Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
My name is Bernard, not Andrew. So you know now that the best of us can make mistake and have memory lapse.

Anyway if Jesus lived up to 50, that would bring his death to 46, at the earliest, that is beyond Agrippa's death (in 44). Paul, who never saw an earthly Jesus would have started after that. But he did not.
According to my (long) studies (from Paul's epistles and Acts and Aretas, and Gallio, and Felix), from Paul witnessing the persecution of proto-Christian in Jerusalem (around 34-35, according to my findings) to his arrest in Jerusalem, I calculated 23 years. Then, depending only on Acts, there are 4 more years and Paul is still alive in Rome. We have then 62CE. It is not known when he died from any sources.
Obviously the 20 years is not compatible with Paul's life.
I am certain Jesus started his public life in the middle of 27 and by next spring in 28, it was all over. I have webpages to cover all that (including the mention of the 20 years of Irenaeus from at least 5 years ago).

Duvduv

I thought I was replying to a posting from Andrew Criddle.

aa5874

Your post shows that Irenaeus could NOT have known of the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

When you use those sources NT Jesus could NOT have been crucified at about 50 years old but somewhere about 27-28 years almost HALF of the age proposed by Irenaeus.

But, how did the claim that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years survive for hundreds of years unedited when it casts doubt on the credibility of Irenaeus???

Why didn't the interpolators simply remove it????

Well, the answer is right there in AH 2.22.

People did CONVEY to Irenaeus that Jesus was crucified when he was about fifty years old. It was an ORAL tradition so he did NOT really need the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
27 and 28 are calendar year, not any age of Jesus.

Unedited? But you claimed that all references to John, Luke, gJohn and gLuke in AH 2.22 were added later by interpolators.
Emphasis mine.
If I was a Christian, that's the first thing I would remove from all Irenaeus' works because, as you said, "it casts doubt on the credibility of Irenaeus". That's probably the most embarrassing thing that any "father" ever wrote.
Claim of oral tradition, so far back in time, are not an 'end all', 'discussion closed' kind of thing. On its own, with no other arguments to back it up, that would be too obvious and therefore very suspect.
That's rather well explained by Irenaeus himself:
"Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?
6. But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad," they answered Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? ""

aa5874

All you have done so far is to show that the author of Against Heresies 2.22 could NOT have known of gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings./

In gLuke:

1. The supposed Jesus was born in time of the Taxing of Cyrenius . See gLuke 2

2. The supposed Jesus was was Baptized in the 15th year of Tiberius, when Pilate was governor of Judea and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee. See gLuke 3

3. The supposed Jesus was about to be 30 years old at Baptism. See gLuke 3

4. The supposed Jesus and was crucified Under Pilate at the FIRST Passover AFTER the Baptism. See gLuke 22

5. In the Stromata, gLuke was uesd to PROVE Jesus was crucified at about thirty years old.

The author of Against Heresies 2.22 did NOT use gLuke for the NINETEEN missing Passovers. There is ONLY one Passover AFTER baptism in gLuke.

The author has EXPLAINED how he got the information--John, the disciple of the Lord, the Other Apostles, and the Elders also TESTFIED to PEOPLE in Asia the very same statement that Jesus was crucified at about fifty years old.

You are wasting your time. People in Asia who were CONVERSANT with John and the Other Apostles VALIDATED the statement that Jesus was about 50 years.

We have Against Heresies 2.22. There it is.

The author of Against Heresies 2.22 used ORAL Tradition, or Hearsay to support the claim that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old.

Against Heresies is a massive forgery.

Duvduv

I wonder what else Irenaeus got from sources other than his sacred 4-directional gospels and epsitles of blessed Paul?? And why doesn't he specify why other sources were more valuable than the writings produced through the Holy Spirit itself?!

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
From that website: http://www.ntcanon.org/Irenaeus.shtml

aa5874

You do not seem to understand what forgery means.

The fundamental sign of forgeries are CONTRADICTIONS.

Sheshbazzar

Adversus Haereses looks to have been the product of several different writers or revisions, where subsequent writers were only concerned about getting their snippets inserted, without paying much attention to what the previous writer(s) had written.
Simply because quotations from many NT texts may be found there, is no indication that they all (or perhaps even any) were present within the authentic initial edition.
Being found 'written' is no assurance, that what is found 'written', is untampered with, authentic, or true.

The AH manuscript suffers from pretending to be far too much far too early. It became a convenient 'catch all' for latter Church writers to 'supply', 'supplement', 'support' or to 'settle' any number of latter church controversies, dogmas, and doctrines.

The text of AH as we have has it, has been so heavily worked over, and for so many centuries, that whatever the original may have contained, is totally obscured and irrecoverable.

aa calls it a FORGERY, I'm not sure if that is the right term for what actually may well have began as a genuine second century document. Its a shame that the Church had to be composed of such dishonest bastards.

But aa is certainly right about the fact that its contents cannot be at all relied upon to determine what was actually believed or known in the second century.

aa5874

Well, are you not saying that Against Heresies is a massive forgery or at the very least a forgery???

What do you call a document that was really the product of multiple authors but is attributed ONLY to Irenaeus???

Once you ADMIT there were MULTIPLE authors and NOT just Irenaeus then you have IDENTIFIED that Against Heresies must be a forgery.


What do you call a document that was "heavily worked over"?? Those who did the "Heavy Work" MUST have done it DELIBERATELY.


Your statement is MOST fascinating.

1. You admit that Against Heresies was "HEAVILY WORKED OVER".

2. You admit that Against Heresies looks like the work of Multiple Authors.

3. You admit the the Church was composed of Dishonest Bastards.

Why??? Why??? Why are you NOT sure if Against Heresies should be called a forgery???

Surely you must know that a Forger is DISHONEST BASTARD who does Heavy Work under the name of others with the pretense that his work is Genuine.

Well, why are you so RELUCTANT to admit that Against Heresies is a forgery if I am CERTAINLY right about the facts???

- Sheshbazzar has observed that Against Heresies looks like the work of Multiple authors, and was Heavily Worked over--- Sheshbazzar has unwittingly admitted that AH is a forgery.

Against Heresies is a Massive forgery, or in the words of Sheshbazzar, the "Work of Multiple Authors" and was "Heavily Worked Over".

Now once we understand that Against Heresies is a Massive forgery or the work of Multiple authors and was Heavily Worked over then we Must RE-Examine, We MUST RE-EXAMINE ALL WRITINGS attributed to EVERY Apologetic writer.

It can be shown that Against Marcion attributed to Tertullian is another MASSIVE FORGERY.

There is NO record, NOT even an Apologetic acknowledgement that Tertullian wrote "Against Marcion" which appears to be the LARGEST and MOST VOLUMINOUS of the Existing writings attributed to that writer.