You do realize that there is proof outside of the bible that Jesus existed now right? He's already been proven not to have been just someone's imagination. Anyone who says otherwise now is just wanting to look the other way despite the proof.
He did exist, in fact, they are over 10 different documented Jesus' whom are nothing but ORDINARY human beings like everyone else, Put the Gospel' Author tied Myths with actual events and people in the Past, thanks to the deceit of the Historic Satan "Flavius Josephus".
I have read through the works of "Josephus" ,and by reading them, side by side with Gospel of Matthew, its the Exactly the same Author, same writing Style, Same word-usage, Josephus is the First Person to Mention Jesus-John the Baptist, He also wrote "War of the Jews", which described to Destruction of the Temple, Exactly how Jesus Prophesied it, Josephus' in his Vita, was a prodigal teacher around aged 14, and around Age 30, he begin his adMinistration in Judea
A Smart, and Healthy Scholar would know, Virgin Births are Impossible, BUT, If your an Emperor in Rome, in 37AD proclaiming yourself a God like Caligula, and mate with "Livia Orestilla", the Husband of "Gaius Piso", resulting in a Bastard-Child being Conceived under the name "Arrius Piso", whom would later use the "Pen-Name" "Flavius Josephus and Re-Invent Himself as THE "Jesus".
Justin quoted from the gospels that were already there in his writings that would account for the similarities. You do realize that the church was already well established by time Justin martyr came into the picture? If he suddenly came up with a bunch of new documents, such as the gospels, the church would no doubt have rejected them.
Justin just wrote the Later works, Like John, part of Acts, and wrote Pauls Letters with the Help of Pliny the Younger, These People are Extremely Powerful and Aristrocratic, THEY where the Church,, "ST Simon-Peter" [Titus Flavius Agrippa Simonides] was another Son of Josephus [Arrius Piso]
Justin Martyr wrote Gospel of John, parts of Acts, II Corinthians, Philippians, II Timothy, 1,11 Thessalonians, philemon and James, and his Jewish name was Joshua [ Colossians 4:11] Bet you never knew that
@thone2008 I bet nobody knows that because it is not true. I have a wide variety of scholars' works in my library and NONE hold that Justin Martyr wrote any of what you mention. Some find Justin to be the first to quote from John's gospel. Now ALL of the critical NT scholars I have reject John as the author of John's gospel and the three epistles with 1 John a different author then 2&3 but some think they did originate in the same place. Revelation was written by a different author.
@thone2008 Conservative scholars I have such as J.T.A. Robertson and F.F. Bruce see the problems but still hold the Apostle John was involved in the way some agree there is no way Paul wrote Hebrews but could have been behind it's writing while using a scribe. Dr. Loisey holds that John's Gospel has several authors with a historical core and later legends&myths added and some interpolations and redactions layered on top of that to arrive at what we read today in our NT.
@thone2008 Also it is interesting to note that the story of the woman caught in adultery that begins about John 7:8 and Jesus asks her accusers to cast the first stone if they are without sin his held by most modern scholars to be the last interpolation of John's Gospel. Indeed many study Bibles at the beginning of this story will note that THE OLDEST COPIES OF JOHN'S GOSPEL DO NOT CONTAIN THIS STORY AND VERSES. Almost as old copies have the story but in brackets.
@thone2008 But the notion Justin Martyr wrote the Gospel of John, parts of Acts etc etc is nuts. Which authority on NT origins holds that? Most modern NT scholars reject Paul as the author of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus and hold Paul only wrote seven of the letters the church claims for him with the rest being second century forgeries but NEVER is Justin's name given in ANY of the books I have. This is as wild as Ken Humphreys' "Paul never existed so all his letters are forgeries"
Justin , real name : Titus Flavius/Fabius Justus, Son of "Titus Flavius Josephus ", Son of "KP" and Arria Sabina, Josephus wrote Matthew/Luke and John.
