Dogfish

FINALLY! Now that THAT is out of the way, it sure frees up my weekend!

2-J

It is indeed very interesting that Irenaeus, that pillar of the church so relied upon by Eusebius for his official church history, contains this glaring 'error'.

I would be interested in any alternative perspectives on how this can be accounted for.

Sheshbazzar

I don't see how this follows.
After all Irenaeus was writing about a Jebus figure that he believed to have been real, and whom he believed to have lived to be 50 years old.

I doubt very much that your argument as here presented, would serve to convince Irenaeus that Jebus was fictional or had not lived to be 50 years old.

Although it does quite effectively prove that Irenaeus and his contemporaries, circa 180+ C.E., although they had heard of Jebus, they were as yet unacquainted with at least certain content of the Gospels (as we now have them), and with virtually any of the 'Pauline' claims, doctrines, and form of the 'Christian' religion.
(by Book V apparently, Irenaeus finally -discovers- 'Paul' and 'Pauline' writings. :huh: figgers )

As you say, this relegates and -proves- 'Paul' and the 'Pauline's' and a huge portion of the NT texts to have been created out of whole cloth, late, as post 180 CE
-minimum- Church fabricated 'Fiction(s), Fraud and Forgery'.


Question. Is there any evidence of any writer discussing 'Paul' the Christian, or writings of an 'Apostle Paul' before the time of Irenaeus's Book V?







.

aa5874

Do you not understand that in "Against Heresies" 2.22 that the Jesus of John the disciple was an OLD MAN who died at around 50 years and that John the disciple could NOT know of a Jesus Christ who ascended to heaven BEFORE the reign of Cladius ?

The ascension of Jesus is itself a Fictitious account and to make matters worse John the disciple could NOT have been present at the post-resurrection of Jesus BEFORE the reign of Claudius.

The Jesus of John the disciple in "Against Heresies" 2.22 was an OLD man WHO DIED in the reign of Claudius.

The Jesus of Acts DIED in the reign of Tiberius.

"Against Heresies" 2.22.5

The Jesus in Acts is fiction based on "Against Heresies" 2.22.

2-J

This does seem a bit of a smoking gun.

jgreen44

Somebody is obviously lying or mistaken. But what if Irenaeus' account is "accurate" (in the sense that his account represents the original understanding of a terrestrial Jesus) while the Pauline/gospel timeline represents a later revision?

That's not a rhetorical question.

aa5874

This IS the smoking gun. It is ALL over.


"Against Heresies" 2.22.5

John the disciple in "Against Heresies"2.22 did NOT know of the "Paul", Peter and Jesus of Acts of the Apostles, and the Pauline writings.

Until about 98-117 CE , John did CONVEY to those in Asia that his Jesus was an OLD MAN when he was crucified .

Sheshbazzar

After a little further investigation, searching for mentions of an 'Apostle Paul' previous to Irenaeus, I offer the following for your consideration.

1 Clement Chapter 47
Strange. Very strange. Something is seriously wrong here.
Reading the previous 46 chapters of Clement there is nothing that even hints at any knowledge of any 'Paul' or of any 'Paul's doctrine' or any 'Paul's' involvement in the Christian church. (edited to add. There is reference to Paul in Chapter 5- but hang on-)
Most of the text references Clement does employ in these preceeding 46 chapters are taken from the OT, with a scant few 'sayings' similar to those found within the 'Gospels'.

Significantly, in those sections where one would most expect Clement to be trumpeting such a great 'example', hero, and apostle of the faith such as 'Paul', such as in Chapters 17 & 19, he is strangely silent.

And in Chapters 32 through 34 where the subject is 'WE ARE JUSTIFIED NOT BY OUR OWN WORKS, BUT BY FAITH.' -One of 'Apostle Paul's' most well known and primary NT themes-, Clement does not provide even so much as ONE SINGLE QUOTATION FROM THE WRITINGS OF 'APOSTLE PAUL'!!!, not even when doing so would have expressed more simply and eloquently those religious points that Clement was trying to make (And of course if Clement had been at all familiar with these powerful Epistles of 'Paul', he would naturally be expected to respect and defer to them, giving that credit to the 'Apostle Paul' himself. and so also availing himself of such a respected and 'ancient' source. That he did not indicates that he could not -there simply was no 'Paul' known at that early date to be quoted.

As this section stands, it indicates that Clement was either engaged in some extreme plagiarism, in presenting these thoughts and thesis as being his own, OR, that Clement at that time, was totally unaware of any such similar thoughts or writings by any 'Apostle Paul'.

At this point it appears to me that the crude content of the Clementine Epistles and other writings were latter revised, 'spiffed up' and employed by Irenaeus in the fabrication of the entirely fictional Christian hero 'Paul', the 'Acts of the Apostles', and other so called 'Pauline' epistles.

Irenaeus used this fictional character 'Paul', and that body of fraudulent works produced under that name, as mouthpiece to give a patina of greater authority to his own spiritual musings, persuasions, and such doctrines and dogmas as were then most popular with the orthodox.
He accompanied this with the circulation a slightly reworked 'version' of Clements Epistles, slipping in a few 'Paul' references to give a patina of greater age, authenticity, and authority to his own late inventions.
And the orthodox church raised no objections, They loved it, because he was providing them with exactly what they wanted to hear, and their doctrine to be.


This is the way it appears to me at this point.

Sheshbazzar

As I understand it, at that time there were a lot of 'Christianities' representing a wide range of differing claims and teachings. New Jebus stories were a dime a dozen.
The orthodox had not yet seized control of doctrine and dogma.
The point being Jebus was fictional even then. He didn't die at age 30 or at 50 because he never existed in the first place.

jgreen44

But why would Irenaeus contradict his own understanding of the gospel story?