Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 10-11-2011, 01:41 PM

For the gospel JC story to have had any legs to run - it had to have some relevance, some connection to the history of historical figures. Thus, in the early years, it would have been easy to see historical reflections in the gospel pseudo-historical reconstruction. In time, of course, as historical memories faded, the differentiation between the two would become hazy. Irenaeus, it seems, has conflated history with the gospel JC pseudo-history. Problematic, of course, as aa5874 is having a fine time in pointing out, for those who uphold the assumption of a historical gospel JC. However, for the ahistoricists - Irenaeus has provided, if inadvertently, an interesting avenue to explore in the search for early christian origins.

Below is a chart from an earlier thread on those perplexing 'about 50 years' of gJohn.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=6911149

John's Jesus' Age Is Long,Verse Is Strong,He's Down To Get The Religious Friction On

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

What are the options when dealing with gJohn 8:57 and its ‘not yet fifty years old’?

1) Take the not yet 50 years in gJohn literally, ie it’s JC figure is assumed to be historical and really was about that age when crucified.
2) Take the numerology approach - which Neil Godfrey did in the earlier thread; a theological agenda is in play. Indicating not history, not a historical JC, but a figurative or symbolic JC figure. gJohn being known for it’s interest in numerology.
3) Take an approach in which history, symbolism, allegory and numerology play a part i.e. the JC story is a mixed bag - so we should not be confining ourselves to either a specific time slot or just one particular interpretation.

Since all four gospels place the crucifixion of the gospel JC under Pilate - Pilate is a big deal. However, since we have to rely upon Josephus, a prophetic historian, for dating Pilate - we should not be surprised to find that the Josephan dating of Pilate is ambiguous.

(Daniel Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk) Pontius Pilate's appointment to office. )

Working from an earlier dating for Pilate, 19 c.e. and a crucifixion dated to the 7th year of Tiberius, in 21 c.e., the gJohn not year 50 years would put the date of the birth of the gJohn JC around 25 b.c. - the 15th year of Herod the Great. (the time slot of Slavonic Josephus) (Eusebius: Church History, Book 1. Chapter IX.—The Times of Pilate.) For convenience I’ll repost my earlier chart:

The developing JC storyboard.

Slavonic Josephus	gJohn	gMark	gMatthew	gLuke
Birth narrative around the 15th year of Herod the Great, 25 b.c.	-	-	No specific dating for JC birth narrative during the rule of Herod the Great. 40 b.c. to 4 b.c.	-
John the Baptizer and Herod Archelaus.(4 b.c. to 6 c.e) “And when he had been brought to Archelaus and the doctors of the Law had assembled, they asked him who he is and where he has been until then.”	Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was.	King Herod (Archelaus 4 b.c. to 6 c.e.) The divorce of Archelaus and his marriage to his late brother’s wife, Glaphyra. (story later changed to Antipas and Herodias)	-	-
-	-	-	-	JC and JtB birth narratives in 6 c.e.
Wonder-doer crucified under Pilate. Pilate can be dated to 19 c.e. Eusebius mention of crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius, 21 c.e	JC, “not yet fifty. Wonder-doer is around 46/47 years old in 21 c.e. Crucified under Pilate	Crucified under Pilate	-	-
-	-	-	Herod the Tetrarch (Antipas 4.b.c. to 37 c.e.). The divorce of Antipas and his marriage to his brother’s wife, Herodias.	Baptism in the 15th year of Tiberius. 29/30 c.e. JC about 30 years old.
-	-	-	Crucified under Pilate - can be any date up until the last date given for Pilate 36 c.e.	Crucified under Pilate, about 30 c.e. – with a 1 year ministry. Or, in 36 c.e. if JC only 24 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius - and 30 years old in 36 c.e.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....59#post6859259

If one wants to use the last dating for Pilate, 36 c.e. then the birth date for the gJohn JC would be 49 years earlier, in 13 b.c. Both these birth dates, 25 b.c. and 13 b.c. do not conflict with gMatthew, i.e. no indication in gMatthew when, during the rule of Herod the Great, it’s JC was born.
It is only gLuke that has upset the applecart with his 6.c.e. for the birth birth date for his JC, ie after the rule of Herod the Great.

As to the question of a JC crucifixion under Pilate in the reign of Claudius - 41 – 54 c.e. - the simple explanation would be that 19 years have been added on to gLuke’s about 30 years in the 15th year of Tiberius - arriving at 49 c.e. (within the rule of Claudius.) In other words; an attempt to move beyond gLuke's around 30 years in the 15th year of Tiberius. (rather than taking the option with gJohn of working backwards not forwards...)

