Bernard Muller

According to AH 2.22, he got that from indirectly John (very dubious!) (see end of section 5) and gJohn (see sections 3 & 6) and because he called Jesus a master, and for Irenaeus, a master lived into old age (see sections 4 & 5). And he dispatched away "the acceptable year of the Lord" (appearing in gLuke) as not meaning one year (see section 2). Irenaeus covered all the angles!
http://historical-jesus.info/AH2.22.html

I am not denying it. But it is only a small part of his argumentation. Irenaeus used a lot more words on his "master" thing and his two arguments from gJohn.

So now you think Irenaeus did not lie! Before you called that author Irenaeus the Heretic. I quote you:
And how do you know there was an ancient oral tradition about Jesus' 20 years? And talked about by many apostles contemporary of John. Nobody knew about it, certainly not the heretics who went for an one year ministry!

BTW, I am still waiting to have answers on these questions (I replaced "Irenaeus the heretic" by "initial writer", because it looks you change your mind):

1) Why was it so important to have the (initial) writer of Jesus' 20 years look like he knew the NT? (with the use of masses of NT references when a few would have been enough to make the case!)

2) What is the external evidence for that initial writer? (I know you really care about external evidence from non-apologetic source!)


3) Why add the last paragraph of AH 2.22 in order to have that initial writer demonstrate the 20 years with the help of gJohn? (which would be an endorsement of the 20 years by another writer fully aware of Acts, the gospels and Pauline epistles!)

I want to add:

Who do think wrote these lengthy attacks on heresies & heretics, the initial writer or the other(s) who knew the NT?

Duvduv

I think it is abundantly clear that the fruit cake named "Irenaeus" did not write a large anti-heresy book back in the 2nd century, but rather the book is a mishmash of writings of various people who later on either did or did not know about what became the canonical texts. But why should this book be more of an issue than the various statements about Jesus appearing in the Quran? Isn't quite possible that despite the Arab contacts up into Syria in the 6th and 7th century, they still did not know about the canonical texts?!

aa5874

There is no evidence that Irenaeus was a fruit cake. It would seem completely unnecessary for a so-called Bishop of the Church to have written a book and claim Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old and such a claim has survived unaltered.

Logically, it would seem that there was a WELL-KNOWN character called Irenaeus who used some other source to argue that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years.

Later the writings of Irenaeus were Manipulated with the very same argument but now with false impression that Irenaeus used the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters when he could NOT have done so.

Tertullian who supposedly wrote Against Marcion was said to be an Heretic and Even Origen.

There is a distinct pattern. There writings of so-called Heretics were manipulated in order to appear orthodox.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
Now we are back with Irenaeus the heretic, "a WELL-KNOWN character called Irenaeus", and "so-called bishop of the Church", and who argued "Jesus was crucified at about 50 years" even if, a few hours ago, you wrote:
I have to rephrase my questions to you:

1) Why was it so important to have Irenaeus to look like he knew the NT?

2) Why use masses of NT references when a few would have been enough to make the case?

3) What is the external evidence for Irenaeus because I know you are really fond about external evidence from non-apologetic sources?

4) Why add the last paragraph of AH 2.22 in order to have Irenaeus demonstrate the 20 years with the help of gJohn? (which would be an endorsement of the 20 years by another writer aware of gJohn)

5) How do you know that AH 2.22 was interpolated? Can you supply ancient text of AH 2.22 with no mention of Luke, gLuke and gJohn? (Reminder: you rejected my case for interpolation of 1Cor15:3-11 because I could not produce an ancient text of 1Corinthians without 1Cor15:3-11)

6) Who do think wrote these lengthy attacks on heresies & heretics, Irenaeus or the other(s) who knew the NT?

aa5874

You are utterly confused. You have DISCREDITED Paul and Irenaeus as LIARS OR DISHONEST.

Why did you portray Paul and Irenaeus as LIARS or DISHONEST???

Don't you think that people of antiquity would have also recognized that Paul and Irenaeus were LIARS or DISHONEST if they knew of gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters and claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age under Claudius????

So, who would interpolate 1 Cor.15 if it was in the POSSESSION of the Church???

You mean somebody stole the 15th chapter, added more verses and then just handed it back to the Church??

It is most AMUSING when you suggest that supposed AUTHENTIC letters are really NOT genuine at all which is EXACTLY what I have been telling you.

