Sheshbazzar

BUSTED in the rational and logical sense.
But those individuals with whom we must deal are neither rational nor logical. When exposed to, and seriously infected with the mind devouring social-disease of ZJBD* they often engage in cannibalistic rituals where they consume their cult leaders blood and flesh, and become increasingly irrational, illogical, and prone to extreme DELUSIONS of grandeur, immortality, and infallibility.












* Zombie Jebus Brain Disease

.

andrewcriddle

Irenaeus is obviously wrong, but I am not sure that a knowledge of Acts and the Pauline writings (and the chronology of the Roman Emperors) is sufficient to prove him wrong.

Can you prove without any use of Josephus or other non biblical sources that the death of Jesus in the very early years of Claudius is ruled out by the New Testament ?

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

Hi aa5874 and Shesh,

If Irenaeus has made monumental mistakes with the chronology of Jesus and knowledge of the books of the new testament canon and his friends in the orthodox church, how can this same source be treated as an authority on his enemies - the heretics, and the existence of any non canonical books such as the gJudas?

The simple answer is that this source can no longer serve as an authority on the history of the gnostic gospels. It has always seemed quite paradoxical that the heresiologist Irenaeus presents as an expert witness on the history of the orthodox church, and on the history of their opponents the gnostic heretics, well before there was any established orthodoxy.

The gJudas needs to be dated according to the C14 = Gnostics were manufacturing gnostic gospel codices between 220 and 340 CE.

Carry on. Well done aa5874.

Best wishes


Pete

mountainman

It is generally conjectured that the original Gnostic autographs were in Greek, and that therefore these Coptic codices are translations. The Coptic gJudas is C14 dated between 220 and 340 CE, whereas the Coptic Nag Hammadi codices are C14 dated between 288 and 408 CE.

There is a chronological window of opportunity for both -
1) the Greek originals to have been authored (and then immediately destroyed)
2) the Coptic translations of these Greek sources to have been manufactured
AFTER NICAEA.

It makes quite reasonable sense that the noncanonical books are a reaction to the Constantine Bible.

aa5874

I really don't understand what you are attempting to do. You seem to have NO intention of admitting that the Roman Church was involving in FORGERIES, FICTION and FRAUD since the 4th century.

Have you even looked at "Against Heresies" 2.22?

It is a 2000 word argument based on the TESTIMONIES of John the disciple of JESUS, the ELDERS, the Other Apostles and the Gospel.

The author of the 2000 word argument ACTUALLY claimed that it was JOHN the disciple of the LORD who CONVEYED to people in ASIA that Jesus was about to be FIFTY years old when he Suffered.

And NOT only JOHN but OTHER APOSTLES DID TELL PEOPLE that JESUS was about to be FIFTY when he died.

The author of 'AH' 2.22 CLAIMED that JOHN the disciple of Jesus LIVED UNTIL the time of TRAJAN c 98-117 CE.

Please EXAMINE "Against Heresies" 2.22
The 2000 word argument is EXTREMELY PELLUCID.

John, the other Apostles, the Elders and the Gospel ALL TESTIFIED that Jesus Christ was about to be FIFTY years old before he Suffered.

The 2000 WORD argument was made AGAINST HERETICS LIVING in the late 2ND century.

The author of "Against Heresies" 2.22 did NOT know of Acts of the Apostle, Paul and the Pauline writings.

The FRAUD, FICTION and FORGERIES of the Roman Church has been FINALLY EXPOSED.

Let us NOT waste any more time. Spread the GOOD NEWS, the gospel, Acts and Paul are Fiction and Frauds.

Examine 'AH' 2.22

Iskander

I think Andrew is saying that what irenaeus says about Jesus age is only his personal opinion as an ordinary man writing about whatever. Irenaeus is not different from you or me, what iranaeus says is not scripture.His mistakes are only the mistakes of irenaeus and nothing more than that.

Why do you say that his mistake proves something about the scriptures?

He has asked you for information in a polite and informed manner, would you please ever so kindly step down from your soapbox and explain to him your statement?

aa5874

Please read "Against Heresies" 2.22. The author is claiming to have received his information from those who SAW the apostles.

ALL THE ELDERS and the OTHER APOSTLES did state that Jesus Christ was about to be FIFTY years old when he Suffered.


Examine 'AH' 2.22
The author of "Against Heresies" is EXTREMELY PELLUCID.

1. John the disciple PREACHED until 98-117 CE that Jesus was about to be fifty years old when he Suffered.

2. The ELDERS TESTIFIED that John did CONVEY that information to them.

3. The Gospel did STATE that information.

4. The Other Apostles did TESTIFY that Jesus was about to be fifty years of age when he suffered.

I PRESENT the EVIDENCE from antiquity. I did NOT make it up.

The author of the 2000 WORD argument is claiming he got his information from people who SAW the Apostles.

Examine "Against Heresies" 2.22

The author of "Against Heresies" 2.22 did NOT know of Acts of the Apostles, Paul and the Pauline writers.

Spread the GOOD NEWS.

The FRAUD, FICTION and FORGERIES of the Roman Church has been FINALLY EXPOSED.

Sheshbazzar

Hardly. What Irenaeus was writing of was the TRADITIONS of that form of Christianity which he was familiar with and which he had received from the TRADITIONAL teachings of his elders, and what was well known and familiar concerning Jebus and the Gospel story in his time and culture.

Particularly in the writing of 'Heresies' the Church Father Irenaeus, was engaged in the pointing out and condemning all such beliefs regarding Jebus and the Gospels that -deviated- in any manner from those TRADITIONS with which he was well familiar, and would be supported by his contemporary peers.

If the Birth, Crucification, 'Acts' and 'Pauline' stories as they are now presented had been present and part of the contemporary 'received' and then familiar Christian TRADITION, it is inconceivable that this highly Christian educated, eurdite, and leading Ante-Nicene church Father and Saint would have been unfamiliar with their contents and teachings.

Sorry Iskander, but it simply don't wash that Irenaeus was simply another 'Joe lunchbox' like you or me.
What he wrote, at that time, clearly indicates that neither he, nor those 'heretics' he was opposing, nor any significant, or respected portion of his contemporary Christian community, were at all familiar with Acts, or the 'Pauline' writings, or the time frames as presented within the Gospels, Acts and 'Pauline Epistles' as we now have them.

In fact the very silence of the Church on the matter, followed by making Irenaeus into a 'Saint' in spite of this revealing woopsi, points to an awareness by latter church authorities that for the sake of the religion and Church, this would better be forgotten, as it utterly undermined the historical validity of the written and as 'received' catholic Gospels, Acts, and Pauline Epistles.

It did then, and it still does now.

As aa says; BUSTED!

Iskander

He is another man who lived long ago. Tradition does not mean that any words from a man mean the same as scripture.

In the history of the church, as in any other society, traditions have been continuously replaced by innovations.

You elevate irenaeus to the status of scripture, but even then aa5874 is not explaining anything.

yalla

Melito of Sardis, who died around the time of Origen's [correction: Irenaeus] birth, places Christianity as extant in the age of Emperor Augustus.
Thats decades before the traditional circa 30 CE.
Origen [correction: Irenaeus] may have may be basing his dating on the work of Melito.
Or perhaps both were drawing from the same early tradition.

Edit
Oops, I confused Origen with Irenaeus.
Melito was a contemporary of Irenaeus.