But perhaps things are not so simple!

1) There was no historical gospel JC
2) The gospel JC stories that we have are contradictory.
3) The Toledoth Yeshu, Epiphanius, Slavonic Josephus, Infancy Gospel of James, Acts of Pilate, Eusebuis, The Report of Pilate to the Emperor Claudius, present problems that the conventional gospel JC story cannot resolve.
4) Melito of Sardis: From the apology addressed to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. (d.160 c.e.) For the philosophy current with us flourished in the first instance among barbarians; and, when it afterwards sprang up among the nations under thy rule, during the distinguished reign of thy ancestor Augustus, it proved to be a blessing of most happy omen to thy empire.
5) Tertullian: Ad Nationes. (160-20 c.e.)This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity; under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned.

Putting aside all the symbolism, allegory and numerology - we are left with history. What was the relevant history that inspired the gospel writers to place their JC story within a specific time frame?

1) Antigonus, the last King and High Priest of the Jews. Bound to a cross, crucified, flogged and beheaded by Marc Anthony in 37 b.c. Grandfather was Alexander Jannaeus - 103 – 76 b.c. If Antigonus was not yet 50 years old when he was executed - he would have been born around 86 b.c. (pretty close to the ahistorical story in the Toledoth Yeshu, dated to 90 b.c...)
2) Philip the Tetrarch, a ruler who lived, and died, around the time of the gospel timestamp of Pilate. 33/34 c.e. A man of peace as contrasted with Antigonus as a man of war.
3) Agrippa I. The Josephan man of the moment, ie Josephus has applied prophetic interpretations to Agrippa I. Agrippa I died in 44/45 c.e. Within the time of Claudius.

History repeats itself, nothing new under the sun. A historical crucifixion in 37 b.c., a symbolic retelling in 21 c.e, another in 30/33 c.e., or 36 c.e. - and echoes of another during the time of Pilate and the rule of Claudius. A continual repeating of the historical tape, a rewinding that picks up new historical figures, insights, as it brings the storyline up-to-date.

(If, as I think is the case, Philip the Tetrarch became Agrippa I - and leaving aside Josephus to his storytelling re Philip - Philip would have been a very old man when he died - far and away beyond those not yet 50 years of gJohn....)

Mix all this history up - interpret it though a messianic lens; add symbolism, allegory, numerology - and what you get is the gospel JC pseudo-historical, figurative, symbolic, mythological, story.
----------------------------
As for Pilate - was he historical? The Pilate Stone seems to indicate that he was - and in the rule of Tiberius. However, if that is so, it does not mean that he ruled from 19 c.e. to the end of the rule of Claudius in 54 c.e. All it means is that whatever are the number of years that Pilate was in office in Judea - that the gospel writers have simply been replaying the historical tape. If their JC crucifixion story is shifted from 21 c.e. to 30/33 or 36 c.e. - then Pilate has to move along with the story. As to Claudius and Pilate - another move along for the story - or perhaps Pilate came back for a second time in office - procurator this time instead of prefect. It’s only the assumption of a historical gospel JC that rules this out. Ditch that assumption and all the odds and ends of the JC story can be used to identify the bigger historical picture.

aa5874 · 10-11-2011, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are wasting my time with STRAWMAN arguments.

Irenaeus appears to have believed in a long duration of Jesus' ministry maybe 12 years. IE he was baptized at 30 and killed at over 40.

Andrew Criddle

Please, stop your strawman arguments.

"Against Heresies" 2.22 clearly states that the GOSPEL, JOHN the discple of the Lord, the ELDERS and the Other Apostles did CONVEY that Jesus was crucified when he was ABOUT to be FIFTY years old.

We are NOT dealing with opinion.

We are dealing with a TRADITION.

Examine "Against Heresies" 2.22

Quote:

from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.

(2) And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan.

(3) Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement...........

"Against Heresies 2.22

Quote:

For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham.....

The 2000 word argument in "Against Heresies" 2.22 is not only about John 8.57 it is about the claims by John, the Elders and the Others Apostles that Jesus was indeed about to be FIFTY years old when he was crucified.

"Against Heresies" 2.22 blatantly contradicts Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

In Acts of the Apostle.1.12-14, John the disciple and other Apostles were in the upper room on the Day of Pentecost long BEFORE Paul was in a basket in Damascus and long BEFORE the reign of Claudius.

