Sheshbazzar

Obviously I agree with you as to the legitimacy of the work. I only allowed that there may have once been an authentic second century document that was employed.
Our readers either agree, are still straddling the fence, or disagree, and that is up to them individually.

As for the rest, it doesn't bother me in the least that my comments provided a bit more fodder for you to set fire to.

.

aa5874

The History of the Church has been BUSTED.

"Against Heresies" the very first apologetic source to contain the dating, authorship and chronology of the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, writings under the name of Paul, and Revelation have been logically deduced to be manipulated.

One of the authors of Against Heresies did NOT know of gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and writings under the name of Paul.

The author of Against Heresies 2.22 used Hearsay or an Oral Tradition that John and the Other disciples did tell the Elders of the Churches in Asia that Jesus was crucified when he was about 50 years old.

In Stromata, the author used gLuke to PROVE Jesus was crucified at 30 years old during the reign of Tiberius.

In Church History 1, the author claimed Jesus was crucified when Caiaphas was High Priest not more than four years AFTER Baptism based on the Gospel.

In gLuke, Jesus was born during the TAXING of Cyrenius, was baptised at about 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius and was crucified on the very FIRST Passover AFTER the Baptism.

The History of the Church has been BUSTED.

There was NO gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and writings under the name of Paul known to Irenaeus and the Heretics.

If the Heretics ALREADY knew of gJohn, gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and writings under the name of Paul then it would have ZERO sense to write THAT Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old.

Irenaeus and the Heretics were using Oral tradition or Hearsay.

la70119

Agreed, 100%. I have not read much of "Tertullian's" Against Marcion, but I have also read some of his An Answer to the Jews and some of Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho. The sections I've read of the first two appear to be copy-and-paste jobs by someone plaigarizing Justin Martyr.

aa5874

Many apologetic sources wrote Against Marcion according to Eusebius and Jerome.

In "Church History" it is claimed the following wrote Against Marcion:

Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Philip, Modestus, Bardesanes, Hippolytus, Dionysius and Rhodo.

Even though Eusebius mentioned Tertullian there is NO claim that he wrote Against Marcion.

In the writings of Jerome the following wrote Against Marcion:

Justin, Ireneaus, Theophilus, Philip, Modestus, Rhodo and Hippolytus.

Again, Jerome is aware of Tertullian but did NOT at all claimed he wrote Against Marcion.

But, Jerome would claim Tertullian wrote AGAINST the Church.

Tertullian was an Heretic.

De Viris Illustribus The supposed author of Against Marcion was an Heretic and there is NO record from apologetic sources up to the end of the 4th century of Tertullian as a writer of Against Heresies.

When did Tertullian write "Against Heresies"???

It was sometime AFTER the writings of Jerome!!!!

Against Marcion attributed to Tertullian contains FIVE books and the author claimed there were at least THREE versions of Against Marcion two of which were directly from him and another that was virtually stolen and published.

No apologetic source corroborated Tertulllian.

And, not only is there NO corroboration, apologetic sources like Justin, Hippolytus and Ephraim the Syrian fundamentally CONTRADICT Tertullian's Against Marcion.

There is a recurring problem.

Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings and gLuke in Justin Martyr, Hippolytus and Ephraim.

"Against Marcion" is a forgery.

Again, some forger attempted to claim a 2nd-3rd century writer was AWARE of gLuke and the Pauline writings.

The pattern of forgeries are consistent.

Some forgers were attempting to historicise Paul by giving the FALSE IMPRESSION that even Heretics were aware that Marcion used the Pauline writings and gLuke when they did NOT.

Ephraim wrote Three Proses Against Marcion and NOTHING from gLuke and the Pauline writings can be found.

Kent F

Aa: you are claiming that the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian were created when christianity had become the official state religion of the Roman empire -i.e. after Constantine.

I want to know why the fabricators within this powerful church had to invent a whole bunch of heretics, Marcion among them, and give them all a whole set of sophisticated beliefs contrary to their own. What was the point? Why not ignore all of this and instead fabricate a church history where everyone is catholic from the beginning?

The Pauline epistles do not provide reliable evidence for a historical Jesus. If they were faked and were supposed to reflect the beliefs of the Roman church with its historical Jesus, why is this the case? Why didn't they fake that Paul visited the empty tomb or met Mary? Why fake Paul's belittlement of their founder Peter?

Clement of Alexandria had different versions of the Pauline epistles. Why? Is his writings also a massive forgery?

Why is it said in the Muratorian Canon that their existed an Epistle to the Alexandrians? Why is Marcion mentioned in this fragment?

Why is it that the Coptic church of Egypt to this very day claim the gospel writer Mark as their founder and have a Pope of their own with Mark believed to be the first Pope? Is it just coincidence that the arch-heretic Marcion is a diminutive of the name Mark?