Titus Justus, is a son of Titus Josephus [The Historian], and also his namesake, you will find him, as a friend of Paul in ACTS 18:7 [acts was written around 100AD], In Acts 1:23, you will find Justus, an alias of "Josephus", Acts 1:23+Acts 18:7 = Titus Josephus, and Colossians 4:11 reveal, that "Joseph=Jesus=Justus" [Aliases] , You will secretly find "Joseph Justus", in "Matthew 1:19" (KJV) (Joseph her husband, being a JUST man) (Justus in Latin)
In the gospel story the Author inserted himself by playing the role of not only Jesus, but of all the Josephs and Gods, The New Testament and all the characters in it Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, John the Baptist all are fictional. The Pisos/Josephus created the story and the characters; they tied the story to a specific time and place in history;
You do realize that there is proof outside of the bible that Jesus existed now right? He's already been proven not to have been just someone's imagination. Anyone who says otherwise now is just wanting to look the other way despite the proof.
@Myhopeisinhim Its been a very long time since I do this again. I've made efforts to not come back to this style of interaction. Experience has taught me a few things.
Its not that I wish not to share why to be careful. Its that more and more, its very easy to be ignored and misunderstood. Especially here on youtube.
I'll say this much though. Both sides of the conversation did present error. Be careful.
I do agree that trypho's view is inaccurate, but I can see why you believe justin was wrong in his thoughts. It's interesting to note though that this is an argument that has taken place so close to the ascension of Christ. All the same arguments that are presented in this argument is the same presented today.
It wasn't just since constantine that all this came up
Although keep in mind, Justin walked with the early church who had been with eye-witnesses of Christ, and with other historical evidence, he may not be as far off as you might expect.
@Myhopeisinhim Justin used testimony sources to make his points, additionally he conflates platonic ontological sentences for theological positions. Justin was a second rate scholar whose most original contribution was his typology of cross (a product of seeing the cross in everything). Additionally I don't know what authority you think Trypho speaks for. He was a lapsed Jew more concerned with philosophy than scripture, he even read the gospels and found them interesting (dial. 10.2).
Basically it was to show that the argument for whether one should keep the sabbath or not has existed for centuries and did not just rise after centuries later. That the sabbath and the law of Moses has been the subject of debate since Christ.
@Myhopeisinhim You have not proved that the debate existed since Christ. Although, your argument could be improved if you cared to look before Christ (in Talmudic sources) - the Am ha'aretz (centuries prior to Jesus) complained about the Law, especially the oral Law. Your information is not false it is just falsely presented. Try provide your audience with some context into the Jewish legal debate which Jesus was a part of.
@Myhopeisinhim Trypho did not represent a Biblical teaching of the Sabbath. Therefore, why should he be selected to represent it as truth? When I was younger, I would compare teams and say they're the best, others would say, no, these are the best. Under certain circumstances, both of us could be right, and both of us could be wrong.
Why do you think I disagree with some of Justin's words? Give 1 example please.
Paul said ravenous wolves would enter the church, nothing surprises me.
@Myhopeisinhim Sorry for the late reply, I've refocussed a lot of my efforts from "debating" here on yt, to actually being out & doing something :) God has given results, & for this I'm thankful. I've saved myself some headaches too :)
Honestly, I can't remember why I dont think that individual wasn't really representing the Sabbath well. I saw this was 9 months ago I replied. I'd watch the video again but so little time. On my page u can find enough for Sabbath defense however :)
Sadly, SDA's don't want to take the time to see the video and realize they've accepted the false propaganda of those who claim Constantine abolished the Sabbath. This video destroys the teachings of Ellen G White and her followers.
Romans did not place pagan worship into Christianity but rather reverted pagan days into Christian days in order to convert the pagans. Sabbath was changed because of Jesus Who rose on the Sunday. Sabbath in the Church begins Saturday evening till Sunday evening. Church also does not forbid honouring of Saturday. The disciples of Jesus began what Jesus taught on the last supper, every week on a Sunday, this was the day of breaking of bread and prayer.
Thanks a lot for sharing this dialogue, I've been struggling with this sabbath's topic for few weeks after I heard a preacher preach that the sabbath must be kept even for christians today. but I figured if it's to be kept it must be kept in full then, like not to do whatever work and I dont think it's possible in today's context. I'm 100% for Justin Martyr.