The author of 'AH' 2.22 did NOT know of Acts of the Apostles, Paul and the Pauline writings.

Solo · 10-12-2011, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Hi Andrew,
Irenaeus apparently knew Josephus' Antiquities. See 'fragment 32'. This appears to refer to Ant. 2.238-253. We are still left with a mystery. Did Irenaeus conviction about Jesus' age originate in John 8:57 ?

Best,
Jiri

Hi Jiri

This fragment comes from a catena, a collection of extracts attributed to various early Christians. Irenaeus' apparent belief that Pilate was governor under Claudius increases ones doubts about the accuracy of the attribution to Irenaeus of this passage by the compiler of the catena.

Andrew Criddle

Thanks, Andrew, I appreciate you view.

Jiri

aa5874 · 10-12-2011, 08:28 AM

The 2000 word argument in "Against Heresies" 2.22 is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

It is claimed in "AH" 2.22 that John the disciple of the Lord, ALL ELDERS who CONVERSED with John, and the Other Apostles did CONVEY the same information that Jesus was about to be FIFTY years old when he was crucified.

The same John the disciple of the Lord and the Apostles are NAMED in Acts of the Apostles in the UPPER ROOM at the DAY of Pentecost long BEFORE Paul was in Damascus in the reign of Aretas and long BEFORE the reign of Claudius.

Examine Acts 1

Quote:

12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.

It is clear that the author of "AH" 2.22 could NOT have known Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings and that those against whom he PUBLICLY ARGUED could NOT have known that John the disciple of the Lord was in the UPPER ROOM after Jesus had ALREADY ascended in Acts long BEFORE Paul was in a BASKET in Damascus during the reign of Aretas and long BEFORE the reign of Claudius.

The 2000 word argument that John the disciple of the Lord and the Other Apostles did CONVEY the same information that Jesus was about to be FIFTY years old when crucified is ONLY valid when BOTH the author and the PUBLIC of the 2nd century did NOT know of Acts of the Apostles, Paul and the Pauline writings.

In Acts 9. and 2 Cor.11, Paul was PHYSICALLY in a Basket by a wall in Damascus during the reign of Aretas which is LONG AFTER John was in the UPPER ROOM and STILL long BEFORE the reign of Claudius.

Acts of the Apostles, Paul and the Pauline writings were UNKNOWN to the PUBLIC up to the writing of "AH" 2.22 in the last quarter 2nd century.

Iskander · 10-12-2011, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The 2000 word argument in "Against Heresies" 2.22 is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

It is claimed in "AH" 2.22 that John the disciple of the Lord, ALL ELDERS who CONVERSED with John, and the Other Apostles did CONVEY the same information that Jesus was about to be FIFTY years old when he was crucified.

The same John the disciple of the Lord and the Apostles are NAMED in Acts of the Apostles in the UPPER ROOM at the DAY of Pentecost long BEFORE Paul was in Damascus in the reign of Aretas and long BEFORE the reign of Claudius.

Examine Acts 1

Quote:

12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.

It is clear that the author of "AH" 2.22 could NOT have known Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings and that those against whom he PUBLICLY ARGUED could NOT have known that John the disciple of the Lord was in the UPPER ROOM after Jesus had ALREADY ascended in Acts long BEFORE Paul was in a BASKET in Damascus during the reign of Aretas and long BEFORE the reign of Claudius.

The 2000 word argument that John the disciple of the Lord and the Other Apostles did CONVEY the same information that Jesus was about to be FIFTY years old when crucified is ONLY valid when BOTH the author and the PUBLIC of the 2nd century did NOT know of Acts of the Apostles, Paul and the Pauline writings.

In Acts 9. and 2 Cor.11, Paul was PHYSICALLY in a Basket by a wall in Damascus during the reign of Aretas which is LONG AFTER John was in the UPPER ROOM and STILL long BEFORE the reign of Claudius.

Acts of the Apostles, Paul and the Pauline writings were UNKNOWN to the PUBLIC up to the writing of "AH" 2.22 in the last quarter 2nd century.

I am so sorry to disappoint you, but regrettably it will take a lot more than that to dethrone the Babylonian and its litter, but 10 out of ten for effort.

Have an ice-cold beer. They used to sell gorgeous ice-cold ones in Alex when I was young.

aa5874 · 10-12-2011, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

I am so sorry to disappoint you, but regrettably it will take a lot more than that to dethrone the Babylonian and its litter, but 10 out of ten for effort.

