Bernard Muller

The Stromata were written after the death of Commodus in 192, so after the works of Irenaeus. Therefore Irenaeus was not aware of the Stromata.

Actually, in AH 2.22, Irenaeus was aware of Lk3:21,23 & Lk4:19. But, as evident in AH 2.22, Irenaeus did not consider Lk4:19 as an indication that Jesus' ministry lasted one year.

But you claimed I was destroyed well before that!

So what do you consider forgery and original in AH 2.22? But a few days ago, you claimed the whole of AH 2.22 predated the rest of AH. I quote you:
So now, it looks only a bit of AH 2.22 is original!!! You changed your mind! Can you elaborate about what you consider original in AH 2.22, with the rest being forgeries? And why and how you separate the two?

Duvduv

Irenaeus was earlier only if you accept the traditional dating.
In any case, how would this Irenaeus conclude from his four contradictory gospels that Jesus made it to fifty simply because of a verse inGJohn.? Isn't that a bit presumptuous of him? Especially without clearing it ostensibly from his fellow elite of his church who he never even mentions??

Bernard Muller

From AH 3.17.2, Eleutherus was the bishop of Rome when Irenaeus was writing 'Against Heresies'. Eleutherus' death is dated either 185 or 192, but still very much likely before Stromata, written while Commodus was emperor.

I explained that over and over. Please read my posts. Or even better, read AH 2.22.
I repeat none of the gospel says how long Jesus' ministry lasted. The Synoptics (more so gLuke) suggest 1 year, while gJohn implies at least a bit more than two years.

I fully agree. But Irenaeus was the big Christian in Lyons, and felt he could do it without asking advice from anybody. And most other "fathers" of the Church were, at times, creating bits of past Christian history, such as Aristides, Justin, Origen, Tertullian and Eusebius. I have examples of their handy work in my website.

aa5874

It is IRRELEVANT whether or not the Stromata was before or after the writings attributed to Irenaeus.

Irenaeus did NOT use any EARLIER writings to claim Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old during the time Pilate was governor of Caudius Caesar.

The Stromata author has DESTROYED your argument and used gLuke to PROVE Jesus was 30 years old when he crucified under TIBERIUS.

And, remember the Stromata does NOT say Pilate was the Governor of Claudius Caesar.

Again, you are quoting the Forgeries. The Stromata has IDENTIFIED that Against Heresies MUST be a massive forgery.

When "Against Heresies" 2.22 was written the author did NOT know, the Church of Irenaeus did NOT know, and the Heretics against whom Irenaeus argued did NOT know of gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

Justin Martyr in "First Apology" BEFORE Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified under Tiberius.

Clement of Alexandria in "The Stomata" AFTER Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified under Tiberius.

You must NOW understand that Ireneaus was most likely a HERETIC, not a bishop and presbyter, whose writings were Manipulated.

You were warned. Did NOT the author of the Stromata use gLuke to PROVE his Jesus was crucified at 30 years of age?

It is the Evidence from antiquity that has destroyed your claims about Jesus and Irnaeus.

Do you NOT uderstand what forgery means??

Did I not say that Against Heresies is a MASSIVE forgery???

"Against Heresies" is a MASSIVE FORGERY because the FIVE Books imply that Ireneaus was FAMILIAR with Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline writings and the teachings about the crucifixion of Jesus when it is virtually impossible for the supposed NT Jesus to have been crucified under Claudius.

Bernard Muller

You are wrong. Actually Irenaeus used gJohn in order to conclude, through some dubious reasonning, that Jesus' ministry lasted twenty years.

So Clement of A had other ideas than Irenaeus. And according to the evidence of the gospels (and Pilate's rule duration), he was more correct. And, if he knew about AH, he thought Irenaeus' position on the matter was plain wrong and undefendable.

So what!!!

It is obvious Irenaeus wanted to prove something else. And gLuke does not say Jesus was 30 years old when crucified.
What forgeries? I was quoting material from within AH 2.22 which you declared "original" and all parts of the demonstration for the 20 years of Jesus' ministry. As you stated so well: "Against Heresies" 2.22 is a two-thousand word argument to attempt to show Jesus Christ was about 50 years old when he was crucified."
Does all AH 2:22 is forgery now!

The author of AH 2.22 knew about gLuke and gJohn, quoted them and named their alleged authors. The same author knew also about an epistle to the Romans. So what you are saying is wrong. Or, you have to sort out the forgeries inside AH 2:22 before we can see what's left. I already ask you that.

Irenaeus read Justin's writings but may not have remembered everything in them when writing AH. But because of his anger against heretics, he developped his theory about 20 years for Jesus' ministry (which so far, accepting Irenaeus did not know about the duration of Pilate as prefect, was not conflicting with the gospels, only with Justin). After, as a consequence, in 'demonstration', he wrote the crucifixion was under Claudius, too stubborn to admit he made an error in AH 2.22. And that was conflicting with all the gospels and Justin.
Now, I am thinking more like he made a "typo", writing Claudius instead of Tiberius. Because, in the same passage, he named Herod as also the one who sent Jesus to the cross (which is not quite true, according to gLuke). And he made also an error on Herod, calling him "king of the Jews", when he was, as Herod Antipas, only tetrarch of Galilee/Perea. And then, rather creative also, because Irenaeus wrote that Herod thought Jesus wanted to replace him as king, which is not mentioned in any gospels (or maybe Irenaeus confused Antipas with Herod the Great).
It looks Irenaeus had a bad day or was very tired when he wrote that passage which is full of errors.

