Jayrok

I know they didn't acknowledge any messiah called Jesus, and they are still waiting for their messiah to come. That doesn't mean they hadn't heard of Jesus of Nazareth.

Justin talks about how Trypho's people (the Jews) mistreated Jesus and crucified him. Trypho doesn't correct him or rebut this claim. He simply doesn't associate this crucified criminal with the messiah who is yet to come. It doesn't mean that he didn't know of Jesus, though.

So? Trypho also didn't correct Justin when Justin told him the Jews mistreated and crucified Jesus. In fact, he seemed to convince Trypho that Jesus is foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures. Granted, this conversation is completely one-sided from Justin's pen.

But there is no rebuttal from Trypho, so why would he talk about Jesus' biological father, who would have been well before Trypho's time in any case?

aa5874

Virtually all elements for an early Paul is missing.

In "Dialogue with Trypho" Justin Martyr's statements are contrary to the Pauline Revealed Gospel from the resurrected Jesus.

According to Justin Everlasting Salvation is based on Baptism, and the Works of the Law.

Dialogue with Trypho LXV Baptism, the Works of the Law and keeping the commandments was part of the doctrine of the Jesus cult up to the mid 2nd century.

Justification by works is a Must for everlasting Salvation according to Justin.

Justin Martyr was influenced by the Synoptic type Teachings of Jesus NOT the Pauline revealed Gospel of the resurrected Jesus.

Romans 3:28 KJV The short gMark Jesus story PREDATED the Pauline writings.

Duvduv

The whole so-called Dialogue is really just a monologue and is poorly written. It's another piece of early Church propaganda written under the sponsorship of the Regime that clearly sounds as if it were composed after the emergence of Toldoth Yeshu stories. It doesn't have to be even taken so seriously.

aa5874

Well based on your flawed position Jesus was really FATHERED by a Ghost. Trypho did NOT mention the Father of Jesus.

Justin's Jesus could NOT have existed based on Justin own claim that his Jesus was born WITHOUT sexual union and was a product of a Ghost.

Trypho did tell Justin that his Jesus was a Myth Fable like those of the Greeks.

Diaogue with Trypho LXVII Trypho the Jew knew NOTHING of Jesus of Nazareth the Son of a Ghost born of a Virgin except that it was like the Myth Fables of the Greeks.

Perseus was born of a Virgin and Zeus.

Jesus was born of a Virgin and a Ghost of God.

Jayrok

Dialogue with Trypho XXXII

Chapter LXIX

Jesus appeared to the Jews in the first century and the Jews called him a magician and a deceiver.

This doesn't appear to be in the world of myth to Justin. And Trypho doesn't dispute it. Instead, he says that Jesus was dishonourable and inglorious.

Trypho doesn't speak of Jesus (the human man) as a myth. Rather, he is talking about Justin's and other Christians' claim that Jesus was born of a virgin, not unlike Greek myths. He told Justin that he should rather say that Jesus was simply born of men... as you posted above.

The Jews thought Jesus was a magician. It was the legend that was heaped on Jesus by later Christians such as Justin that they compared to other Greek myths (e.g. born of a virgin).

Edited to add: By the way, Ehrman believes Jesus was a man who lived in the first century. He does not, however, believe any of the supernatural phenomena that surrounds his legend. There's no reason to think that Trypho, if he even existed, didn't think of Jesus any differently than Ehrman. At least based solely on the discourse with Justin Martyr.

Chili

No, the Ghost was not of God. You should learn to read first and notice that Gabriel was from God and the Ghost was from Lord God as material cause in the natural order of the event.

When you write 'a Ghost from God' you are already wrong and the capital G does not help you at all. To note is that Mary can be a Virgin only unless the Ghost was from the Lord who held her captive in the obedience as resident of Nazareth that was maintained by the integrity of Joseph as upright Jew.