All sources that mention Paul, even the very Pauline letters are really FRAUDULENT.

Paul really wrote NOTHING in the 1st century and before the Fall of the Temple.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
Again, you are avoiding my questions and are taking evasive action.
Even if Paul & Irenaeus are discredited and were lying & dishonest, that does not prevent them to have existed. If you apply that principle on today people, you would eliminate a huge lot of humanity. So now, you are blaming me to portray Paul and Irenaeus as dishonest. You are defending them! Including one you think is fictitious. How confusing!
You are the one utterly confused.
Furthermore, if someone is declared a liar, that does not mean he/she lied continuously, and nothing he/she said or wrote is true.
Now you think the original Irenaeus was honest and not a liar, and this bishop would have honestly reported a tradition told a century ago by John and other apostles, and believed by anyone who heard them!

On this topic, I have one more question:
Do we have other evidence that tradition existed at any times? And why would it NOT show in gJohn, and other gospels, and Acts, and the Pauline epistles, which you think were written afterwards (also latter than Irenaeus' writing about his 20 years!)
A 20 years ministry is much better than one which lasts only one year or three!

One remark: If, as you think, gMark and Acts were written AFTER Aristides & Justin came up with that rosy picture of Jesus' disciples, right after the resurrection, preaching the Christian message all over the world, then, how would you explain that: Acts has some Greeks, mainly_unamed non-eyewitnesses doing the preaching outside of Palestine and "Mark" did not write the interpolated ending, some of it dealing with that perfect 12 making converts all over?

I do not know why you are invoking Paul in that argument, because never Paul claimed a 20 years ministry for Jesus. And you seem to contradict yourself because next you say the Pauline epistles go against Jesus crucified at 50 years old under Claudius. That proved you are the one utterly confused.
Now, just keeping Irenaeus in your argument, yes, Irenaeus' error would have been noticed, but only by literate few elite Christians who read AH and 'Demonstrations'. Those were very unlikely to make a fuss about that, in view Irenaeus was a pro-active bishop, with a lot of influence, and did a very helpful job in fighting heretics. Condoning, forgiving, looking the other way, is what Christians (including today's) do on any passage from the bible or the fathers' writings which is embarrassing.

There was not an organized Church then. And look who is talking: you are advocating massive interpolations on Irenaeus' works much later, when a more unified orthodox Church had started to appear.

Interpolations and editing in these letters does not make most of the content of them not genuine.

Bernard Muller

to aa:
Here is the proof that, not too long ago, you did not consider the tradition to be true and therefore Irenaeus was lying. But now you change your mind again and you say Irenaeus thought he was dealing with a true tradition, as heard from John and other apostles!
You are the one confused.

aa5874

Well, you have to prove or provide credible evidence of antiquity to show that ALL or any of the DISHONEST Pauline writers and the LIARS in Against Heresies did exist at the time you subscribe.

What nonsense!!! You seem to have now become almost totally irrational. You IMAGINE that the Pauline writings are genuine and then Speculate that they are Manipulated while still simultaneously admitting the Pauline writers were DISHONEST.

Your argument is the very worst that I have seen.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
Still no answers to my questions!!!

And what does that mean? I subscribe to Paul having existed and that most of the content of seven letters in his name being genuine. And there is only one liar for Against Heresies, and that's Irenaeus, because he wrote the whole thing.
I do not see the relationship. Genuine writings can be written by dishonest persons, "genuine" meaning as written by the declared author.

Are you going to answer my questions?

aa5874

You Stiil have no credible sources to support your claims that Pauline existed in the 1st century and wrote letters to seven churches before c 68 CE.

You have admitted that the Pauline writers were DISHONEST which is PRECISELY what I wanted you to do.

You STILL have not provided any credible evidence that "Against Heresies" had ONLY one author. You claimed the ONLY author of Against Heresies wrote OBVIOUS LIES so you will need credible corroborative sources of antiquity which CANNOT BE FOUND.

You have done EXACTLY what I wanted. You have discreditted your sources as Dishonest and Liars and yet simulutaneously trust them as credible.

You have imploded.

How blind you have suddenly become???

Do you no longer understand that there are people who exist that can FABRICATE false information??? Have you NOT ever heard of 'perjury'?? Do you NOT understand that people who exist can make FALSE statements to DECEIVE others???

I cannot accept anything about the Dishonest Paul or the Obvious Liar Irenaeus unless you can provide credible corroboration from antiquity.