The Sabbath debate started in 321AD when Emperor Constatine decided to baptize the Roman army by having them march thru the river. Paganism entered the Christian Churches. He wanted to distance himself from the Sabbath keepers so he changed the worship day from Saturday the true Sabbath, to Sunday in honor of the sun god. Before this, Jesus, His disciples and all people kept the 7th day holy. Later RCC made it a law making keeping Sunday mandatory. Those who refused were tortured and killed.
Then why does various historical records show this debate going on long before 321 AD?
The debate mentioned in this video debate occurred 171 years before the council of trent did.
And the other writings as presented in this video, were written long before 321 AD. I'm afraid I must go with the earlier sources that establish that the debate is older than what you claim.
I'm sorry, I meant to say that 321 AD was when the true Sabbath/Saturday was changed to Sunday in honor of the sun god and to distance themselves from the Jews. The observance of the sabbath days (holidays and festivals) are diffrent from the Saturday Sabbath. The old mosaic laws were nailed to the cross signifying that Jesus is the Lamb and that the these laws were fulfilled. This vid is talking about the old mosaic law. The Ten Commandments still stand. All are sinners & must obey the Ten C's
Thanks for sharing this important dialogue. As for when the first Christians met together we have an even earlier witness in Acts 20:7: "Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread..."
Good evening Myhope. I hope you are well. This is an excellent video indicating that early Christians also did not feel compelled to keep the sabbath in the New Testament Church.
It is amazing the facts that you are able to unearth in your research. Thank you for being a resource for others who converse with SDAs. I often look to your videos and posts as a source for my research.
I'm doing pretty good thanks:) exhausted from our move, but doing well.
It was rather interesting to read the dialogue between Justin and Trypho. At that point in time there hadn't been much chance for corrupt doctrines to grow since they were quickly squelched by the apostles, and other early believers who knew eyewitnesses.
But from reading various historical documents we can see that not observing the sabbath appeared to be quite common back then.
@remixtlatino
thanks for the reply:) its not a problem. i hope you are doing well.
Myhopeisinhim 1 month ago
@thone2008
curious, what is your knowledge of the dead sea scrolls?
Myhopeisinhim 1 month ago
@thone2008
You do realize that there is proof outside of the bible that Jesus existed now right? He's already been proven not to have been just someone's imagination. Anyone who says otherwise now is just wanting to look the other way despite the proof.
Myhopeisinhim 1 month ago
@Myhopeisinhim
He did exist, in fact, they are over 10 different documented Jesus' whom are nothing but ORDINARY human beings like everyone else, Put the Gospel' Author tied Myths with actual events and people in the Past, thanks to the deceit of the Historic Satan "Flavius Josephus".
thone2008 1 month ago
@thone2008
All you've given was a bunch of names, you've proven nothing. Are you somehow smarter than any and all scholars? What is your proof?
Myhopeisinhim 1 month ago
@Myhopeisinhim
I have read through the works of "Josephus" ,and by reading them, side by side with Gospel of Matthew, its the Exactly the same Author, same writing Style, Same word-usage, Josephus is the First Person to Mention Jesus-John the Baptist, He also wrote "War of the Jews", which described to Destruction of the Temple, Exactly how Jesus Prophesied it, Josephus' in his Vita, was a prodigal teacher around aged 14, and around Age 30, he begin his adMinistration in Judea
thone2008 1 month ago
@Myhopeisinhim
A Smart, and Healthy Scholar would know, Virgin Births are Impossible, BUT, If your an Emperor in Rome, in 37AD proclaiming yourself a God like Caligula, and mate with "Livia Orestilla", the Husband of "Gaius Piso", resulting in a Bastard-Child being Conceived under the name "Arrius Piso", whom would later use the "Pen-Name" "Flavius Josephus and Re-Invent Himself as THE "Jesus".
Christians Fear the Truth
thone2008 1 month ago
@thone2008
Justin quoted from the gospels that were already there in his writings that would account for the similarities. You do realize that the church was already well established by time Justin martyr came into the picture? If he suddenly came up with a bunch of new documents, such as the gospels, the church would no doubt have rejected them.