To make sure you understand this right, for Mary to be a Virgin it is necessary that the child was conceived via the Ghost from the Lord (and thus not the angel of the Lord), and for this Gabriel of God ordered consent = is the intrinsic difference between "by God and from carnal desire" as John suggest in 1:13.

aa5874

Please, read the the first part of the passage. Trypho was waiting for the Son of Man as predicted in the book of Daniel 7.

Trypho knew nothing of Justin's Messiah called Jesus except what he read in the Gospels.

Dialogue with Trypho XXXII You have failed to present the description of Justin's Jesus.

In Dialogue with Trypho, Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Trypho could NOT have known of such a character EXCEPT in stories.
Elijah must come before the Messiah and Elijah had not appeared yet.

1. Dialogue with Trypho2. Dialogue with Trypho C 3. Dialogue with Trypho Justin's Jesus Christ, the Son of a Ghost, a God and a Virgin, could NOT have existed.

Justin's Jesus was a Myth like those of the Greeks.

Dialogue with Trypho Your statement is NOT corroborated by any source of antiquity. There is ZERO mention of character identified as Jesus of Nazareth by any known Jewish/Roman writer of antiquity.

Jesus of Nazareth in the NT was the Son of a Ghost.

Trypho the Jew could NOT have known about Justin's Jesus. Trypho was merely repeating what is found in the Gospels.

Trypho clearly claimed that Christ as a MAN did NOT yet come. Trypho indicated that Elijah must come BEFORE the Christ and not even Elijah came.

It is in the Gospels that Jesus the Son of a Ghost and God was considered a magician.

In the Gospels, the Jews did NOT even realize Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost and was WALKING on the sea in the night and Transfiguring on a mountain.

Again, Trypho never NAMED the FATHER of Jesus when Justin claimed he was FATHERED by a Ghost.

Ehrman is completely illogical. He does not make much sense. Ehrman Discredits his sources for his Jesus.

In Did Jesus Exist? page 180-184 Ehrman claims the Gospels are among the best attested books of the ancient world but admits he doesn't really know what was originally written.

And to make matter worse, he claims the NT accounts of Jesus are filled with discrepancies, contradictions and historical problems.

From the very start Ehrman's argument for his HJ of Nazareth is worthless--his sources are essentially perjury.

Sheshbazzar

Are you implying the Pauline writings are authentic, direct from Paul, and were never altered, edited, or added to by the Church?
What is your evidence that these epistles of 'Paul' were never altered, edited, nor added to by the Church?


How does the fact that the 'Pauline epistles MATCH these pastoral Epistles which contain "--Virtually Nothing of the Life of Jesus" demonstrate anything about the Gospels, the content of which you admit they ''virtually' never mention.
Which they wouldn't if the Gospel's were in fact composed after the Epistles, as I have stated.

The rational explanation is simple;
First. 'Paul's' (Saul's) No circumcision of gentiles/no need for gentiles to observe Jewish ritual laws. Teaching -Direct from the texts of The Law and The Prophets. No miraculous interventions nor 'visions' from heaven, just the plain teaching of what the Scriptures said then, and still say today.

Second. The production of the pastoral epistles for the instruction of, and the support of the freedom of believing Gentiles attending Jewish synagogues.

Third. Factions in the emerging Hellenistic messianic 'christ' sect begin a struggle for dominance and for control of a centralized authority.

Fourth. The independently developed short gMark story of the birth, life, sayings, and death of Jesus, is produced by the church, to give the church leaders a beginnings 'history' on which to base their claims of apostolic succession, and of holding a Divine commission direct from the 'historical' Jesus.

Fifth. The production of Matthew and Luke gospels, revised and expanded from gMark and aimed at differing social segments. (marketing the Gospel to the hoi polli.)

Sixth. The production of gJohn heavily borrowing from, and appealing to the Greek philosophical schools of theos logic.

