Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
05-08-2013, 12:41 PM | #131 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
05-08-2013, 12:48 PM | #132 | ||||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
No supposed early Jesus cult writers used or acknowledged the Protoevangelium of James. And further, there is no writer of antiquity before Justin who claimed James wrote anything in the 1st century. |
||||
05-08-2013, 12:54 PM | #133 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
05-08-2013, 01:05 PM | #134 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
We know that there was a story of Jesus born in a cave as stated by Justin.
Justin cave birth story of Jesus is corroborated by Origen in "Against Celsus" Origen's Against Celsus 1.51 Quote:
By the way, the Memoirs of the Apostles was called GOSPELS according to Justin which is compatible with Origen's Gospels of the Disciples. Justin's First Apology LXVI Quote:
|
||
05-08-2013, 01:05 PM | #135 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
|
Quote:
Andrew Criddle |
||
05-08-2013, 01:57 PM | #136 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
|
Quote:
The manger stands for born 'out of tradition' and thus Nazareth as Nazarite-by-nature that is missing in Matthew where he was called 'out of Egypt' who made a short pit-stop in Nazareth so he could be called a Nazorean, but really was not, and hence the manger was missing in Matthew. Just read it and see this sequence of event. Then add that when the Magi finally arrived Joseph was not even home to receive, which then is why I hold that Simon Magus did not even know that there was a race to run, as Paul claim he had finished that we call purgatory today, and of which crucifixion is the end (that is done by so called Christians today). The star of Bethlehem is equivalent of the light seen within that shines upon the child as per Plato's Sophists 267D, cf. also 218C, for which the shepherds as eidolons (insights) gone in dis-array come to understand why they were out of order when Joseph was searching for meaning in life. Following this , and while dividing, bisecting, bifurcating by glows from glow to glow (= from shepherd to shepherd taking turns herding sheep in the middle of a midwinter night), looking to find yet another glow that caused them to be shiners for him, he found not yet another glow but the genus of him as the matter itself there now called Christ as the son with the halo shining on him (if I dare may present that image to you). This would be what transfiguration is all about that did not just scorch his hair as in the example of Moses but transformed the actual face of the man. So there was no baby with diapers to change but the rebirth was real and that is why the infancy is real and the manger is there only to last for 10 days so that the New can take hold in between (is New Year for us). Note here that the shepherds looked in and understood, that so for Luke was his Magi event (Pasternak is big in Zhivago on this). Short lines here are that reason returned in the mind of Joseph before the new could take hold, or he had one eye asquint towards this event, or got zapped by an evangelist on a one night stand without faith in the heart, etc. some more, but none of that really matters here now where the stable is the topic instead of a fancy hotel room instead. And then only Caspar came from Arabia, I think, but that does not matter much either, although he needs to join up with them en-route so that reason will prevail in the end (or a nut-house will be destiny for him). More important is to identify Mary as parthenos in this rebirth event as the neutron surrounding the pragma (nucleus) wherein life first was conceived to be reborn here now via Elizabeth in Luke tracing his lineage back past all the ancients past Adam to God, while John goes back to Gen.1 to also come full circle there. Bottom line, the 4 gospels are not synoptic but contrary in pairs. |
||
05-08-2013, 04:17 PM | #137 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
|
Quote:
Quote:
__IF 'Paul' or 'Paul's' well known 'Gospel TO THE UNCIRCUMCISION' had in fact existed. But here we have Justin engaging in protracted argument against the practice of circumcision without ever once referring to 'Paul', 'Paul's' ministy', or to a single verse of 'Paul's' writing on circumcision. This introduces a terrific anomaly, because according to the Church, and the NTs 'Pauline' Epistles', this uncircumcision gospel was 'Paul's Gospel', expressely committed to him 'The Apostle of The Uncircumcision', and which through 'Paul' and his companions missionary travels and preaching, had already been taught in all of the Gentile churches for over a hundred years, with these churches passing 'Paul's Epistles' around for public readings. Justin's church would have been as familar with 'Paul's Epistles' as establishing their practices in this regard, as any Christian church of today. If Justin had been aware of 'Paul's' Epistles' there is no concievable reason for him not to have cited them in support of his arguments in this long expostion, because after all 'Paul', (if he existed, and was known, as is claimed in Acts and the 'Paulines') would have been the best known and most authorative figure in that early gentile Christian church, second only to Jesus Christ himself. (as he is to this day) Justin did not know of 'Acts, 'Paul', or any 'Pauline Epistles'. All of these texts with 'Paul' in them were invented and forged after Justin wrote. The 'Pauline Epistles' say less than Justin about circumcision, because whoever forged the Pauline epistles knew Justin's argument, and knew that his audience already knew Justin's argument, so saw no need to expound so extensively upon what they already had heard from Justin. The evidence indicates that Justin's texts were written in the second century. and before 'Acts' and the 'Pauline Epistles' were forged. . |
||
05-08-2013, 04:59 PM | #138 | ||||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
The earliest manuscript is from the 3rd or 4th century. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_...ript_tradition Quote:
It has no historical value except that it is a documented fraud. |
||||
05-08-2013, 06:00 PM | #139 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
|
AA, notice that "Justin" invokes Tanakh sources in a way as to attempt to show that circumcision is not necessary. This is done only briefly in the epistles. Mr. Justin repeatedly invokes the Tanakh to show the fulfillment of the will of God in Jesus. He invokes King David and Jeremiah, and is focused on the prophets, not on any new revelation aside from the mere advent of Jesus.
He is speaking to the JEWS ostensibly, and wants to show that their own sources predict and confirm Jesus. He doesn't get sidelined with discussions of who had the true teaching of Jesus (Paul, or anyone else). But it may not indicate at all that the author was unaware of Paulism, especially given the possibility of its authorship in the 4th century....... |
05-08-2013, 07:34 PM | #140 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
|
Not much chance of authorship in the 4th century, as what is in Justin does not jive with nor support some very critical 4th century Christian faith claims.
If these Justin writings had been penned in the 4th century, the writer would have been hunted down for heresy, and every copy sought out for destruction. Who in the 4th century church would wish to commit suicide by forging a text that contained statements and views not endorsed by the Orthodox church? The Orthodox church would not have produced a forged text whose content so disagreed with or betrayed their precious Doctrine of consubstantiality, and showed no indications at all of the all important Doctrine of Apostolic succession, the very foundation of the Orthodox Church's claim to hold Apostolic authority. There would have been nothing for them to gain in such, only fodder for their adversaries. Not only would they not have produced any such text, they would not have preserved such a text, unless it had the pedigree of being a long established and counted as authentic part of their past, historically supported by attestation in the writings of many church fathers. They kept it because they had little choice, as the church had been lauding and quoting Justin for over 150 years in establishing the claims of their religion. The internal evidence of Justin's works indicate an early authorship at a time where 'Acts', the 'Pauline Epistles,' and Orthodox developed Doctrines were as yet unknown. . |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|