aa5874

But, you continue to make unsubstantianted claims against Justin. How in the world can you determine that Justin exagerrated the injustices and persecutions they encountered.

Please IDENTIFY an exaggeration of Justin.
I consider all apolgetics as HOSTILE witnesses. I have no obligation to accept everything written by apologetics as credible.

The writings of Justin Martyr are compatible with the recovered dated manuscripts like the DSS and NT manuscripts.

Effectively, no masnuscripts that have been dated contradict the writings of Justin.

Justin's Big Black Hole of 100 years c 33-133 CE is completely intact after 1800 years.

What I find completely strange is that you seem not to understand that I must write what Justin said. I cannot add or remove any words of the written statements found in the works of any writer of antiquity.

I cannot assume that any statement by Justin is not credible.

In order to understand the past I must take all writings into consideration.

Now, Justin Martyr's writings contradict Eusebius' History of the Church.

I will use the writings of Justin Martyr and others for the history of the 2nd century Jesus cult because those of Irenaeus have been found to be a product of multiple authors, [forgeries and false attribution] and are not compatible with the recovered dated manuscripts like the DSS and NT texts.

In fact, there are many writings that are compatible with the recovered and dated DSS and NT manuscripts like the writings of Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Aristides, Muinucius Felix Octavius, and Arnobius.

Sheshbazzar

What I find completly strange is your methodology.

You 'cannot assume that any statement by Justin is not credible.'

But you can selectively assume that any statements by other ancient writers are not credible.

You assume that is true? beyond question? because Justin said so?

Chili

By definition a Christian cannot be Trinitarian for whom the Father, Son and HS are three persons of one God because the Trinity collapses when the believer becomes Christian wherein the father and son become one, and hence the HS is redundant and the descend of the dove is in evidence of that.

Now, to be fully One is not until then entire TOK has been raised into the TOL and there God and Lord God will be fully one (when all doubt was removed as Thomas exclaimed).

Sheshbazzar

Is that what you were taught in Catechism Chili?

aa5874

Again, your claim is wholly unsubstantiated. I do NOT assume. I present the written statements of antiquity. I present actual statements and compare them with other sources.

For example, when I state that "Against Heresies" is NOT credible it is because I located and showed that the author claimed in "Against Heresies" 2.22 that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age when he was about 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius buit still claimed he was aware of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

It is virtually impossible that the author of Against Heresies 2.22 could have known of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters and still argued that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old because it is climed Paul preached Christ crucified even before Claudius was Emperor or since 37-41 CE in the time of King Aretas and Paul's conversion would be about 34-37 CE if he went to Arabia and returned to Damascus after 3 years.

"Against Heresies" cannot be credible in its present form. The author of "Against Heresies" did not know it was claimed or implied Paul preached Christ crucified when Jesus would have been about 35 years old.

You assume it is false? Must be false? because Justin said so?

I have not argued that all Justin's statements are true.

Chili

Yes, because Catholics are not Christian and that is the difference between these two.

If I remember correctly, in Catholic theology these are profound lines, and maybe more so in expressions made than pulpit material.

Sheshbazzar

And what if the author of 'Against Heresies' knew of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters and rejected their chronology?
Or if earlier or different versions of these texts among the various sects read differently?
__ "even as the Gospel and all the elders testify ..." The Author here is telling us that HIS Gospel (text) and HIS elders supported the 'about 50 years old' date for the Crucifixion, in opposition to those that proposed an earlier date.

We have plenty of evidence for the existence of early textual variations.

Early Christianity was not monolithic, there were many different persuasions. Nor can we just assume that all early NT texts read exactly as our received texts.

The author of 'Against Heresies' explains the basis of his persuasion;

The Author of Against Heresies does not just make a 'slip up' in the age Jesus at his death, but mounts an argument against the Crucifixion having taken place while Jesus was a young man. He knew of those claims of a early age Crucifixion and that variation of the Gospel and quite strongly rejected it.

This view, presented in 'Against Heresies' simply lost out to that one finally favored and supported by the Orthodox majority. (which incidentally would argue that the latter Orthodoxy did not compose that portion, ie it was already well established before they were able to bring it into conformity with their late prevailing views. )

I don't assume it is false, I regard the statement, in the absence of any corroborating non-apologetic contemporary testimony, as being highly unlikely, and highly likely to be hyperbolic exaggeration. (Not unusual in ancient writings.)
And not because Justin said so, I would have exactly the same view if any other ancient author made such an uncorroborated and unlikely statement.
Such things do not need be taken literally, nor does 'many' need to be interpreted as thousands.

Well that's nice to hear.


.

Sheshbazzar

I just finished reading the Catholic Catechisim on The Trinity. Article 1, paragraph 2, II & III (238-267) online.

Chili

I suppose you are correct but I never did. Not interested to read it either. Just not my thing to read what they have to say.

mountainman

The statement that almost all of Samaria worshiped Simon as a God is false.

Justin's claim that there was statue to Simon in Rome was false.

Replies to Justin's purported letters by the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Antoninus Pius were forgeries (as were his original letters and apologies).

Justin is a literary stooge.






εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia