Duvduv

Go report me to Torquemada....<yawn>.....

stephan huller

Apparently you've landed in the one forum that doesn't punish dishonesty so you've found the right home

Duvduv

There's that old kettle and pot again....herst a mayseh!!

aa5874

The writings attributed to Justin Martyr are extremely significant. It is most unlikely that First Apology and Dialogue with Trypho were written by the 4th century Jesus cult unless the forgers were complete IDIOTS.

Why would 4th century Church fabricators claim Justin found out about Jesus from an UNIDENTIFIED OLD MAN when they could have easily claimed he read gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn, the Pauline Epistles or even knew Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Aristides, Ariston, Polycarp, Hegesippus and the bishops of Rome?

Why did NOT the writings of Justin Martyr be a Mirror Image of Irenaeus' "Against Heresies"?

Irenaeus knew the names of authors of gMatthew, gMark, gJohn, gLuke, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline Corpus.

Irenaeus knew the names of Bishops of Rome and others up to the time of Commodus.

Justin knew NOTHING of those things except an unknown OLD Man. Justin did NOT even know his OWN Bishop.


Who ever wrote The Apology and Dialogue with Trypho did so BEFORE "Against Heresies" and was not part of the 4th century Jesus cult.

Justin did NOT even know the Nicene Creed.

Justin claimed Jesus was SECOND to God.

Justin's First Apology "First Apology" and "Dialogue with Trypho" attributed to Justin were composed Before the names of the Gospels were fabricated, Before Acts of the Apostles, Before the Pauline Corpus and BEFORE the teachings of the Trinity.

Now, Justin could not have known of Four Gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John or else he would have specifically identified them to augment his argument that the Jesus story was not recent.

Justin Martyr meticulously identified his sources and NAMED the authors of his sources.

1. Justin mentioned Moses by name over 100 times.
2. Justin mentioned the prophet Isaiah by name over 90 times.
3. Justin mentioned the prophet Jeremiah by name over 8 times.
4. Justin mentioned the prophet Ezekiel by name over 6 times
5. Justin mentioned the prophet Daniel by name over 10 times.
6. Justin mention the prophet Hosea by name about 2 times.
7. Justin mentioned the prophet Amos by name one time.
8. Justin mentioned the prophet Jonah by name over 5 times.
9. Justin mentioned the prophet Micah by name 2 times.
10. Justin mentioned the prophet Zephaniah by name 1 time.
11. Justin mentioned the prophet Zechariah by name over 9 times.
12. Justin mentioned the prophet Malachi by name over 2 times.

Justin did NOT know the individual name of the authors of the Gospels and knew nothing of Acts and the Pauline Corpus although claiming to be a Christian and was familiar with a story of Jesus from conception to ascension.

Justin was familiar with ONLY one name of an Apocalypse attributed to John.

We also know that Justin did not have Gospels called according Matthew, Mark, Luke and John because there are stories in the Memoirs of the Apostles that are NOT found in the Four Canonised Gospels.

The claim that Jesus was born in a Cave is NOT in the Canonised Gospels but was in the Memoirs of the Apostles which is also confirmed by Origen in "Against Celsus".

Justin Martyr most likely had an early version of what was LATER called the Diatessaron.

stephan huller

Wow I don't know if it is a good thing to have aa agree with me. I feel the same way I did when I found out that I was born on the same day as Julius Caesar and Don Knotts. So much for astrology.

aa5874

I now understand why your position keep changing--too much astrology. Stop looking in the palm of your hands.

By the way, did you not also argue that the NT is a forgery to prove primacy?

Did you not argue that there is evidence IRENAEUS wrote in the 3rd century?

For years I have shown that Justin Martyr's writings are far more credible and corroborated than writings attributed to Irenaeus.

Irenaeus story about the dating, authorship and chronology of the Gospels have been REJECTED by virtually ALL Scholars.

In fact, Origen's "Against Celsus" corroborated the writings attributed to Justin Martyr.

1. Origen admitted Celsus wrote NOTHING of Paul.
Justin wrote NOTHING of Paul.

2. Origen did NOT show any direct quotes where Celsus mentioned the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as authors of the Jesus stories.