Myhopeisinhim 1 month ago
@Myhopeisinhim
Justin just wrote the Later works, Like John, part of Acts, and wrote Pauls Letters with the Help of Pliny the Younger, These People are Extremely Powerful and Aristrocratic, THEY where the Church,, "ST Simon-Peter" [Titus Flavius Agrippa Simonides] was another Son of Josephus [Arrius Piso]
thone2008 1 month ago
Justin Martyr wrote Gospel of John, parts of Acts, II Corinthians, Philippians, II Timothy, 1,11 Thessalonians, philemon and James, and his Jewish name was Joshua [ Colossians 4:11] Bet you never knew that
thone2008 2 months ago
@thone2008
Hey there:) Thanks for commenting on my video. I'm curious as to what your sources are?
Myhopeisinhim 2 months ago
@Myhopeisinhim
Its Very Complicated, the Bible gives us Clever Hints
thone2008 2 months ago
@thone2008
Hmm looks like my comment disappeared....I would be interested in seeing your sources for such a claim.
Myhopeisinhim 2 months ago
@thone2008 I bet nobody knows that because it is not true. I have a wide variety of scholars' works in my library and NONE hold that Justin Martyr wrote any of what you mention. Some find Justin to be the first to quote from John's gospel. Now ALL of the critical NT scholars I have reject John as the author of John's gospel and the three epistles with 1 John a different author then 2&3 but some think they did originate in the same place. Revelation was written by a different author.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@thone2008 Conservative scholars I have such as J.T.A. Robertson and F.F. Bruce see the problems but still hold the Apostle John was involved in the way some agree there is no way Paul wrote Hebrews but could have been behind it's writing while using a scribe. Dr. Loisey holds that John's Gospel has several authors with a historical core and later legends&myths added and some interpolations and redactions layered on top of that to arrive at what we read today in our NT.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@thone2008 Also it is interesting to note that the story of the woman caught in adultery that begins about John 7:8 and Jesus asks her accusers to cast the first stone if they are without sin his held by most modern scholars to be the last interpolation of John's Gospel. Indeed many study Bibles at the beginning of this story will note that THE OLDEST COPIES OF JOHN'S GOSPEL DO NOT CONTAIN THIS STORY AND VERSES. Almost as old copies have the story but in brackets.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@thone2008 But the notion Justin Martyr wrote the Gospel of John, parts of Acts etc etc is nuts. Which authority on NT origins holds that? Most modern NT scholars reject Paul as the author of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus and hold Paul only wrote seven of the letters the church claims for him with the rest being second century forgeries but NEVER is Justin's name given in ANY of the books I have. This is as wild as Ken Humphreys' "Paul never existed so all his letters are forgeries"
boblackey1 2 months ago
@thone2008 Justin was not Jewish. Jesus was, but Justin wasn't.
pavoman23 1 month ago
@pavoman23
Justin , real name : Titus Flavius/Fabius Justus, Son of "Titus Flavius Josephus ", Son of "KP" and Arria Sabina, Josephus wrote Matthew/Luke and John.
thone2008 1 month ago
@thone2008
That is your claim, but what are your sources?
Myhopeisinhim 1 month ago
@thone2008
Gospels, where else.
thone2008 1 month ago
@thone2008
Where in the gospels does it say that Justin Martyr wrote them?
Myhopeisinhim 1 month ago
@Myhopeisinhim
Dotting names together
Titus Justus, is a son of Titus Josephus [The Historian], and also his namesake, you will find him, as a friend of Paul in ACTS 18:7 [acts was written around 100AD], In Acts 1:23, you will find Justus, an alias of "Josephus", Acts 1:23+Acts 18:7 = Titus Josephus, and Colossians 4:11 reveal, that "Joseph=Jesus=Justus" [Aliases] , You will secretly find "Joseph Justus", in "Matthew 1:19" (KJV) (Joseph her husband, being a JUST man) (Justus in Latin)
thone2008 1 month ago
@Myhopeisinhim
The two gifts of "Magi" for Jesus.
Frankincense = The Latin word is "Tus"
Gold = Gold is Yellow, the latin for yellow is "Flavus/Flavius".