Have an ice-cold beer. They used to sell gorgeous ice-cold ones in Alex when I was young.

WELL, the disappointment is reciprocal.

Acts of the Apostles, Paul and the Pauline writings were PUBLICLY UNKNOWN in the 2nd century when "AH" 2.22 was written.

John the disciple of the Lord, the ELDERS, and the Other Apostles did Convey the same information and VALIDATED that Jesus was about to be FIFTY years old when he was crucified.

Drink all your beers, now. It is CELEBRATION time

The FRAUD, FORGERIES, and Fiction presented by the Church has been UNEARTHED.

Never again must POLITICIANS, the CHURCH and STATE IMPOSE FRAUD, FORGERIES and FICTION as the GOSPEL of a GOD.

Three cheers!!!!! Drink to that.

arnoldo · 10-13-2011, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

I am so sorry to disappoint you, but regrettably it will take a lot more than that to dethrone the Babylonian and its litter, but 10 out of ten for effort.

Have an ice-cold beer. They used to sell gorgeous ice-cold ones in Alex when I was young.

WELL, the disappointment is reciprocal.

Acts of the Apostles, Paul and the Pauline writings were PUBLICLY UNKNOWN in the 2nd century when "AH" 2.22 was written. .

Perhaps, but Irenaeus certaintly knew about the Acts of the Apostles, Paul and the Pauline writings as he frequently quoted from these books in Against Heresies.

From Acts of Apostles 1:20-23;

Quote:

For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. 1Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. 23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

From Against Heresies;

Quote:

Then, again, as to their assertion that the passion of the twelfth AEon was proved through the conduct of Judas, how is it possible that Judas can be compared [with this AEon] as being an emblem of herhe who was expelled from the number of the twelve,(1) and never restored to his place? For that AEon, whose type they declare Judas to be, after being separated from her Enthymesis, was restored or recalled [to her former position]; but Judas was deprived [of his office], and cast out, while Matthias was ordained in his place, according to what is written, "And his bishopric let another take."(2)

Elsewhere, Irenaeus mentions that high priest Caiaphas was in office during the accounts depicted in the gospels. Josephus reports that Caiaphas was removed from office in A.D. 36

Quote:

For if this were true, the high priest Caiaphas, and Annas, and the rest of the chief priests, arid doctors of the law, and rulers of the people, would have been the first to believe in the Lord, agreeing as they did with respect(2) to that relationship; and even before them should have been Herod the king. But since neither he, nor the chief priests, nor the rulers, nor the eminent of the people, turned to Him [in faith], but, on the contrary, those who sat begging by the highway, the deaf, and the blind, while He was rejected and despised by others, according to what Paul declares, "For ye see your calling, brethen, that there are not many wise men among you, not many noble, not many mighty; but those things of the world which were despised hath God chosen."

Sheshbazzar · 10-13-2011, 05:40 AM

Don't be such a gullible simp.
With the 2nd and 3rd century church 'cooking the books' they could make Irenaeus (or any other church Father) 'write' whatever they wished.

We pretty much ended up with Eusebeus's and Co's 'version' of everything.
What any genuine, original, authentic, and unmolested writings may have actually contained is what remains to be determined.

aa5874 · 10-13-2011, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...Acts of the Apostles, Paul and the Pauline writings were PUBLICLY UNKNOWN in the 2nd century when "AH" 2.22 was written. .

Perhaps, but Irenaeus certaintly knew about the Acts of the Apostles, Paul and the Pauline writings as he frequently quoted from these books in Against Heresies.....

I have ALREADY stated that there were MORE than one author of "Against Heresies".

The author of the 2000 word argument in "Against Heresies" 2.22 who claimed JOHN the disciple of the LORD , the ELDERS, and the other Apostles did CONVEY the SAME information that was given to people in ASIA that Jesus was about to be FIFTY years old at crucifixion did NOT know of Acts, Paul and the Pauline wrtings.

Based on Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings Jesus could NOT have been crucified at around FIFTY years old when it is claimed in "Against Heresies" that Jesus was about to be THIRTY years old in the 15th year of Tiberius.

The birth of Jesus is LOCKED to 1 BCE-1 CE in "Against Heresies".

The ESCAPE of Paul in a Basket from DAMASCUS is LOCKED to 37-40 CE based on 2 Cor 12.32-33.