So because of that Claudius and the twenty years, then the most part of AH becomes a forgery written by an Irenaeus who was a heretic. That's very far-reaching!!! That's a lot to conclude from a zealous contraption.

aa5874

Your statement is completely wrong. There is no written statement in gJohn that Jesus was crucified when Claudius was Emperor.

In gJohn, Jesus was crucified in a YEAR when CAIAPHAS was High Priest and Pilate was governor.

The name Claudius Caesar is NOT in gJohn.

So, again, Clement of A has destroyed your argument. Clement of A used gLuke to prove Jesus was 30 years old when he suffered.

And BEFORE "Against Heresies" Justin Martyr claimed Jesus suffered under TIBERIUS.

The author of Against Heresies could NOT have used gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings to show that Jesus was crucified under CLAUDIUS Caesar.

Against Heresies is a massive forgery.

"So what" is NOT evidence of anything and shows you are Confused.

Irenaeus could NOT have used gLuke to Prove Jesus was about 50 years old at crucifixion.

Again, the author of Stromata CLEARLY shows that gLuke was used to Prove the supposed Jesus was crucified at 30 years of age.

In gLuke alone, in the 15th year of TIBERIUS, Pilate was governor, and Herod was TETRARCH of Galilee.

When Jesus was put on TRIAL in gLuke Pilate sent Jesus to Herod the tetrarch of Galilee. See Luke 23.7

Again, in gJohn Jesus was crucified in the YEAR when CAIAPHAS was High Priest and Pilate was governor. See John 18.24

So, the supposed Jesus was crucified in gJohn and gLuke when:

1. Pilate was governor 26-37 CE.

2. Caiaphas was High Priest 18-36 CE.

3. Herod was tetrarch of Galilee 4 BCE-39 CE.

"Against Heresies" is a massive forgery.

You might as well quote the TF in Antiquities 18.3.3 to show that Josephus knew about Jesus.

I have ALREADY sorted out many of the Massive forgeries in antiquity.

Here is a partial list of writings that are forgeries, wholly or in part.

Writings attributed to Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Eusebius.

So, again, you destroyed your OWN argument--you have IMPLODED.

You have ADMITTED that Irenaeus mentioned things that are NOT in the Gospels.

I told you so. Irenaeus did NOT know of gLuke and gJohn.

Please, please, please!!!! There is NO other apologetic source of antiquity which ever stated that Jesus was crucified under Claudius and was about 50 years old at the time.

The claim that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years and UNDER CLAUDIUS Caesar is HERETICAL.

It appears that the writings of an Heretic called Irenaeus was MANIPULATED and FORGED giving the false impression that Irenaeus knew of gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

The very same thing was done to writings attributed to Tertullian. No apologetic source up to 200 years after the supposed Tertullian ever claimed he wrote "Against Marcion".

"Against Heresies" is a Massive forgery and there are more.

aa5874

Let us NOT divert from the issue at hand.

1. Justin Martyr claimed Jesus was crucified under Tiberius--First Apology

2. Tertullian claimed Jesus crucified under Tiberius--The Apology

3. Clement of Alexandria claimed Jesus was crucified under Tiberius--The Stromata

4. Origen claimed Jesus was crucified under Tiberius--Against Celsus.

Irenaeus could NOT have used the same sources as Church writers to state that Jesus was crucified under Claudius.

Against Heresies must be a massive forgery.

Duvduv

So it needs to be explained why the same author of Against Heresies both proposed 4 gospels and yet couldn't get the chronology correct as intimated in those same gospels, either from them or from the historical archives of Rome itself. He couldn't have been that big an ignoramus. Being not yet fifty in GJohn says nothing about the exact age or the emperor, especially in light of Irenaeus's other 3 gospels not to mention any other available sources.

aa5874

This is like asking why did the American government produce bogus evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the inspection team reported that there were none.

Who saw the bogus evidence in the possession of the American goverment??

When the Inspection team said Iraq had NO weapons of mass destruction the American goverment claimed they had Evidence.

The American people would have NEVER known of the bogus evidence if it was NOT leaked or exposed.

Who saw "Against Heresies" in the 2nd century??

Who saw "Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching" where it is claimed Pilate was the governor of Claudius Caesar?

Historians, Heretics and Skeptics would have LAUGHED at Irenaeus and probably call him an IDIOT, a LIAR or a Lunatic or a combination of any two.

If Paul did NOT exist who would have benefited from bogus evidence claiming that Marcion used the Pauline writings???

The answer is extremely simple.

The Roman Church and Government of the 4th century.

Duvduv

Then the Church itself must have considered him an idiot to talk about 4 gospels and then get confused about the age of their Jesus.....