stephan huller

The number one reason for thinking Irenaeus was a real person:

All the Against Heresies/Refutation of Heresies material ARE RELATED. How and why would all these manuscripts have been circulating BY EUSEBIUS'S TIME (note - he references both Irenaeus's and Hippolytus's version of the same original work)? So the 'powers of Constantine' went out of their way to forge two texts that are ultimately related to one another but also disagree with one another? It's as stupid as hitting yourself over the head with a hammer.

Then throw into the mix that Tertullian wrote a short version of just the part directed against Valentinus AND WHOSE ORDER DISAGREES WITH Irenaeus

Come on wake up. It's impossible that all this was accomplished before Eusebius AND WHY WOULD ANYONE DO THIS?

aa5874

You mean you agree with the evidence. It most obvious based on the evidence that the "letter to Corinthians" is a forgery and was not written at around 90 CE.

Once there was a GREAT dissension of the Church of Corinth at around 90 CE when Clement was bishop of Rome and he did write a letter to the Corinthians then all writers of the Church MUST know when the Great dissension happened in Corinth and they MUST know who was the bishop of Rome at around 90 CE.

The passage in De Viris Illustribus 15 supposedly by Jerome has INADVERTENTLY exposed the fraud.

Once the passage in "De Viris Illustribus" 15 supposedly by Jerome ADMITS knowledge of the Clement letter to the Corinthians and that the letter was PUBLICLY read in some of the Churches then it MUST be known by Latins and Tertullian that Clement was NOT ordained by Peter but was the bishop of Rome at around 90 CE.

And, the letter of Augustine of Hippo shows that the Clement letter was a fraud and that there was really no Roman Church records of Clement as bishop of any Roman.


And that is exactly the point. We now know the fraudulent material. I have pointed them out long ago.

My list of fraudulent writings does not change like the Roman Church records.

We now have evidence of the fraud carried out by the Church. It was the Church writers themselves who DOCUMENTED the fraud.

This is my partial list of fraudulent writings, WHOLLY or in PART..

Writings under the name of Paul, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Clement of Alexander, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius.

At this point I am not arguing about existence of Irenaeus.

I have demonstrated that passages found in "Against Heresies" 3.3 was UNKNOWN to Tertullian and was most likely written AFTER "Prescription Against Heresies" 32.

Once Tertullian knew that Clement the bishop of Rome wrote a letter to the Church of Corinth at around 90 CE and knew that the Roman Church records show that Clement was the third bishop as found in "Against Heresies" 3.3 then he could not have been expected to claim Clement was ORDAINED by Peter.

And what is even more ALARMING is that for over a hundred years the list kept on changing even with the supposed knowledge of the Clement letter.

But, you do not even know what you are talking about. Your assertions show that you have NO idea of the fraud in the writings of the Church.

No time have I stated that all were created in the 4th century.

Please, Please. Please, Please!!!!! I beg of you do not spread false rumors.

I do not consider that the writings of Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Municius Felix and Tatian were written in 4th century.

I do not consider that "Ad Nationes" by Tertullian was written in the 4th century.

Please stop propagating false absurd rumors .

Again, I do not EVER, EVER, EVER claim all texts were written in the 4th century.

My theory ACTUALLY depends on TEXTS that I consider to be BEFORE the 4th century.

But, I consider your theories about Mark to be extremely weak and comical.

And telling me the forging happened at the end of 2nd century actually demonstrate that you don't seem to understand that in comic books assertions are made without supporting evidence.

What forging happened in the 2nd century? What are you talking about?

Be specific. Who forged what, when, where? What evidence do you have?

I am specific and DIRECT. And I have evidence from antiquity.

The letter from Clement of Rome to the Corinthians and passages in "Against Heresies" 3.3. are forgeries.

avi

Thank you Roger, I agree with following the path of safety. Here are some of the footnotes from W. Wigan Harvey's text (two volumes representing the five volumes of "Irenaeus", plus extensive quotes from Hippolytus and Epiphanius):

page 71, footnote 2:
Can you understand my consternation, Roger? Is there some alternate interpretation possible for Harvey's English? How can he possibly claim to know whether or not text abc expresses "Irenaeus"' writing "more faithfully than the Greek", when he lacks the Greek text?

Page 105, footnote 5:
"original flow of expression" ??? What, is that the Syriac version, again?

Page 140, footnote 3:
So, Harvey reconstructed "Irenaeus" from two other (corrupted) authors... This is what passes on this forum as bona fide AH?

Page 143, footnote 1:
Yup, doubtless, or, possibly, just possibly, because those words were never in the original docs... How do we know what Hippolytus wrote? Are we not still, today, missing some of his original text from Philosphumena? What is the date of the oldest extant document? Was not even the authorship of the several volumes of Greek text recovered in the 19th century, from a monastery, open to question, with false attribution to half a dozen authors?

