Bernard Muller

Yes, but first, in AH, Irenaeus does not specify under which emperor Jesus got crucified, and second Justin Martyr did not indicate how long the ministry lasted.
Yes, it is another argument of Irenaeus, obviously a lie. That's something which would give him a black eye and backfire on him & his AH. He went all out on that issue, trying to "prove" his point different ways and his passion must have blinded him from any historical data which would tell otherwise.
But his 20 years got silently rejected and because AH was of great value in order to deal against heretics, AH 2.22 and the 'Demo" passage about Pilate & Claudius were skipped over by Christians readers (as for any other things from the bible which goes against their views and doctrines).

Bernard Muller

aa seems to indicate an author first wrote AH 2.22, then the orthodox Christian(s) would have added massive load of writings on critiques of heretics, many quotes of NT texts, naming of the gospel authors, Paul and his epistles, expose on orthodoxy, etc.
Why doing that? If AH 2.22 was considered "heretic" and just dead wrong, why orthodox Christian(s) took the risk to add up their stuff to it, when AH 2.22 could discredit all their additions and works?

aa5874

But, Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching attributed to Irenaeus provided the information that he was claiming that Jesus was crucified under Cladius.

There is NO evidence that Justin knew of Canonised gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and Pauline writings and it is ONLY in gLuke that it is stated that Jesus was about 30 years old at Baptism and ONE Passover later he was crucified.

gLuke is a fundamental source to put NUMBERS to the age of Jesus.

It is CLEAR now that Justin likely did NOT know of gLuke so he did NOT say the age of the supposed Jesus at crucifixion.

Justin used the Memoirs of the Apostles and never claimed he had or was aware of four Gospels.


It is quite illogical that Irenaeus would Blatantly LIE when the Heretics should have had or was AWARE of gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

And NOT only those books but the very same Heretics should have HEARD that John and the other Apostles did Preach that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years.

Do you NOT understand that Irenaeus was supposedly ARGUING AGAINST Heretics???

For Irenaus to LIE without detection it MUST mean that the so-called Church and the so-called Heretics did NOT of gLuke, gJohn, Acts of Apostles and the Pauline writings..

The author of the Stromata did SHOW that gLuke can be used to PROVE the so-called Jesus was crucified UNDER Tiberius at the age of 30.

And now you have claimed Irenaeus was a LIAR I hope you realiaze that the claim that he was AWARE of John, gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were ALSO Lies.

You have IMPLODED. You have Discredited your source. Your source has committed PERJURY.

Duvduv

If the Epistula could neatly integrate Saul/Paul into the life of Jesus as a prophecy (after the fact) certainly a gospel writer who knew about Paul could have performed the same literary act.

In any case, based on the Book of Acts Paul had a career of approximately 30 years and was approximately the same age as the Jesus figure. So if Jesus had lived 50 years according to Irenaeus basing it on a reading of the verse in GJohn regardless of the other texts, then Paul could not have started his career according to "Irenaeus" before the year 50.

Thus a thirty-year career would have brought Paul to the year of 80 or 82!
More than a decade after the destruction of the Temple.
Given this scenario there is no way in the world that the author of Against Heresies in the part discussing Jesus's age knew the canonical texts including Acts while also claiming to know all the texts! Thus, it would make sense that Against Heresies, LIKE the Epistula Apostolorum, was written BEFORE the canonical texts based on various other writings and stories the
writer(s) heard.

And IF "Irenaeus" still believed that Paul died BEFORE the destruction of the Temple, then he was CLUELESS even to Roman sources or Jewish sources for events that happened barely a century before he allegedly wrote Against Heresies. It is absurd to maintain that a book like this as a church propaganda document was written by a virtually unknown person in the 2nd century.

(Heaven help anyone arguing that Against Heresies was written in the 4th or 5th century, not to mention the canonical texts as they exist today).