Why does it exist an archelogical find before Constantine where an inscription on a synagogue says its dedicated to the Marcionites and their savior Jesus Chrestos?

Why invent someone like Tertullian and credit him with books Against Marcion and other writings, including several where he attacked the Roman church, and condemn this writer as a heretic, a Montanist? Could it not be that Tertullian wasn't quoted just because he was condemned as a heretic and therefore it was dangerous to quote him for quite some time?

Why interpolate the Pauline epistles, create Acts to show that Paul belonged to the Roman church, and add the Pastorals if it all were invented by the RCC?

What the writings of Irenaues show is that he wanted to promote the idea that Jesus mission on earth lasted longer and as evidence, he used gJohn and he used John because he thought that this gospel had been written by John the disciple. Irenaeus trusted gJohn the most.

There was no agreement among the early writers upon when Jesus had been crucified, how old he was etc and this is clearly because Jesus was not a historical figure. Irenaeus wanted to establish his beliefs as the right one, but this did not survive and therefore you are now able to call him a liar. But had Irenaeus beliefs succeeded, the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke would have been interpolated accordingly to reflect the very same longer mission for Jesus. Not forged, interpolated as in original writings being adapted to fit a later doctrine.

Irenaeus' claim that there were four gospels survived. If his writings are a massive forgery, why did it take up to the second century for someone to establish the fourfold gospel? Why not place this massive forgery earlier under a better name, such as Tertius? And why is it that Irenaeus is the first to name the Acts of the Apostles? Why not someone earlier than him?

Why were there no gospels written according to Peter and James?

In fact, most evidence point to the fact that the Roman church with Jesus of flesh and blood emerged as a power in the second century and that the Alexandrian church with Jesus as a spiritual being was earlier and had the original gospel of Mark and the epistles. This explains the numerous and hateful writings against Marcion (= little Mark), why Clement of Alexandria had epistles which were different from the catholic ones, why it took to the time of Irenaeus to establish a Jesus of flesh and blood and why it was claimed by the Roman church that their gospel of Matthew was earlier than gMark.

mountainman

Have a look at the Historia Augusta.




Have a look at the Clementine forgeries.



Damasius had already claimed Peter for the Vatican. They simply followed suit.

That is why the heretical gnostics wrote that the apostles cast lots for division of the empire.

You also might want to ask what sort of Coptic church produced the Nag Hammadi codices.







Are you referring to the Megiddo Prison dig?





Was the tetrarchy established by Diocletian in the 3rd century in opposition to the authority and leadership of the four apostles?






So that the vile Gnostic heretics could fill the gaps. There are more than 20 Gnostic gospels and more than 30 gnostic acts.

Why did Bilbo Baggins write to Frodo and to the Elves but not to the dwarves? Perhaps the meaning of the universe becomes clearer when we put away our childhood books and look at the universe instead.


Nice thread aa5875.

Irenaeus is a retrojected source. Scholarship on gJudas and "the thirteenth demon" is only adrift a few centuries.

aa5874

Well, this is Against Heresies 3.14.3 on gLuke.

Against Heresies 3.13.3 on Acts of the Apostles.

It is clear that it could NOT have been argued that NT Jesus was crucified at about 50 YEARS old if the author and Heretics knew of gJohn, gLuke, Acts and the Pauline letters.

Duvduv

Unlike scriptural texts that may have been read inpublic, who were the expected audience of the writings of historians and heresiologists?
What was the intended effect of such writings? To provide official interpretation and ideology to the state's archives and literate elite?

Bernard Muller

Quoting aa,
First, never Acts or gLuke or the Paulines or gJohn clearly indicates that Jesus' ministry was less than 20 years.
In order to determine that Jesus' ministry was less than twenty years, you have got to put dates on Gallio in Corinth, Felix in Judea, Herod in Jerusalem (and identify that Herod), etc. Or, obtain from Josephus' books that Pilate lasted only 10 years.
Second you do not consider the possibility of memory lapse, and refusal to look at other factors, when angered against "heretics", causing someone to quickly formulate theories and lie, throwing caution away.
aa you should know about that: you wrote that in 'Acts', Paul is said to have gone to Spain & Britain, and that's not true.
You said Paul did two tours of the Roman empire, and again there is no evidence for that.
Am I going to think you do not know anything about Acts, and therefore you are an impostor, assuming the real aa know everything about it?
No, I put that in account of your anger against "heretic" (like me!), your desire to prove wrongfulness, to defend your theories, causing you to have lapses, or maybe not wanting to consider the evidence against you, etc.
And that's exactly what Irenaeus did.
You proved my point aa.

aa5874

You need to do some research. You ought to have known that it is claimed that Acts of the Apostles had 29 chapters.

See http://www.sinaiticus.com/

Examine Acts 29.6-8