Page 190, footnote 3:
Yes, that's right, "more or less"....

Thank you Andrew. I agree. However, is it not also possible, (maybe, from some perspectives, improbable, but, so is life itself!) to explain this discrepancy by a completely different mechanism: Tertullian's writing was not yet extant in the "late 3rd century". Our oldest manuscript of his writings dates from the 9th century.
Maybe it is stretching things, but is it not at least possible, no matter how unlikely, that Tertullian is simply another
post-Constantinian creation?

Sorry, Andrew, I am not expressing myself clearly, at all. I believe you, when you write, confidently, that
this fragment is indeed taken from a Greek version of "Irenaeus". However,

1. Since we have no extant Greek copies of this passage from AH, why do you suppose that these fragments do represent his text, and not simply truncated portions of Matthew 3:16-17?

2. My vision is none too good, but honestly, Andrew, can you actually make out individual words here, in these fragments? I mean, can you show WHICH words, visible at least to you, in these fragments, correspond to which words in the text of AH, book 3, chapter 9, section 2-3?

agree

Thank you very much, DCH, very well explained. Much appreciated....

Thanks for pointing out yet another contradiction regarding "Irenaeus", aa5874.

Your substantial contributions to this forum are all appreciated. I am grateful for your many positive replies to many inquiries on this forum. Keep up the good work.

I am not sure that the idea is moronic. Unduly facile, perhaps. Improbable, maybe. Unlikely, ok. But, not moronic. Everything we have uncovered in this thread, as I read it, points to CENTURIES of forgery, not limited to the second century, especially surrounding the "Patristic" authors, in particular, "Irenaeus":

I am really dumbfounded to read that a forum participant genuinely accepts the existence of forgery among various Christian documents, history, epistles, canon, etc., yet, for some entirely unknown reason, assumes that this (mere instance of) forgery was limited to a single circumscribed point in time, i.e. the second century. I will not stoop to framing this response as "moronic", but the thought did cross my mind....

We have so many illustrations of forgery, fraud, and deception, within our own lifetimes, how can you possibly believe, sincerely, what you have written: Christian forgery limited to the second century????

What? Have I misread what you have written?


Yes, that's correct, Sleepers awake. Sorry Bacht. I do appreciate that you write this admonition with sincerity, and I do believe that you genuinely imagine that Pete, or someone else, has been mislead about the notion that forgery explains the writings attributed to "Irenaeus", but, in my humble, and rather uneducated opinion, mountainman's ideas are pretty much right on target....

Let's briefly discuss "why anyone would do this":
1. Colin Powell. Why did he fabricate the claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, when he knew, better than anyone else in the world, that the only weapons the Iraqis possessed, to commit mass murder, were those given to Saddam Hussein by the USA?

Answer: Political pressure. Powell subsequently resigned. Implicit was an acknowledgement that his entire presentation to the UN that fateful day was a bogus charade, as was evident to anyone watching it.

2. Tonkin Gulf: Another gross lie. Why? Why fabricate stories? Why not simply teach the American people the truth: The USA didn't want Viet Nam to be free and independent, so supported (with money and weapons--Truman and Eisenhower) the return of French colonial power, but when that failed, Dulles el al took away the VietNamese people's right to free and fair elections, pushing in, instead, a Catholic tyrant, who murdered countless heroes of mine. The Tonkin Gulf resolution by Congress is second only to the mistreatment of the aboriginal inhabitants of North America, among the list of crimes against humanity committed by this wretched government.

3. People today misunderstand how ruthless politicians govern. Hitler was not so long ago, at least in my mind. Stalin seems like just yesterday, nevertheless those two mass murderers' actions seem to have been forgotten by those alive today. Forgery, and all the trappings of political intrigue were put into place by Constantine, TO PRESERVE HIS POLITICAL POWER, just as countless tyrants and murderers accomplished after him.

For shame that members of this forum misunderstand this ruthless, egomaniacal, mass murderer. Constantine killed his own wife. He killed his own son. NOTHING would deter him. Do you honestly imagine that forging a few documents would give him dyspepsia? People talk about Nicea, as though it were some sort of abstract event. No. It was a critical moment, coming as it did, just after TWENTY years of combat to unify the empire.

Those 20 years were not armchair fighting. Lord Constantine was at the head of his troops, leading them into battle. Now the wars were ended, but, there is no peace. Why? Some guy from Alexandria, named Arius, Constantine's hero for many years, insisted that trinitarianism was bogus, and the ensuing riots threatened grain and meat delivery from Egypt to Rome.