Bernard Muller

to aa,
Irenaeus did not think he was blatantly lying. He thought he could have a twenty years ministry not knowing how long Pilate was governor in Judea (or even not even thinking about it and Acts). He was wrong, and his argument that everyone was aware of these twenty years around 100 or before, as heard from apostles, proved to be a lie.
You did not answer me on:
How do you figure, in order to create the whole "Against heresies" tract, an orthodox Christian (or several), knowing well about the NT and basic history, would combine his voluminous texts WITH AH 2.22 (minus the mentions of Luke and quotes from gLuke & gJohn!!!), knowing it was a heretic lie.
Explain the motivation, please.
And why someone would add up later the last paragraph of AH 2.22 where the 20 years is explained through a quote from gJohn?

aa5874

You have ALREADY acknowledged that the statement of Irenaeus that John and the Apostles did preach that Jesus was crucified at the age of about 50 years old was Obviously a Lie.

You have IMPLODED.

Irenaeus did NOT mis-understand gJohn, gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings--he Claimed that John and the other Apostles did TELL the ELDERS of the Church that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age.

AH 2.22 Irenaeus was supposedly REPEATING the information that was given by John and the Apostles by PEOPLE in Asia who SAW John and the Apostles.

Irenaeus did NOT really need gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings to claim Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old because PEOPLE in Asia ALREADY heard it from the supposed Apostles UP to the time of TRAJAN.

I answered you already.

Against Heresies is a massive forgery and you have IMPLODED.

It is MOST OBVIOUS that Against Heresies is totally contradictory which signifies that the Five books have Multiple authors.

In the opening passage of Against Heresies 2.22 that author argued that Jesus was NOT 30 years at Baptism but in the very same chapter [AH 2.22] he argued that Jesus was INDEED Baptised at about 30 years of Age.

The internal evidence of contradictions suggests that a Later writer Manipulated the writings of an Heretic called Irenaeus to make it appear that Irenaeus was aware of the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings when Irenaeus did NOT.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
So now we have a later editor, fully aware of the NT, trying to make a heretic look as he knew the NT (many, many times) when he did not!!!:constern01:
Why was it so important to have Irenaeus, the heretic, look like he knew the NT?
And what is the external evidence for Irenaeus the heretic?
Why make a heretic fight heresies?:constern01:
Why add the last paragraph of AH 2.22 in order to have a heretic demonstrate a heresy with the help of gJohn?
These smilies work!

aa5874

Your IMPLOSION has obviously left you confused.

aa5874

Shall I conclude that you are NOT familiar with apologetic sources of antiquity???

"Church History" 3.3.1 Church History 3.3.4 The 2nd epistle of Peter does NOT belong to the Canon even the Church learned it was NOT genuine.

la70119

Acts and the Pauline Epistles can only account for a one-year ministry, tops. Acts is presented as the second volume of the writer of gLuke's verified account of the history of Jesus' ministry and the life of the Church. In Galatians, Paul himself stated that there were 17 years between his conversion before entering Damascus and the Jerusalem Conference that is commonly accepted to have occured in 48 CE.

For Irenaeus to say Jesus had a 20-year ministry instead and be in good standing, means the Church did not have a structure OR an uniform orthodox teaching by which it could find out erroneous teachings and ideas and outright lies and heresies, and root them out. No Popes, no Bishops.

Probably no Acts or Pauline Epistles, either.

Here aa5874 produced a list of the alleged first Popes, according to various Church Fathers:

The above list shows the church and its writers were in confusion as to who was the second Pope, when Clement was Pope, who was the FIRST Pope even. Showing they kept lousy records, or were making it up.

Justin Martyr (apologist) and Lucian of Samosata (critic) were right. They had only Presidents of Synagogues. But since Irenaeus already got a reputation as an heresy fighter, they simply couldn't just cast him out posthumously as an heretic, now could they? Just doctor and forge his writings and hope the scribes don't miss anything. Which they did.