Justin did NOT mention the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as authors of the Gospel.

3. Origen wrote about a Cave birth story of Jesus in the Gospel that is NOT found in the Four Canonised Gospels

Justin wrote about a Cave birth story of Jesus that is NOT found in the Four Canonised Gospels.

4. Ephraim the Syrian made commentaries on the Diatessaron.

Justin was the son of a Syrian

5. Tatian is claimed to have possession of a Diatessaron.

Tatian is claimed to be a student of Justin.

The Memoirs of the Apostles appears to be an early version of the Later Diatessaron.

Duvduv

AA, I once suggested that the reason "Justin" did not mention Paul was simply that he was seeking to find prophecies for Jesus in the Tanakh which had no relevance to the issue of Paul. Other than that, the presumed author learned about his Christ from the unidentified old man and not any texts (i.e. the uncontradictory memoirs of the apostles) at his earlier time, but that does not mean that earlier time was in the 2nd century at all.
In any event, I don't think it's necessary to take the Justin writings very seriously. They are poorly written and filled with inconsistencies and contradictions and literally make no sense at all. They seem to have been written by an undergraduate in a creative writing class.

aa5874

Your suggestions are based on speculation and guessing so are not really useful.

You have already admitted that you speculate. You rely on uncorroborated sources of fiction and implausibility.

The claim by Justin that he met an Old man, and the fact that he did NOT identify Gospels named gMatthew, gMark, gLuke and gJohn, wrote nothing of Acts of the Apostles, Nothing at all of Paul and the Pauline Corpus does NOT help the 4th century Jesus cult.

The fact that Justin's First Apology is addressed to the Emperor Antoninus c 138-161 CE does NOT help the 4th century Jesus cult to established that the Jesus story was known in the 1st century.

The fact that Justin did NOT mention the Bishops of Rome, did NOT mention that Peter was a Bishop of Rome, did NOT mention the succession of Bishops and did NOT even acknowledge his OWN Bishop does NOT help the 4th century Jesus cult.

Based on writings of antiquity like Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Lucian, Cassius Dio, Origen's "Against Celsus" and Julian the Emperor, the writings of Justin may be far more credible that some Jewish writings.

Unless the forgers of Justin's works were complete IDIOTS then we would expect them to name and identify the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the Pauline Corpus.

The 4th century Jesus cult claimed Paul is the founder of Churches outside Judea---Justin claimed it was the ILLITERATE 12 disciples.

Origen Against Celsus 1.63 Justin contradicts Origen.

Justin's First Apology Justin wrote BEFORE there were Four Gospels named gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and Epistles [Pauline and Non-Pauline].

Duvduv

AA, again, you cannot know exactly what the author named "Justin" knew. All you can do is hypothesize just as I am doing. You have no evidence that the Emperor Antoninus ever received a document from "Justin" in the second century at all. Furthermore, the use of the generic term memoirs of the apostles ("....also called gospels....") may simply have been at the earliest stages of the unfolding of the religion and its texts. A careful reading of these Justin writings shows how internally confused and contradictory the author(s) was/were. Here he cannot even name a single first apostle/disciple of his Christ, or even the name of his own Old Man. So who can take such a document at face value?

Then comes along this guy Origen who identifies "Paul" as the "founder" of the religion when one would have expected this Origen to know that the texts identified Paul as joining the church AFTER it was founded by other people, so he could not possibly have been its founder after Jesus, especially since he wasn't around when Jesus was with his other followers whom he ordered to spread the message.

It all reminds me of some long television series where over a period of a few years the writers of the scripts of the episodes can't even keep the chronologies and events straight from one year to the next. Thus such Christian writers didn't even keep their facts straight based on the texts they would have allegedly already held to be sacred.

aa5874

You have NO evidence that Antoninus did not receive a document from Justin.

You have NO evidence that Origen identified "Paul" as the "founder" of the religion.

You have NO evidence that Origen should have known that there were texts that others founded the Church.

In effect, you really don't know or have no evidence for what you are talking about.

I am dealing with texts attributed to Jesus cult writers and non-apologetic sources.

In writings attributed Justin he did not mention the names of the authors of the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and all the Canonised Epistles which appears to be the same as Celsus.