The Pauline preaching of Christ Crucified is LOCKED BEFORE Paul's own ESCAPE in Acts 9 and 2 Cor.11.

The TIME period when Peter and John the disciple of the Lord began to PREACH Christ Crucified is LOCKED BEFORE Paul's ESCAPE, Paul's Conversion, and the Stoning of Stephen.

I have UNEARTHED the FRAUD, FORGERIES and FICTION of the Church.

Acts of the Apostles, Paul and the Pauline writings are historically BOGUS and were UNKNOWN at least up to the writing of "AH" 2.22 or up to 180 CE.

aa5874 · 10-15-2011, 06:34 PM

“Against Heresies” 2.22 has EXPOSED once and for all that not only Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were unknown up to the end of the last quarter of the 2nd century but also gLuke.

In a 2000 word argument, an author claimed Jesus was crucified when he was about to be Fifty years old and that John THE DISCIPLE of the Lord, the ELDERS, and the other Apostles did convey the very same information.

Such an argument cannot be held while the author has knowledge of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

And, NOW it can be shown that it cannot ever be held that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age if the author of “AH” 2.22 had gLuke in his possession.

1. In gLuke 3.1 it is claimed Jesus was baptized in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.
2. The 15th year of the reign of Tiberius is 29 CE.

3. In gLuke 3.23 Jesus was about to be 30 years old when he was baptized.
4. In gLuke the birth of Jesus is therefore LOCKED at 1 BCE-1 CE

5. In gLuke 23.1 Jesus was brought to Pilate.
6. Pilate was governor of Judea up to 37 CE.

7. In gLuke 23.7 Jesus was sent to Herod the tetrarch.
8. Herod was tetrarch until 39 CE.

9. In gLuke 23.25-46 Jesus was crucified under Pilate.
10. In gLuke the age of Jesus at crucifixion is LOCKED at no more than 38 years of age.

So Jesus could NOT even be FORTY years old at crucifixion in gLuke.

The author of the 2000 word argument in “AH” 2.22 that Jesus was about to be FIFTY years old at crucifixion could NOT have really known gLuke.

It would have been completely IDIOTIC or Madness to argue such a position unless gLuke was NOT known at the time period in which the author wrote and argued.

It is NOW EXPOSED that gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were UNKNOWN up to 180 CE or when the 2000 word argument in ‘AH’ 2.22 was Publicly made to Heretics.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-13-2011, 05:40 AM	#128
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Don't be such a gullible simp. With the 2nd and 3rd century church 'cooking the books' they could make Irenaeus (or any other church Father) 'write' whatever they wished. We pretty much ended up with Eusebeus's and Co's 'version' of everything. What any genuine, original, authentic, and unmolested writings may have actually contained is what remains to be determined.

10-15-2011, 06:34 PM	#130
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	“Against Heresies” 2.22 has EXPOSED once and for all that not only Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were unknown up to the end of the last quarter of the 2nd century but also gLuke. In a 2000 word argument, an author claimed Jesus was crucified when he was about to be Fifty years old and that John THE DISCIPLE of the Lord, the ELDERS, and the other Apostles did convey the very same information. Such an argument cannot be held while the author has knowledge of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings. And, NOW it can be shown that it cannot ever be held that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age if the author of “AH” 2.22 had gLuke in his possession. 1. In gLuke 3.1 it is claimed Jesus was baptized in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius. 2. The 15th year of the reign of Tiberius is 29 CE. 3. In gLuke 3.23 Jesus was about to be 30 years old when he was baptized. 4. In gLuke the birth of Jesus is therefore LOCKED at 1 BCE-1 CE 5. In gLuke 23.1 Jesus was brought to Pilate. 6. Pilate was governor of Judea up to 37 CE. 7. In gLuke 23.7 Jesus was sent to Herod the tetrarch. 8. Herod was tetrarch until 39 CE. 9. In gLuke 23.25-46 Jesus was crucified under Pilate. 10. In gLuke the age of Jesus at crucifixion is LOCKED at no more than 38 years of age. So Jesus could NOT even be FORTY years old at crucifixion in gLuke. The author of the 2000 word argument in “AH” 2.22 that Jesus was about to be FIFTY years old at crucifixion could NOT have really known gLuke. It would have been completely IDIOTIC or Madness to argue such a position unless gLuke was NOT known at the time period in which the author wrote and argued. It is NOW EXPOSED that gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were UNKNOWN up to 180 CE or when the 2000 word argument in ‘AH’ 2.22 was Publicly made to Heretics.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.