Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 12-13-2010, 09:22 PM

It is now most OBVIOUS that the Church writings are filled with ERRORS and CONTRADICTIONS that show that the writings themselves do not represent history but fabrications. And even worse it would appear that NO opponents of the Church SAW these massive errors and contradictions.

If Jesus did exist then it would be expected that at least the early cult members would have ESTABLISHED how long Jesus lived, when he preached, when he was PUBLICLY crucified, and when he died.

It is claimed that “Paul” was an early writer and supposed contemporary of Jesus yet he established NO historical dates for the birth, preaching, betrayal, PUBLIC crucifixion and death of Jesus. The Gospels too, even though have lots of details about certain events, have almost no established dates for events of Jesus.

Now, Clement of Alexandria attempted to date the year or age of Jesus when he was crucified in “The Stromata”

Quote:

… And our Lord was born in the twenty-eighth year, when first the census was ordered to be taken in the reign of Augustus.
And to prove that this is true, it is written in the Gospel by Luke as follows: And in the fifteenth year, in the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias.
And again in the same book: And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old, and so on.
And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written, He has sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord .

This both the prophet spoke, and the Gospel.

Accordingly, in fifteen years of Tiberius and fifteen years of Augustus, so were completed the thirty years till the time He suffered.

But, once there was a CANON of four Gospels, including gJohn, established in the Church since the 2nd century then Clement of Alexandria has made MASSIVE errors.

Clement of Alexandria appears to be AWARE of gJohn since he quotes passages found only in gJohn.
Now, once Clement claimed Jesus was about thirty years old at baptism, then he was about thirty years old when he met John the Baptist in John 1.29.

But, Clement claimed, based on the Prophets, that Jesus would ONLY preach ONE year.

In gJohn, Jesus preached for MORE than ONE year. Jesus was crucified after THREE PASSOVERS from the time he met John the Baptist.

Joh 2:13

Quote:

…And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem

Joh 6:4

Quote:

And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh

Joh 11:55

Quote:

And the Jews' passover was nigh at hand….

So, not only would Jesus be MORE than thirty years old but gJohn’s Jesus makes the ONE year preaching prophecy to be FALSE.

Once there was an ESTABLISHED Canon with gJohn then Clement provided bogus information. Jesus did NOT preach for ONE year, Clement should have KNOWN he was wrong and ALL the OPPONENTS of the Church who read gJohn and “Stromata” should have known Clement provided BOGUS information.

But, now Eusebius in “Church History” 1.10.2 will DESTROY Clement.

Eusebius will EXPOSE Clement as a FRAUD.

“Church History” 1.10.2

Quote:

…
2. The Divine Scripture says, moreover, that he passed the entire time of his ministry under the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, showing that in the time which belonged to the priesthood of those two men the whole period of his teaching was completed.

Since he began his work during the high priesthood of Annas and taught until Caiaphas held the office, the entire time does not comprise quite four years.

Eusebius has Exposed Clement of Alexandria as a FRAUD.

In the NT, Jesus preached for MORE than one year and would have been MORE than 30 years old. And Clement’s claim was FALSE that Isaiah 61.2 was prophecy that Jesus should preach for ONLY one year.

mountainman · 12-14-2010, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And even worse it would appear that NO opponents of the Church SAW these massive errors and contradictions.

Eusebius HE - At the Introduction to his work ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eusebius HE

2 It is my purpose also to give the names and number and times of those who through love of innovation have run into the greatest errors, and, proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge falsely so-called have like fierce wolves unmercifully devastated the flock .....

But Eusebius tells us clearly that it is his purpose to give the names and number and times of the opponents.
There were some opponents, weren't there?

For example, does he name an author for any of the heretical and oppositional "Gnostic" books of the new testament?
I wonder why not.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.