[Reveals the names Ti(tus) Flavius]
TITUS FLAVIUS
thone2008 1 month ago
@Myhopeisinhim
Joseph Arimathea [Ari-Ma-Thea] (The Mother[MA] Goddess[THEA] Arria[AR])
"Arria Sabina" is the Mother of Josephus.
Matthew is "Matityahu" (MArcus-TITYAHU > TITUS)
Joseph Barsabbas
The Mother of Josephus was "Arria Sabina", Sabina is rooted from "Sabus", and "Bar Means Son", it would read as "Josephus, Son of Sabina[BarSabbas].
Joseph Barnabus
Bar-Nabus [NBS] [SNB] Bar-SaBinA [Son of Sabina] Barabbas
[BS][SB](Sab) [Son of the Father]
thone2008 1 month ago
@Myhopeisinhim
In the gospel story the Author inserted himself by playing the role of not only Jesus, but of all the Josephs and Gods, The New Testament and all the characters in it Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, John the Baptist all are fictional. The Pisos/Josephus created the story and the characters; they tied the story to a specific time and place in history;
thone2008 1 month ago
@thone2008
You do realize that there is proof outside of the bible that Jesus existed now right? He's already been proven not to have been just someone's imagination. Anyone who says otherwise now is just wanting to look the other way despite the proof.
Myhopeisinhim 1 month ago
Be careful with what you teach and pass on as truth.
RemixtLatino 11 months ago
@RemixtLatino
Feel free to share what you feel is wrong in the video:)
Myhopeisinhim 11 months ago
@Myhopeisinhim Its been a very long time since I do this again. I've made efforts to not come back to this style of interaction. Experience has taught me a few things.
Its not that I wish not to share why to be careful. Its that more and more, its very easy to be ignored and misunderstood. Especially here on youtube.
I'll say this much though. Both sides of the conversation did present error. Be careful.
RemixtLatino 11 months ago
@RemixtLatino
I do agree that trypho's view is inaccurate, but I can see why you believe justin was wrong in his thoughts. It's interesting to note though that this is an argument that has taken place so close to the ascension of Christ. All the same arguments that are presented in this argument is the same presented today.
It wasn't just since constantine that all this came up
Myhopeisinhim 11 months ago
Although keep in mind, Justin walked with the early church who had been with eye-witnesses of Christ, and with other historical evidence, he may not be as far off as you might expect.
Myhopeisinhim 11 months ago
@Myhopeisinhim Justin used testimony sources to make his points, additionally he conflates platonic ontological sentences for theological positions. Justin was a second rate scholar whose most original contribution was his typology of cross (a product of seeing the cross in everything). Additionally I don't know what authority you think Trypho speaks for. He was a lapsed Jew more concerned with philosophy than scripture, he even read the gospels and found them interesting (dial. 10.2).
pavoman23 3 months ago
@pavoman23
Basically it was to show that the argument for whether one should keep the sabbath or not has existed for centuries and did not just rise after centuries later. That the sabbath and the law of Moses has been the subject of debate since Christ.
Myhopeisinhim 2 months ago
@Myhopeisinhim You have not proved that the debate existed since Christ. Although, your argument could be improved if you cared to look before Christ (in Talmudic sources) - the Am ha'aretz (centuries prior to Jesus) complained about the Law, especially the oral Law. Your information is not false it is just falsely presented. Try provide your audience with some context into the Jewish legal debate which Jesus was a part of.
pavoman23 1 month ago
@Myhopeisinhim Trypho did not represent a Biblical teaching of the Sabbath. Therefore, why should he be selected to represent it as truth? When I was younger, I would compare teams and say they're the best, others would say, no, these are the best. Under certain circumstances, both of us could be right, and both of us could be wrong.
Why do you think I disagree with some of Justin's words? Give 1 example please.
Paul said ravenous wolves would enter the church, nothing surprises me.
RemixtLatino 11 months ago 4
@RemixtLatino
Why do you believe justin didn't represent biblical sabbath? From what I've read and seen, neither do adventists.
