aa5874

Why would the Church use the writings of an IDIOTIC, LYING Heretic???

When Irenaeus was claiming Jesus was crucified at about 50 years even the so-called Heretics were arguing that Jesus suffered when he was 30 years old.

Irenaeus was confused and argued that Jesus was about 50 years old at crucifixion when the Church read Against Heresies they too were confused and then the Heretics were confused, and the Historians were confused and the Skeptics were confused.......everybody was confused.

Nobody bothered to correct Irenaeus and then he wrote another book and claimed Pilate was the Governor of Claudius Caesar and every body that read this book were confused all over again.

But, the very Church writer Eusebius did use Irenaeus as a most credible writer and quoted a passage from Against Heresies 2.22.

Incredibly, Eusebius mentioned a passage from Against Heresies 2.22 and NEVER did mention that it was claimed Jesus suffered at about 50 years.

"Church History 3.23 3. [u]Against Heresies" 2.22.5In the 4th century, Eusebius did NOT mention at all that Irenaeus claimed Jesus was about 50 years old although he knew of Against Heresies 2.22.

Against Heresies is a massive forgery that confused even the Church.

aa5874

After reading many writings attributed to apologetic sources of antiquity it is now extremely easy to detect the writings that are historically and chronologically bogus.

We have Existing Codices with the Short-Ending gMark and we also have Existing Codices with the Long Ending gMark.

The Short-Ending gMark and the Long-Ending gMark are PERFECT examples of FORGERIES of Antiquity.

Short-Ending gMark Ends at the 8th verse of the 16 chapter.

Long-Ending gMark End at the 20th verse of the 16th chapter.

We have a Documented Record of the Forgery.

The 12 verses that were added in gMark dramatically changed the Jesus story.

In gMark Jesus was a Miracle worker who walked on water and transfigured.

In a writing under the name of Paul, Jesus was the First Born of the dead and did NOT do any miracles.

Bernard Muller

Rather obvious. Why would he mention an error made by one illustrious past bishop? What would he (or Christianity) have gained by that?
More so when Eusebius went for a three and one half ministry for Jesus (although he was aware of gLuke!).
PS: Origen, who also knew gLuke, started by adopting an one year and a few months ministry, then later changed his mind and went for 3 years.

Irenaeus was not confused. He wanted to react against Heretics who used gLuke to say Jesus' ministry was only one year (which was, for Irenaeus, not enough by a long shot!). Then he used one verse of gJohn to say Jesus' preaching lasted more than one year. And finally he used another part of gJohn to extrapolate a 20 years ministry. This line of reasonning of Irenaeus is very obvious if anyone read AH 2.22.
And either he forgot about Justin's writings (about JC crucified under Tiberius) or he did not consider then the length of Tiberius' reign.
Neither the gospels, nor Justin explicitely indicated an one year ministry. The Synoptics (more so gLuke) might suggest one year, but gJohn implies more that 2 years.

aa5874

You have ALREADY IMPLODED when you introduced the Stromata.

The author of the Stromata triggered your IMPLOSION by precisely using gLuke to PROVE Jesus was crucified at 30 years of age during the reign of Tiberius.

Against Heresies is a massive forgery--the author could NOT have known of gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline writings and be a Bishop of the Church and argue in TWO works that Jesus was crucified when he was about 50 under Claudius Caesar.

Bernard Muller

So what does that prove: Heretics used also gLuke, and that did not go well with Irenaeus. That's explained in AH 2.22. Origen (late) and Eusebius did not follow the Stromata either because they came up with a 3 years ministry (and they knew gLuke). And the Stromata was written later than Irenaeus' works, so that would not influence Irenaeus in any way.
Why do you insist Irenaeus had to only consider gLuke and not gJohn when postulating the duration of Jesus' preaching? When AH 2.22 says he considered both. Why did he had to go along with the heretics when he was longing for a longer ministry for Jesus?
And refrain from this propaganda stuff: implosion!

Duvduv

Question: Has official Christian doctrine ever contemplated a ministry of more than 3 years? Because it seems to me that that is the maximum in conventional Christianity given how important Pontius Pilate was and is to the whole story.

Duvduv

What did Irenaeus think happened to Marulius who succeeded Pilate, and what did he think of Caligula who succeeded Tiberius? And what did Irenaeus think about the duration of the Jesus ministry in reading any of his gospels whereby it sounds as if events happened in a relatively short span of time?

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv:
Here is some background information from my website.
It looks Eusebius also made errors and used dubious sources & reasonning trying to establish a 3 years ministry.

"Remarks: Irenaeus' comment, based of John's gospel (8:57), shows that there was no significant acceptance then (around 180) about a three (or two) years ministry: that will come later.
The first one to mention a three-year ministry might have been Origen (changing his mind!) in 'Commentary on Matthew' (Book XXIV), written late in his life, but Eusebius (early 4th cent.) was the first to argue for it.
In his 'Demonstratio Evangelica' (published before 311) VIII, 106, 8, Eusebius stated, "the whole period of our Savior's teaching and marvel-working is recorded to have been three years and a half, which is half of a week [reference to the book of Daniel, seen here as containing prophecies about Jesus! Look here in order to understand it is not the case!]. This, I take it, John the Evangelist accurately establishes by his presentation in the gospel."
He then erroneously stated (in order to demonstrate the ministry was less than four years!), "Since, then, he (Jesus) began in the high priesthood of Annas [!!! Annas was high priest during 7-13/14C.E.] and continued to the reign of Caiaphas the intervening time does not extend to a full four years [WRONG: this time can be as long as 29 years (7-35C.E.) and cannot be shorter than 12 years (14-26C.E.)]." ('History of the Church' (published 311-325) I, 10, 2)
Later in the same book (III, 24, 11) Eusebius explained John's gospel covers a longer period than the others, but did not mention three years.
Finally, in his 'Chronicles' (published 325) he ascribed the crucifixion to the eighteenth year of Tiberius, basing himself on an eclipse and the false claim that, "It is written [in John's gospel] that after the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar the Lord preached three years."
Note: Eusebius repeatedly claimed that John's gospel represents a three-year ministry, but he offered no specific arguments. It seems the three-years came from the O.T, that is the book of Daniel.

Duvduv

But Bernard, doesn't a reading of the gospels pretty much provide a very short duration to the public life of the Jesus character from the time of his baptism to his crucifixion? I mean if it were thought that this went on for 20 years or so, then we would have seen much larger gospel stories with many more events.

The gospel novelists would have been more than happy to write much more about him, his miracles, etc. etc. Even a volume 2 of each gospel......especially if it got him that much closer to the destruction of the Temple and the assorted rebellions.

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
Well ask Irenaeus. Or if you cannot, read AH 2.22 to see what went in his mind. That's very well explained. For some reasons, Irenaeus wanted Jesus to have preached from youth (30!) to old age (50, that was old in these days: life expectancy was short then).
I think he was determined, regardless of the gospels, to push for twenty years, largely motivated by hate against the heretics.
And Eusebius did about the same things (errors and dubious base evidence & extrapolation) in order to push for a three years and a half (but less than 4 years!) ministry.

Yes, I can understand that. But I think "Mark" was restrained by what he (and his community) heard from eyewitness (like a lot of other things). One year ministry does not look too good, just a flash in the pan, not part of some God's plan. So effort was done to extend it (ref: Irenaeus, Eusebius).