aa5874

It can be logically deduced that "Against Heresies" is NOT the work of a single author and that one of the authors did NOT known of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

The claim in "Against Heresies" that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old and that John the apostle and the disciples did preach the same thing signifies that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were UNKNOWN to "Irenaeus".

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were NOT used in "Against Heresies" to argue that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were composed at least AFTER "Against Herersies, the writings of Justin Martyr and Aristides, or at least sometime AFTER the end of the 3rd quarter of the 2nd century.

The author of Acts did not claim Acts of the Apostles was the 1st texts and claimed he wrote a treatise to Theophilus about ALL that Jesus said and did up to the Ascension.

The author of Acts gave the list of the 12 chosen disciples of the supposed Jesus and it is compatible with the lists in the Earliest Synoptic Jesus.

There is NO non-apologetic evidence that the 12 disciples in Acts MUST have lived and NO evidence that any character in Acts associated with Jesus must have or probably lived and were leaders of sects.

Duvduv

Yes, I know that the AUTHOR did not say that and agree with almost everything you said here. I was just suggesting that the introduction in Acts could be discounted as a later attempt to associate the Book of Acts (with its Paul) to the Luke gospel, and is therefore irrelevant to the body of the storyline. I take that introduction with a huge grain of salt.

And all I meant was that it is possible that these names did not actually come out of thin air to be used in Acts, but that there was in fact some basis for these names (rather than Andrew and Scott or William and Edward) before Acts came around.

aa5874

I am not claiming that the author of Acts actually did write gLuke I am only presenting the WRITTEN STATEMENT of the author.

People make WRITTEN STATEMENTS and whatever is written is EXTREMELY significant wether or not the WRITTEN STATEMENT is true.

The written statement of a Defendant may be ENTIRELY fabricated but it cannot ever be rejected once it is DOCUMENTED and presented as evidence.

The author of Acts claimed he wrote a Jesus story so it cannot be argued that Acts is the 1st texts when you would have NO evidence to support such a claim.

Without sources of antiquity , Without evidence, NOTHING can be resolved.

We have the Extant Codices and they contain stories about a character called Jesus.

The Earliest Jesus story can be logically deduced to be the Short-Ending gMark so ALL other stories of Jesus in the Canon, whether Acts or the Pauline writings are AFTER the EARLIEST Jesus story.

The Short-Ending gMark is COMPATIBLE with Non-apologetic sources, like Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the younger that there was NO person known as Jesus the Messiah of Nazareth who was the End of Jewish Law and offered UNIVERSAL Salvation to ALL mankind through his crucifixion and resurrection.

It is EXTREMELY critical to understand that ONLY the Short-Ending gMark of the Canon is COMPATIBLE with non-apologetic sources.

The PREACHING of the so-called Gospel, by the supposed Paul and Peter in Acts and the Pauline writings, of a character called Jesus the Messiah was AFTER the Short-Ending gMark Jesus story and AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

The author of Acts and the Pauline writings merely used the names FOUND in the Jesus stories that was ALREADY known and circulated.

Duvduv

But there really is no evidence that a short GMark as we know it existed before anything recounted about Paul. Doherty, Humphreys, Wells, Feke etc. have argued strongly that the epistles didn't know anything of the historical Jesus story, and whatever really exists about a Jesus in Acts is the speech of Peter regarding his Jesus of Nazereth as Jewish messiah which is pretty minimal even compared to GMark.

Even if there were oral traditions of such a belief that were included in Acts, that doesn't match the epistles, which don't know about Mary or a virgin, don't know Pilate or a Baptist or Nazareth.

My earlier point was IF Acts did come before the epistles (in the 4th century), why weren't any of these elements introduced into any epistles? Surely the interpolators/forgers would have put something in there to keep things more or less in alignment (Mary or Nazareth etc).

Unless logic would dictate that Acts and Epistles came out in different locations based on similar but not identical traditions about the Paul figure and that elements such as the Peter speeches were added later on as required by the emerging Church of the historical Christ with its "apostolic succession/tradition" through the "Rock of the church" and not through Paul who was never described as knowing the Christ.

Toto

What is your point here? Your statement seems to indicate that Acts was not written before the epistles. There is no good case that Acts was written before the epistles, and no case at all that Acts or the epistles were written in the fourth century, so WHY DO YOU KEEP BRINGING IT UP?

aa5874

Well, there is ZERO evidence that there were Pauline writings as we know it and zero evidence that Paul lived during the time of Aretas.

There is ZERO evidence that the Pauline Jesus did ever exist.

