aa5874

Understood and agreed

Again, your claim is UNSUBSTANTIATED.

In "Against Heresies" it is ONLY argued in a 2000 word argument that Jesus was about fifty years old when he died.

The author did NOT present any argument that Jesus was thirty years old when he DIED and did NOT recant the argument in "AH" 2.22.

"Against Heresies" appears to have been written by MORE than ONE author.

1. The author of the 2000 word argument did NOT know of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

An ACTUAL Paul who preached Christ Crucified BEFORE the reign of Claudius MUST be unknown to the author of AH 2.22 and the Heretics with whom he argued.

An ACTUAL Peter who preached Christ Crucified BEFORE the reign of Claudius MUST be unknown to the author of AH 2.22 and the Heretics with whom he argued.


It is most likely another author in "Against Heresies" at some later time who is claiming to be aware of Acts and the Pauline writings.

Please, do NOT forget that "Against Heresies" should have been an argument AGAINST ACTUAL Heresies of the 2nd century.

On its own, the 2000 word argument in 'AH' 2.22 appears to be SOUND and SOLID once John the disciple of the Lord did actually tell people that Jesus was an OLD MAN when he died and once Acts of the Apostles, and the Pauline writings did NOT exist at that time.

Sheshbazzar

Agreed.
Agreed. -With the caveat that there is no evidence outside of these highly fabricated and corrupted texts that there ever was an ACTUAL Paul who ever preached any 'Christ Crucified'.
I believe that there was an ACTUAL Saul of Tarsus who journeyed to the synagogues of the Diaspora, teaching that the Gentile's (Ger Toshavim Gentile believers attending the Jewish synagogues) did not need to be circumcised, or follow the exclusively Jewish laws regarding dietary restrictions and observances of the Jewish ordinances regarding set times and rituals, to be forgiven and acceptable to the Elohim of Israel.
This ACTUAL Saul/ 'Paul' did indeed write and preach on these matters to both Jewish and Gentile believers, and it was his much older Jewish pre-Christian writings that were co-opted sometime after 180 CE and combined with the developing 'christology' of Clement and other 2nd century church writers to produce the completed 'Gospels', (rather than the just "sayings" and hearsay and mostly oral legends which had been all there was circulated up to that point.) 'Acts' and 'Pauline Epistles'.

Now I am not dogmatically insisting that Irenaeus had to be the one who personally penned these NT texts, but rather that his Book II of 'Heresies' in so clearly presenting a tradition that was NOT acceptable to the orthodox factions, created a backlash that led to the compilation and creation of those standardized and 'orthodox' authorized 'received' 'canonical' books that comprise the Christian NT.
I would question that there ever was any ACTUAL Peter who preached Christ Crucified.
This 'Peter' seems to be a shadowy purely literary fabricated creation to lend a air of legitimacy to the orthodoxy's claims of 'Apostolic Succession"
And of course this being the case, this 'Peter' would have been unknown to Irenaeus, -or whoever- was author of AH 2.22.
Conceded as being entirely possible.
However- ALL of "Against Heresies" is presently attributed to Irenaeus, and barring the producing some incontrovertible evidence of otherwise, it will remain so.
But instead, as book 2 of AH indicates, it contained a 2000 word argument FOR a heresy.
That Irenaeus was not branded by the Orthodox Church as being a 'heretic', in spite of his well known writing that the Crucifixion was of an OLD MAN Jebus of 50 years old, strongly argues that he latter in life recanted the position, and became a tool of the Orthodoxy-willingly or unwillingly.
With the publication of Acts, and the orthodox 'proper' tradition Gospel's, and the 'Pauline Epistles' there was no need for Irenaeus to publicly 'recant', and it would have been counter-productive to both the Church and to himself to draw any further attention to that heretical woopsie contained in AH Book II.
The Church has wanted us to overlook that embarassing woopsie all of these years.
Thank you aa, for bringing it and its implications to our attention.
There is no reason to assume that 'John the disciple of the Lord' ever did -actually tell people' -anything-. 'he' is a character from a legendary tradition, and the latter fabricated and embellished texts.

When it comes to these Books and Patristic writings one cannot trust anything written as being accurate, correct, or originating in the time period it is presented to be in.




.

Sheshbazzar

If aa's observations about 'Adversus Heresies' are correct, and they certainly seem to be,
One hell of lot of Biblical 'scholarship' from all quarters is going to be blown all to hell.

aa5874

Scholars KNOW about "Against Heresies" 2.22 but perhaps don't want to EXPOSE the FRAUD, FICTION AND FORGERIES of the Roman Church of the 4th century.