Somebody convinced Constantine that peace would only come with tightening the clamps, ensuring that there was a SINGLE, EASILY understood mechanism to explain the Christian mysticism. I doubt he made the right choice, because I find Arius' position to be much more logical, however, Constantine chose the road less traveled, and everyone else had to get in lockstep behind him. Or, die.

If that meant changing history, so be it.
If that meant changing scriptures, well, what are they, just some parchment. Come on, this guy has been fighting in the open, receiving swords, lances, arrows, and boiling oil, so, you think that he would be shy about telling Eusebius to fix a few scholarship problems.....

So, why would anyone want to CREATE fake authors, distribute fake letters, publish fake bibles? Small price, to ensure unity of the empire, much cheaper than buying herds of cattle, goats, sheep and the like, to feed his army....

avi

aa5874

Once the writings of "Irenaeus" are examined the fraud carried out is EASILY uncovered.

1.It has already been deduced that the authorship, dating and chronology of the Gospels, Acts and the Pauline writings are ERRONEOUS.

2. It is known that "Irenaeus" did NOT know the age of Jesus when he suffered according to the very Gospels that he mentioned.

3. "Irenaeus" did not know the governors of Judea during the reign of Tiberius or Claudius.

4. The list of bishops given by "Irenaeus" was NOT used by Tertullian or Augustine.

5. The letter from "Clement" to the Corinthians as stated in "Against Heresies" was NOT known by Tertullian or Augustine.

6. It is almost certain that Peter was NOT even a person of history yet Irenaeus claimed Peter was an actual human bishop of Rome.

7. Irenaeus claimed Polycarp met John the apostle but that is almost certain to be false since John was a fictitious character.

8. The doctrine of Basilides in "Against Heresies" is CONTRADICTED by Hippolytus in "Refutation of All Heresies".

9. Hippolytus in "Refutation of All Heresies" CONTRADICTED "Irenaeus" when he claimed Marcion used gLuke. Marcion used Empedocles.

10. Origen contradicted "Irenaeus" who claimed the Church was unified in their belief about Jesus.

11. "Irenaeus" CONTRADICTED his OWN self in "Against Heresies".

12. Eusebius used "Against Heresies" as an historical source although contradicted by other Church writers.

"Against Heresies" as found today is a fraudulent writing. It does NOT contain a true history of Jesus believers.

stephan huller

You know AA I really don't understand your logic. So Irenaeus doesn't believe in all the things that are considered orthodoxy in this or previous generations. So he gets historical facts wrong. What the hell does this have to do with the question of whether there was a historical Irenaeus?

I work with people who literally don't know what their birthday is. That might be argued to be a proof against their historical reality.

I'm sure that if you came across a passage in Irenaeus where he admitted he didn't know the date of his birth you'd hold that up as a trump card.

The reality is that people aren't perfect. You of all people should know that

aa5874

How much times must I tell you that I am NOT dealing with the historical Irtenaeus?

I am dealing with what is found in "Against Heresies" and that it is a fraudulent work or heavily interpolated and filled with fiction.

Do you not understand that Irenaeus could have actually lived in the 2nd century but material was forged under his name?

Can't someone forge your signature without knowing when you were born?

Can't someone forge a writing in your name without knowing your birthday?

What a completely wasted thought!!

Well exactly. Not even fraudsters are perfect. I will show that the fraud called the "history" of the Church was NOT a perfect crime.

"Against Heresies" contains information that was unknown to other Church writers yet was used by Eusebius. This is an indication that parts of "Against Heresies" were fraudulently added or interpolated.

stephan huller

But that's idiotic. The fact that Irenaeus disagrees with fourth century orthodoxy makes better sense as a proof that the material comes from another period in time, from another milieu than it does that the material is fraudulently 'manufactured.'

Why would a fourth century conspiracy 'set up' a fake second century Church Father that disagrees with their beliefs?

I can accept you might not have considered this point. Everyone is entitled to have ignored one side to the argument. But it is impossible to just throw Irenaeus away. Irenaeus had an influence on Tertullian and Hippolytus even Clement and Origen not to mention fourth century figures like Athanasius. To argue that all of this was forged as some sort of mass conspiracy which doesn't even completely 'jibe' with fourth century thought it is utterly moronic.

aa5874

You seem to have no idea what happens when there are MASSIVE holes in the Church writings?

You don't understand that CONTRADICTIONS are primary signs of fiction.

The Church writers must LOOK like IDIOTS when their stories are NOT credible and fabricated.

Why would "Irenaeus" claim Jesus was over fifty years old when he suffered and that the apostle John taught the same when no such thing can be found in the gospel of John?