Myhopeisinhim 1 month ago
@Myhopeisinhim Sorry for the late reply, I've refocussed a lot of my efforts from "debating" here on yt, to actually being out & doing something :) God has given results, & for this I'm thankful. I've saved myself some headaches too :)
Honestly, I can't remember why I dont think that individual wasn't really representing the Sabbath well. I saw this was 9 months ago I replied. I'd watch the video again but so little time. On my page u can find enough for Sabbath defense however :)
God bless.
RemixtLatino 1 month ago 2
Sadly, SDA's don't want to take the time to see the video and realize they've accepted the false propaganda of those who claim Constantine abolished the Sabbath. This video destroys the teachings of Ellen G White and her followers.
protochris 11 months ago
@protochris
It's amazing how many of the same arguments we see in the world today existed back in the days of the early church.
Myhopeisinhim 11 months ago
Excellent. Great music.
Jeffrey2038 1 year ago
Romans did not place pagan worship into Christianity but rather reverted pagan days into Christian days in order to convert the pagans. Sabbath was changed because of Jesus Who rose on the Sunday. Sabbath in the Church begins Saturday evening till Sunday evening. Church also does not forbid honouring of Saturday. The disciples of Jesus began what Jesus taught on the last supper, every week on a Sunday, this was the day of breaking of bread and prayer.
paronaaron 2 years ago
Thanks a lot for sharing this dialogue, I've been struggling with this sabbath's topic for few weeks after I heard a preacher preach that the sabbath must be kept even for christians today. but I figured if it's to be kept it must be kept in full then, like not to do whatever work and I dont think it's possible in today's context. I'm 100% for Justin Martyr.
ManFromKin 2 years ago
You're welcome. I'm glad to hear that it has helped you:)
The sabbath itself was only a shadow of the rest we'd receive in Christ Jesus. It pointed ahead to him:) Now that we have him, we rest in him.
Myhopeisinhim 2 years ago
The Sabbath debate started in 321AD when Emperor Constatine decided to baptize the Roman army by having them march thru the river. Paganism entered the Christian Churches. He wanted to distance himself from the Sabbath keepers so he changed the worship day from Saturday the true Sabbath, to Sunday in honor of the sun god. Before this, Jesus, His disciples and all people kept the 7th day holy. Later RCC made it a law making keeping Sunday mandatory. Those who refused were tortured and killed.
Lulu4Him 2 years ago 10
Then why does various historical records show this debate going on long before 321 AD?
The debate mentioned in this video debate occurred 171 years before the council of trent did.
And the other writings as presented in this video, were written long before 321 AD. I'm afraid I must go with the earlier sources that establish that the debate is older than what you claim.
Myhopeisinhim 2 years ago
I'm sorry, I meant to say that 321 AD was when the true Sabbath/Saturday was changed to Sunday in honor of the sun god and to distance themselves from the Jews. The observance of the sabbath days (holidays and festivals) are diffrent from the Saturday Sabbath. The old mosaic laws were nailed to the cross signifying that Jesus is the Lamb and that the these laws were fulfilled. This vid is talking about the old mosaic law. The Ten Commandments still stand. All are sinners & must obey the Ten C's
Lulu4Him 2 years ago
Thanks for sharing this important dialogue. As for when the first Christians met together we have an even earlier witness in Acts 20:7: "Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread..."
arovir 2 years ago
amen:) What better day to remember the Lord's death and resurrection than on the day he rose from the dead.
Myhopeisinhim 2 years ago
Good evening Myhope. I hope you are well. This is an excellent video indicating that early Christians also did not feel compelled to keep the sabbath in the New Testament Church.
It is amazing the facts that you are able to unearth in your research. Thank you for being a resource for others who converse with SDAs. I often look to your videos and posts as a source for my research.
God bless
mark9531 2 years ago
I'm doing pretty good thanks:) exhausted from our move, but doing well.
It was rather interesting to read the dialogue between Justin and Trypho. At that point in time there hadn't been much chance for corrupt doctrines to grow since they were quickly squelched by the apostles, and other early believers who knew eyewitnesses.
But from reading various historical documents we can see that not observing the sabbath appeared to be quite common back then.
Thank you for your kind words:)
Myhopeisinhim 2 years ago