Again, I no longer accept the FLAWED illogical claims of so-called Experts and this rejection of Experts is quite COMMON in court trials.

Ordinary people on a daily basis all over the world REJECT the claims of Experts when it is known that their opinion are flawed.

Jurors, ordinary non-experts, either REJECT the opinion of the Expert attorneys of the prosecution or defense.

I really want to DEAL with the written statements of APOLOGETIC and NON-APOLOGETIC sources of antiquity.

The EVIDENCE, the Written statements of antiquity is what I want to see. Many a times Experts hardly agree on anything.

Doherty claimed Jesus was crucified in the Sub-Lunar when it is documented and circulated in antiquity by Apoologetic sources that Jesus was crucified under Pilate and Ascended to he heaven from Jerusalem in Acts.

Wells, Doherty, Freke, Humphrey may all PRESUME the Pauline writings are early because you should known that there is ZERO non-apologetic evidence to support an Early Pauline writing.

When I review a matter, I don't really review opinion, I review the EVIDENCE.


Now, there are EXTANT Codices with the Short-Ending gMark dated by Paleography to the 4th century and in gMark the author did NOT write anything about the Commission by Jesus to preach the Gospel to every creature.

This is extremely significant--the author of the Short-Ending gMark did NOT know of anyone who preached about the Resurrection of Jesus up to the time Short-Ending gMark was written.

Mark 16 has UTTERLY destroyed ALL the books of the NT Canon that claim the disciples and Paul preached the Gospel BEFORE gMark was written.

The Short-Ending gMark is COMPATIBLE with Non-Apologetic sources but Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are FICTION based on Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger.

There was NO character known as Jesus the crucified resurrected Messiah, the End of the Law that offered UNIVERSAL Salvation to ALL Mankind Before the Fall of the Jewish Temple and preached by Peter and Paul as stated in Acts.

The Commission to preach the Gospel by a resurrected dead called Jesus is of itself FICTION and the FICTION of the Post-Resurrection Visit is found in ALL the Canonized Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings EXCEPT the Short-Ending gMark.

aa5874

There is NO evidence from non-apologetic sources whatsoever that the Pauline writings were written before Acts of the Apostles.

There is GOOD evidence that the Pauline writings were AFTER the Fall of the Temple and were composed AFTER Short-Ending gMark.

The MOST significant evidence is P 46 DATED by Paleography to the mid-2nd-3rd century which is COMPATIBLE with the writings attributed to Justin Martyr and Aristides that claimed it was the 12 disciples of Jesus that preached the Gospel to every race of men in the world and did NOT mention Paul.

There is ZERO evidence from non-apologetic sources that can place the Pauline writings BEFORE Justin Martyr, and Aristides.

"First Apology" Justin Martyr's First Apology is completely compatible with the dating of P 46, the Pauline writings.

Duvduv

I was essentially speaking about it to aa5874.

But you can't know whether or not the epistles were written in the 4th century, can you Toto? Only if you hold fast to the views concerning the claims of heresiologists/apologists who are said to have written in the second century. But if you not only draw into question the NT texts but ALSO the claims of Eusebius etc. that those apologists wrote in the 2nd century then there is reason to believe the epistles were not written in the second century either.

Duvduv

Yes, you make a good point. I do not agree that the epistles had to have been written in the 2nd century at all. But maybe I don't exactly understand your point about GMark. However, if Acts came after GMark, it certainly doesn't share any knowledge of the stories of the Jesus figure from GMark except for a couple of elements in Peter's speech (leaving aside the first chapter introduction).

aa5874

But, how many times are we going to go over the fact that the author of Acts claimed he was AWARE of ALL that Jesus said and did even up to the Ascension and wrote a treatise to Theophilus?

We have Acts of the Apostles and we can EXAMINE the Written statements in the very FIRST verse.

The author of Acts also is claiming to be AWARE that the resurrected Jesus commissioned his disciples to PREACH the Gospel but this event is NOT in the Short-Ending gMark.

The author of the Short-Ending gMark did NOT know of any so-called disciple that PREACHED the Gospel or was Commissioned to preach the Gospel BEFORE he wrote his story.

The author of Acts and Paul were AWARE of the story of the Commission by the resurrected Jesus as is seen in Acts 1 and Galatians 2.

Galatians 2 And there is also the EXTREMELY important claim by Paul that he Spoke in TONGUES which is NOT found in the Earliest gMark but found in the Corrupted Interpolated version.


1 Corinthians 14:18 KJV Acts 2 Corrupted Interpolated gMark 16 Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are based on the Later CORRUPTED Gospels.