aa5874

Again, you have admitted that the argument of Irenaeus is an OBVIOUS Lie so you have Discredited your source.

Your argument is now hopeless and illogical because you have NO way to determine the veracity of Irenaeus.

1. Irenaeus PRESENTED ZERO evidence for the TWENTY year ministry of Jesus.

2. gJohn and gLuke do NOT contain any statement of a TWENTY year ministry.

3. Acts of the Apostles does NOT contain a TWENTY year ministry of Jesus.

4. The Pauline writings do NOT contain a TWENTY year ministry of Jesus.

5. Paul preached Christ crucified since the time of King Aretas c 37-40 CE.

6. In gJohn, the day Jesus was crucified Caiaphas was High Priest.

7. In gJohn, the day Jesus was crucified Pilate was governor.

8. In gLuke, the day Jesus was crucified Herod was tertrarch.

Why do you continue to defend an OBVIOUS LIAR??

Why do you continue to defend a book of Lies???

"Against Heresies" is a Massive Forgery giving the False impression that Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters were known in the 2nd century when they were NOT.

Justin Martyr, the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings have DESTROYED "Against Heresies" and Demonstration of Apostolic preaching.

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
Acts by itself does not allow calculating the date of Jesus' crucifixion. We have to look for a marker, that is secular history landmark. The first one is the mention of Herod (chapter 12). That Herod is Agrippa I who ruled over Jerusalem from 41 to 44. So obviously Jesus could not have been crucified after 41. Even if Jesus was baptized in 26CE (when Pilate started as prefect over Judea), that gives 15 years max. But rather a lot less, because, according to Acts, many things happened between 41 and the crucifixion, including the appearance of Paul on the scene (and gLuke put the baptisn in 29 or 27, depending what year you consider Tiberius became emperor).
Did Irenaeus know when Agrippa ruled? I rather think he never thought of Acts when he wrote AH2.22. And not knowing how long Pilate governed Judea, the gate was opened for Irenaeus to force his pet idea.

Duvduv

Look, I realize this. But you are acting all the time as Irenaeus's defense attorney. In one case after another, he didn't know this, he didn't know that, but he decided to write a large book and present himself as knowing so much, except details of recent history of the past century or so. So he couldn't put anything together that made any sense but made unequivocal assertions (sort of like our friend Justin) without providing any sensible information or sources.

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
I read you posting even if I think you and aa do not at times.
Irenaeus was no more nut than Eusebius and many Christians now who are dating Jesus' ministry, including sometimes the start of it, through the book of Daniel. You just have to read through some of the "fathers" writings (and today apologists) to find how nutty they can get. And what about those, some of them very educated, who come out almost year after year, through "studies" of Revelation and Daniel, to find the end of the world will come in a few years. You should know, because you read Africanus and how he explained how the two different genealogies in gLuke and gMatthew can be reconciled.
Irenaeus confused, not so. AH2.22 explains very well his line of thought. I see zealous determination rather than confusion.

Duvduv

Sheesh, I just read Africanus and he makes no sense. Plus he calls Nathan the son of David a prophet by confusing him with the prophet named Nathan in Kings.
These hired scribes were not very educated and sure did a poor job. And as usual virtually nothing is known about him having supposedly preceded Eusebius.

Bernard Muller

I do not defend Irenaeus: I called him a liar.
Irenaeus was not too keen about secular history or even history, that I can gather. He was more interested in fighting heretics, and defining his orthodox Christianity (with inclusion of his own stuff!).
Why do you think Irenaeus should have known everything?
Well, he put a lot of things which made some sense, AH2.22 was not one of those. Anybody can have lapses more so if they are zealous Christians or anti-Christians.
Well you are admitting Justin did the same. That's the rule, not the exception.
On that matter we have to keep everything in perspective, rather than go into wild theories.

Duvduv

Andrew, with all due respect, I don't understand why people are so invested in a second century Irenaeus.
If his Jesus lived to be 50 despite all the literature available to Irenaeus, then when did PAUL start preaching and die? And when did Irenaeus believe the temple was destroyed?

aa5874

Again, you have already discredited Irenaeus as an Obvious Liar so it is a waste of time trying to give the impression that you can determine what Irenaeus knew.

Irenaeus did NOT even need the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostle and the Pauline writings.

Have you already forrgotten that it is claimed in AH 2.22 that the Gospel, John and Other Disciples did convey to the ELDERS of Asia that Jesus was crucified at about fifty years old???

"Against Heresies" 2.22 The author of Against Heresies claimed he used information SUPPLIED by John the disciple of the Lord, the other Apostles, ALL the Elders and people in Asia.

Based on Against Heresies it was publicly known in Asia that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old.

No such thing can be found in gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

The author of Against Heresies 2.22 most likely knew of some other source for his 50 year old crucified Jesus.

aa5874

What!!!! You did claim that the argument of Irenaeus was an OBVIOUS Lie.

Surely you are defending the same author that you discredited as a Liar.

Against Heresies" 2.22

Duvduv

How interesting that information from this John takes precedent for Irenaeus over the entire body of Christian texts written through the Holy Spirit. Hmm……