Seventh. Revelations composed as a Jewish reactionary anti-messianic (false christian 'messiah') anti-church polemic. (chapters 17 & 18) _soon stupidly doctored and widely mistaken for a 'christian' writing)

Justin a gentile comes on the scene, quickly becomes familiar with the Gospels and Revelations, but Saul's epistles have by now been pushed far into the background and are unknown to him.

Eighth. The church writers forged 'The Acts of The Apostles' as a bridge between the written Epistles and the fabricated Gospels, and heavily rework the writings Saul, changing his name into 'Paul' as an identifying marker so that these modified christian disseminated documents could at a glance be instantly recognized and differentiated from any actual surviving Mss. by the real Saul of Tarsus.

They didn't need to be aware of the Pauline letters at that time, their focus was upon interpreting and disseminating the forged Gospel of 'Christ' and his merry-men the 'apostles'.

Yes I do know what I'm talking about, and I am not inventing the above explanation, all one needs to do, is to know the content of The Law and the Prophets, and how first century Jews were divided into two camps over the matter of gentile circumcision.

As to whether the Prophets with their writings regarding the eventual lot of the Gentiles is credible, it doesn't really matter whether they were credible or not, Their writings still exist and have always taught that the Gentile nations will be saved and come under the rule of One King. They clearly say what they say whether one belives it or not.

Its really not all that different today. Strict Orthodox Jews would far much rather that you would remain a gentile, and actively discourage, and place major roadblocks in the way of Gentile men converting to Judaism. Why would anyone want to, for religious reasons, when a believer in The Holy One of Israel's safety and deliverace is already promised, without the burdens of The Law? (other than perhaps love or lust for a Jewish maiden)

They believe by their Tanaka that righteous Gentiles also have their own assured place in ha'Olam ha'Ba ('The world to come') as they are, and will be saved, as Gentiles just as it is written in the Prophets.

Gentiles DO NOT need to be circumcised and so become Jews in order to be 'saved', or become partakers of the Divine promises, and in the World to Come.

You've got that ass back-wards. The traditional propaganda of the Church was and still is that the events of the Gospels came first, then 'Paul' just as you have been repeatedly claiming.
The sequence I present is clearly laid out and is numbered above;
First Saul.
Then the 'church' striving for legitimacy and authority
Then the church fabricating the Gospels as a forged 'beginnings history'
Then Acts forged as lying bridge for the connecting of Saul the Pharisee with their Gospel forgeries.

aa5874

Again, please say what has been doctored in the Pauline writings??

I am arguing that the Pauline writings were composed AFTER the short gMark, after the writings attributed to Justin Martyr, and Aristides, or after the mid 2nd century.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_T..._New_Testament

Writings under the name of Paul show the very least variants per page of the books of Greek NT that were analysed.

In effect, all the writings that bare the name Paul are the most accurate or show the very least variations in text.

Again, we see that the Pauline letters to the Churches supposedly written early MATCH the textual variations or accuracy of the Later Pastorals.


gMark is the least accurate with 45.1%.

1 Timothy is most accurate with 81.4%

2 Corinthians' accuracy is 78.1%.

The Pauline letters to Churches were composed after the Canonised gMark.

aa5874

You really don't understand that the Non-Pauline Epistles were not even mentioned by Apologetics until late in the 2nd century and afterwards. There is no evidence to support a claim that the Non-Pauline Epistles were composed and circulated before stories of Jesus.

Acts of the Apostles, Hebrews, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, James, Jude, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John and Revelation contain virtually NOTHING about the Life of Jesus and they are considered to have been composed after the Jesus story was already known.

It is a fact that LATE writings after the Gospels HARDLY have anything about the Life of Jesus.

The Pauline writings are compatible with LATE writings composed AFTER the Jesus story was already known, preached, believed and composed.

1. Paul was a Persecutor of the Faith in the Pauline writings.

2. No Pauline letters were composed up to c 59-63 CE based on Acts.

3. Churches were ALREADY existing when the Pauline letters were composed.

The Pauline letters were composed AFTER the Jesus stories were already known.