundreds of years in his attempt to "prove" Jesus did exist and failed to mention any writings of Josephus, Philo, Suetonius, Tacitus, or Pliny the younger about Jesus or the Jesus cult of Christians.

Writings attributed to Justin Martyr are COMPATIBLE with the Recovered DATED Sources which suggest that the the Jesus story and Cult originated in the 2nd century and that non-apologetic writings which claimed there was a character called Jesus Christ before c 70 CE are FORGERIES.

aa5874

As I have said before all that is needed to reconstruct the past--to do history--is to LOCATE Credible Sources.

Once Credible sources of antiquity are found then the History of the Jesus cult of Christians can be easily assembled.

There are hundreds of Texts of antiquity that have been recovered and dated but NONE have any Jesus story or Pauline writings in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

There are also Apologetic sources that Show NO Pauline influence at all even in the 2nd century.

The writings of Justin Martyr, Aristides, Arnobius, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix and others show NO INFLEUENCE by Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

But, let us examine how Justin described his Jesus and it will be seen that Justin's Jesus was NOT a human being.

Justin's Jesus was a PHANTOM.

Justin's Jesus could have ONLY been BELIEVED to have existed in human flesh.


First Apology XXI
It is EXTREMELY significant what Justin wrote about his Jesus because that will give us an indication of what his OPPONENTS knew about the Jesus character.

When Justin PUBLICLY declared that Jesus was born WITHOUT Sexual union we can DEDUCE that Trypho the Jew and his companions ALSO heard the same thing.

In effect, if Trypho and his companions knew or was aware that Jesus actually had a human Father then they would be Expected to EXPOSE Justin as a LIAR.

Trypho and his companions did NOT claim to know of any human father of Jesus and did NOT know of Jesus in "Dialogue with Trypho".

And that is PRECISELY what eventually is found in the writings attributed to Justin---he merely BELIEVED the Memoirs of the Apostles but had ZERO non-apologetic sources to corroborate the Memoirs.

Justin BELIEVED the Memoirs were written shortly AFTER the Ascension of Jesus--but there is a MAJOR problem---the Ascension itself NEVER really happened.

Justin's knowledge of the disciples of Jesus ENDS exactly as it is stated in the Memoirs--AFTER the resurrected Jesus commisioned the disciples to PREACH the Gospel.

The writings of Justin Martyr have ZERO history of the disciples OUTSIDE the Memoirs and NOTHING at all about Paul.

This is PRECISELY what is EXPECTED if Justin's Jesus was ONLY believed to have existed and had NO real existence.

In effect, Justin had anonymous undated Fables that he Believed were history and that they were composed before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

Grog

You are relying on an overly simplistic view of what a reliable or credible document is, or in what context or for what purposenit is credible. Justin's writings appear to be authentic and preserve the beliefs and arguments of a second century Christian. They are valuable then to the extent that they are used to that end. That wouldn't mean we have to accept everything Justin says is true or correct. We can hold though, assuming authnticity, that Justin is representative of mid-second century beliefs, but certainly, not to say his is authoritative or even normative. It is telling and important that Justin seems to have no awareness of Paul's writings or the events in Acts. That tells us that there were self-professed Christians who did not hold these materials to be important to their faith.

I do not share aa's belief that all the Pauline writings are late inventions, but I do believe Acts is a late development, i also suspect, as aa argues, that Simon Magus has crept into several Christian characters.