Adam

As I have said here before, "Anything's possible!"
You failed to notice my post (and my blog) in which I say I believe in reincarnation. (No, I'm NOT claiming that my forthcoming post naming the 7th gospel eyewitness will name me!)

aa5874

You seem not to be familiar with "Against Heresies". Virtually ALL the supposed Pauline writings are mentioned by name but the 2000 word argument in 'AH' 2.2 that JOHN the disciple CONVEYED to the ELDERS that Jesus was crucified when he was about to be fifty means that "Against Heresies" must be MANIPULATED and are forgeries.

The author of 'AH' 2.22 was NOT aware of Acts of the Apostles, Paul and the Pauline writings.

Now, Justin Martyr also tends to corroborate that Acts of the Apostles, PaUL and the Pauline writings were UNKNOWN in the 2nd century when he declared that it was 12 ILLITERATE Men who preached the Gospel to every race of man.

"First Apology" XXXIX In the PAULINE writings Paul claimed the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to him and that he was MANDATED to preach to the heathen by James, Cephas and John.

Justin Martyr seems unaware of Paul and his writings.

Galatians 2

Sheshbazzar

And, as has been discussed on another thread, something stinks to high heaven in these writings.
Just because something appears there, does not mean it was always there. Just like the NT they have all been fiddled with and diddled with.

mountainman

Whoever wrote the "Acts of Paul" compared Paul to the mouse in Aesop's fable about the Lion and the Mouse. Now that's what I call a real heretic, and the heresiologists of the early church would all agree that this unnamed author was a heretic. Have you ever wondered why? Why would an intelligent and highly literate person write alot of nonsense about Paul? Perhaps the sacred scriptures were ridiculed in the theatres of the unbelievers? What percentage of the pagan Greek literate academics of the 4th century were convinced that the Constantine Bible was a legitimate history?

The "History of the Caesar's" (Historia Augusta) was BUSTED a hundred years ago. It may have been edited in the same scriptoria as "Against Heresies", since the modus operandi of fabrication is much the same. Copious forged documents, false sources and other fabricated sources to disagree with them. Dedicated to a 4th century emperor. Supposed to be authored by four scriptores, now suspected to be one editor author.

There is alot of evidence to bring into the picture.

2-J

I think the argument that believers don't regard Irenaeus as scripture, so they are not likely to take his arguments seriously, missed the point.

Of course to the die-hard fundamentalist it's going to be irrelevant because they just accept (their / their priest's interpretation of) scripture and that's all there is to it.

But many more Christians do engage with these arguments, do claim an early date for orthodoxy, and claim there is real evidence that apostolic succession is real, etc. Irenaeus is quoted on so many things as a great authority, and I believe is the first to attest some important Church 'facts'. And yet, he thought that Jesus was 50 years old when he died. You could argue that this close to destroys his credibility.

aa5874

It is the Credibility of the Church History that is destroyed.

Again, "Against Heresies" 2.22 is NOT merely about an opinion of John 8.57, the author of the 2000 word argument is claiming that JOHN the disciple of the Lord, ALL the ELDERS conversant with John and the Other Apostles did CONVEY to people in ASIA that Jesus was about to be FIFTY years old when he was crucified.

And John the disciple LIVED up to 98-117 CE

Such a PUBLIC claim signifies that the author did NOT know of Acts of the Apostle, Paul and the Pauline writings.

"Against Heresies" 2.22 was supposed to be a PUBLICLY known argument for the Life of its author.

The fact that "Against Heresies" now appears with quotes from Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are confirmation that "Against Heresies" was MANIPULATED and NOW has at least 2 different authors.

"Against Heresies" is a compilation of forgeries, fraud and fiction.

tanya

Thanks for this comment.
Well done.

Without seeking in any way to dispute your observation, may I ask if you have weighed the possibility that our manuscript evidence for Irenaeus is too impoverished to draw any conclusions about his authorship of anything?

andrewcriddle

Melito probably means that Christ was born during the reign of Augustus.

Andrew Criddle

Iskander

Yes.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=306656&page=6
#111 ff & 128

andrewcriddle

Irenaeus wrote sufficiently late that oral traditions recorded by him about events before 50 CE are unlikely to be reliable.

On the other hand traditions about 2nd century and very late 1st century events are likely to be reasonably accurate and Irenaeus did have access to written sources that have not survived.

In my earlier post I questioned the claim that if Irenaeus had access to the current NT text he could not have made his mistake about the chronology of Jesus. AFAIK no-one has given a detailed response on that point.

Andrew Criddle