Duvduv

PLUS, it is illogical that Irenaeus knew about Acts and would have then had his Paul see the Christ after the year 50 and be preaching for about 30 years until around the year 80 unless Irenaeus didn't remember when the Temple was destroyed, which makes no sense since it happened barely a century before Irenaeus supposedly wrote about this.

Bernard Muller

In AH2.22.2, Irenaeus commented on an OT passage that "Luke" used (also employed by heretics to prove an one year ministry).
And Irenaeus (with the help of a Pauline epistle) justified "year" meant a lot more than 12 months:
So Irenaeus fully addressed "the acceptable year of the Lord" but found dubious ways to increase it to many, many years, up to his time, which was very helpful!

At the end of AH 2.22.3, Irenaeus concluded, "How is it possible that the Lord preached for one year only?" .
He obviously did not conclude from his previous analysis of gJohn & its 3 Passovers that Jesus' ministry lasted only 2 or 3 years. However, in the next 3 paragraphes, he will argue for a longer ministry and propose 20 years, "proven" two different ways. So that is very consistent.

In AH2.22.4, Irenaeus wrote that in order to be a master, you have to be "old". Then he said, Jesus is a Master, so he had to become old:
Jesus as a master or the Master is featured in all five books of AH.

Duvduv

Then this writer who they call Irenaeus was really nuttier than a fruitcake....

la70119

And with heretical views to boot. At least unorthodox! How he got to be this huge heresy-fighter is beyond me...

aa5874

You have ALREADY admitted that the claim of Irenaeus was an OBVIOUS Lie when stated that the Gospel, John and the other Disciples did Tell the ELDERS that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old.

Examine what you said.

Why are you attempting to defend one whom you claimed OBVIOUSLY LIED??

Now, let me show you again that your defense of Irenaeus is hopelessly illogical.

In gLuke 3, it is claimed Jesus was about to be thirty years old AT BAPTISM.

In gJohn, there are THREE Passover AFTER the BAPTISM.

The FIRST Passover occurs in gJohn 2.

The Second Passover occurs in gJohn 6.

The THIRD Passover occurs in gJohn 11

In gJohn 8.57, the Jews claimed Jesus was NOT yet fifty years old.

The events in gJohn 8.57 are BETWEEN the Second Passover in gJohn 6 and the Third Passover in gJohn 11.

Jesus in gJohn was about 32 YEARS old BETWEEN the John 6 and gJohn 11.

The author of Against Heresies could NOT have known of gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, and the Pauline letters and argue that Jesus was about to be fifty years old at crucifixion.

The supposed statement by the Jews in gJohn 8.57 was made BEFORE the THIRD Passover in gJohn 11 when Jesus was ABOUT 32 years old .

It is clear that Against Heresies was heavily manipulated and is a Massive forgery.

Duvduv

Apparently the writer of the 4 gospels called Irenaeus never read through the GJohn.......but he was hopelessly confused and as nutty as a fruit cake. We don't have to have 15 degrees in theology and history to figure that out.

Bernard Muller

Where did you see I am defending him? Actually it is the opposite: the so-called outstanding father of the church, the fighter against heretics, did lie of the issue of saying John and other apostles, some 80 years before Irenaeus' time, all proclaimed a twenty years ministry for Jesus. Where do I defend him?

And that's exactly what Irenaeus saw and told in AH 2.22.3 (read my last posting)
But from that he concluded Jesus' ministry lasted more than one year, that's it.
Then he went on trying to establish his twenty years ministry (sections 4, 5 & 6).

Duvduv

Bernard, can you explain how Irenaeus would calculate the career of Paul from Acts until before the destruction of the Temple if he didn't start out until a couple of years after the 50 year-old Jesus died?

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
Are you going now for Irenaeus writing the 4 gospels?

gJohn is heavily used (and also gLuke to a lesser degree) in AH 2.22, in sections where Irenaeus is making a case for his 20 years. If you cut references of gJohn and gLuke, then what is left cannot stand on its own. If you do not trust me, try do see it for yourself. Irenaeus, when he was writing AH 2.22, needed only NOT to know about the duration of Pontius Pilate's tenure as prefect and forget about Acts, which, with a bit of analysis, do not allow for twenty years.
So far, Irenaeus was ignorant and forgetful (and damned commited to establish this 20 years thing!).
But when he said, way back in time, John and the other apostles were also preaching a 20 years ministry, then he became a big liar. But he felt he had to say something like that because his other argumentations for the twenty years are not solid at all.

Duvduv

Bernard, that has nothing to do with Irenaeus being as nutty as a fruit cake based on all his confusion, does it? Why don't you read through my postings?