But, it is ALL OVER NOW.

I have FINALLY EXPOSED that HERETICS were NOT AWARE of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings ONCE it was ARGUED that John the disciple DID CONVEY to PEOPLE in ASIA that Jesus died when he was AN OLD MAN and that the GOSPEL also showed that Jesus was about to be FIFTY when he died.

No HERETIC in the late 2nd century KNEW that PAUL PREACHED CHRIST CRUCIFIED since the time of Aretas.

The HERETICS in "Against Heresies" did NOT use Acts of the Apostle and the Pauline writings to argue that Jesus was NOT fifty years old.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are HISTORICALLY BOGUS based on "Against Heresies" 2.22

Sheshbazzar

Obviously I agree with you aa.

So this Christian religion damning information has been there all along, every since 180 CE when 'Adversus Herisies' Book 2 was first written.

Why is this only coming to the light, and being strongly presented now, after over 1800 years in this place, and by an anonymous Internet individual?

Mind you, at this point I am not questioning the validity of the basic points that aa has presented.
But there seems that there would have to been some strong reasons WHY this revealing oversight has not always been used by skeptics and atheists to discredit the NT writings, and Christianities claims with regard to them.

Was it really that no one other than aa has ever before been aware of the NT damning implications of AH 2?
I don't know.
Or, was open discussion of the subject and its implications always too much of a 'hot potato' with no one who was aware of the implications ever willing to be that one to personally 'go there'???

As I mentioned in my previous post 'One hell of lot of Biblical 'scholarship' from all quarters is going to be blown all to hell.' If the implications of this become common knowledge.
And it won't be only be believers and Christians that would be affected, by the fallout of this knowledge, but even the Skeptics and Atheists and respected academics from many fields of scholarship, whose life-work and voluminous writings would be seen to be invalid and worthless and in need of being shit-canned.
Even on this Skeptical and Atheistic forum, there are those who would fight to bury any such an understanding, so as to preserve the perceived validity of what they have formerly produced.

So the question is, even if aa is absolutely correct in his analysis. Is he willing to walk where no man has walked before, and ever lived to tell about it?

aa, If you go foreword with this, you can at the least expect your true identity and location to be exposed, and to become overwhelmed with voluminous rebuttals -that will never actually adders those points that you have made-,
And your opponents will claim the victory if or when you do not reply to every little straw-man or tangent that they will introduce.
Think 'shyster lawyers' who can and will obfuscate the facts of any case until its plaintiff and witnesses drop dead.
Earlier we spoke of the nature of human nature, and our respective views on it.
I can tell you that presenting this material to my Christian relatives and acquaintances would not serve to move most of them even one iota from their long held and comfortable beliefs and positions.

Iskander

Aa5874, I have found this with the help of our good friend Google. I am offering it to you only because I think you will find this amusing. It is not an argument of mine and I do not wish to discuss it.

You may have already seen this and in that case, please, accept my apologies because there is no malice in my doing it.


How Old is Jesus According to St. Irenaeus?
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a38.htm

aa5874

Well, I had already anticipated that you would try to claim I was mistaken but you must have forgotten Irenaeus wrote another book.

"Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching" Irenaeus was claiming that Jesus was crucified under CLAUDIUS not Tiberius

Sheshbazzar

Thanks Iskander. It is always interesting to see how apologetics always somehow cleverly wiggles out of there ever being any contradictions.

But like most things to do with religion and beliefs, one either 'buys it' or does not 'buy it'.

As I explained to aa, most believers would not be moved one iota by his 'findings' (-not even if they were totally unaware of this particular apologetic-)
Their minds are made up (and are locked up) against anything that might intrude upon their mind-control cults indoctrinations and belief in their imaginary god and kingdom.
No one can be rescued from these religious cults unless their beliefs are marginal in the first place, and they are willing to be rescued.

Iskander

Thank you

aa5874

I just PRESENT evidence from antiquity.

This is "Against Heresies" 2.22 Whoever wrote "Against Heresies" 2.22 is claiming Jesus had ALREADY passed the age of 40 and was CLOSE to 50 years of age before he died.

Whoever wrote "Against Heresies" 2.22 did NOT know of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

For the 2000 word argument to be effective against the Heretics they also could NOT have known of Acts and Paul,

Any knowledge of Acts and Paul destroys the argument instantly.

Anyone familiar with Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings would have known that the ascension of Jesus, the Day of Pentecost, the Stoning of Stephen, the persecution by Paul, and the bright light conversion happened BEFORE the reign of Claudius.

Finally the Church has been BUSTED.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are products of FRAUD, FICTION and FORGERIES.