According to gJohn, Jesus was crucified when Caiaphas was high priest.

You appear to be either COMPLETELY Naive beyond belief or do not understand that the 'History of the Church" is bogus.


You have NO idea what you are talking about. It was NOT necessary for ALL of "Against Heresies" to be forged.

Do you suffer from selective AMNESIA?

It was NOT necessary to forge ALL of the writings of Josephus.

Hippolytus in "Refutation of ALL Heresies" CONTRADICTED "Against Heresies".

Tertullian in "Prescription Against Heretics" CONTRADICTED "Against Heresies"

Clement of Alexandria in "Stromata" CONTRADICTED "Against Heresies"

Origen in "Against Celsus" CONTRADICTED "Against Heresies"

These contradictions are signs that parts of today's "Against Heresies" were not known or written in the 2nd century.

mrsonic

on sci lang i quoted your words,


> i read on a forum,>> "I am told that Arabic and Syriac are closely enough related that one > modern Syriacist has never bothered to learn Arabic for his trips to the > near east -- he just speaks Syriac and most people understand him. "

my questions to the posters at sci lang were :


1. is the writer joking?

yes. arabic and syriac have rather different grammars and different vocabulary.

2. arabic may have connection with syriac etymons,but arabic being the > DECENDANT language will go through INTERPRETIVE taints,right?


no. arabic is not the descendant of syriac (or rather aramaic, of which syriac is a form of) and aramaic is not the descendant of arabic. they just share a common anscestor many thousands of years ago.

3.syriac has many dialects?

strictly speaking syriac is the 4th century christian eastern aramaic dialect of Edessa (now Urfa, Turkey) and its medieval and modernized form. it is not a spoken language, though many speakers of eastern neo-aramaic dialects would call their language "syriac". with the exception of protestant churches, they use old syriac as a church language and its modernized form as a written language on occassion (though some protestants use a modern koine sometimes called Neo-Assyrian which is closely tied to the spoken language), modernized syriac. but these they learn at school. written syriac comes in two dialects: east and west. when the vowel signs were put in the nestorian church of mesopotamia adopted one type of voweling (eastern), and the jacobite church of syria adopted another type (western). the eastern vowelling is today used by the nestorian church and the chaldean catholic church (so the neo-aramaic speakers of Iraq), while the western vowelling is used by the jacobite church, the assyrian catholic church and the maronite church (so the neo-aramaic speakers of syria and lebanon). in turkey, both types are used depending upon the denomination (the largest is the chaldean catholic church). the spoken languages (or "dialects") of eastern neo-aramaic are widely differing and numerous. >

also the writting signs are of different shape and the vowel signs are different. western syriac uses small greek letters as vowle signs, eastern syriac uses small dashes. there is a third type of calligraphy that was used to write Old Syriac, IIRC eastern syriac script resembles it more.

4.did the dominant ISLAMIC ARABIC ARABIZE TODAYS SYRIAC?

medieval syriac borrowed from arabic and modern neo-syriac even more. for example "train" is qiTa:r-a: from arabic qiTa:r. the spoken forms of neo-aramaic are even more influenced by arabic, not to mention kurdish and turkish. western neo-aramaic is spoken only in two villages in southern syria and they do not use syriac as a written language.

aa5874

The writing called "Against Heresies" by "Irenaeus" is RIDDLED with problems. Although Eusebius used "Against Heresies" in a wholesale fashion other Church writers seemed to be UNAWARE of certain parts of the writing of "Irenaeus".

In "Against Heresies" there are references to the doctrine of a supposed heretic called Basilides and in "Refutation of ALL Heresies" by Hippolytus there is also mention of the doctrine of Basilides and again quite incredibly there is virtually NO AGREEMENT at all.

But strange enough Hippolytus claimed Irenaeus was helpful in understanding the doctrine of the heretics.

This is Irenaeus' "Against Heresies"1.24.3
And now Hippolytus' "Refutation of ALL Heresies" 10.10 How could it be that Hippolytus' account of Basilides' doctrine is TOTALLY DIFFERENT to that of "Irenaeus"?

Hippolytus' Basilides and Irenaeus' Basilides are COMPLETELY incompatible and not only in book 10 but also in book 7 of "Refutatation of ALL Heresies" where there are about 8 chapters on Basilides alone. Irenaeus has about 1 chapter on Basilides.

Hippolytus has FAR more details about Basilides yet virtually ZERO is consistent with Irenaeus.

Why is it that so many Church writers CONTRADICT Irenaeus?

Surely Hippolytus did NOT know about "Against Heresies" 1.24.3 since Hippolytus' account of Basilides does NOT match that of "Against Heresies".