aa5874

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

One of the most devastating piece of evidence against the HJ is found in the writing under the name of Irenaeus.

In "Against Heresies" the author revealed that Jesus was over fifty years old when he died.

Now, the writer has inadvertently confirmed that within the Church among the bishops of the Church it was not known or established the age of Jesus when he had supposedly died.

It would be expected that once Jesus was actually crucified and that the disciples was really with him when he was arrested and that Peter did follow him that it would have been established the age of Jesus when he had died.

The writer of Against Heresies used gMatthew to show when Jesus was born, it would be expected that the bishops of the Churches also used gMatthew for the same reason.

He used gLuke to show that Jesus was thirty years old after the baptism by John in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, it would be expected that the bishops of the Churches used gLuke to show the age of Jesus at his baptism.

In fact, after 145 years after supposed the death of Jesus, it would be expected that the bishops of the Churches all over the Roman Empire would have all established the age of Jesus, after all Irenaeus claimed to have historical sources that could account for all the bishops of Rome up to his time begining with Cephas/Peter.

It makes logical sense and for credibility, even if Jesus did not exist, for all the bishops to give the same age for Jesus.

But, incredibly, Irenaeus claim John a supposed disciple of Jesus also told people that Jesus was over fifty years old when he suffered.

Now, in the Gospel attributed to John himself by Church writers no such information can be found. In gJohn, Jesus was crucified under Pilate and if Jesus was about 30 years old when he was baptised then 3 years later he would have been about 33 years old.

If Jesus did actually live then his age at death must have been established very long before Irenaeus and known by all the bishops of the Churches.

Before Irenaeus became a bishop he must have been taught about the baptism, crucifixion and the death of Jesus and that he was about 30 years old during the 15th year of Tiberius. All the converts must have read or heard the accounts in gLuke and gJohn.

This is a writer under the name of Irenaeus with the claim that the disciple of Jesus called John told people that Jesus was fifty years old.

Now, the information given by Irenaeus is contradicted by the very Gospels. No author of the Canonical Gospel claimed Jesus was fifty years old.

It is clear that Irenaeus wrote blatant fiction.

It would appear that neither the so-called heretics or the Church knew or had established the age of Jesus, not even his disciple John.

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition. Even a bishop of the Church gave blatant bogus information about the age of Jesus not even found in the Gospels.

aa5874

The HJ a most SENSELESS proposition.

The admission by a writer under the name Irenaeus who was claimed to be a bishop of the Church is a most devastating piece of evidence against the credibility and history of Jesus.

Based on the NT, Jesus would have died at around 33 years and at such an early age it is expected that his followers and disciples would not have forgotten his age or would have had a reasonable idea of the age of Jesus.

For example, it would be expected that the close acquaintances of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, would have remembered when he died and his age at death. Even today, more than a hundred years later, it would be expected that all the bishops or ministers of the Mormon religion to know the history of Joseph Smith.

It cannot be imagined that any writer sanctioned by the Mormon Church would be allowed to write a book claiming that Joseph Smith was over 50 years when he died and the Mormon Church authorities would have allowed such known false information to be circulated within their congregation and never be addressed or admitted to be an error.

It must be expected that if Irenaeus was a bishop that he was doctrinated in the teachings and history of Jesus established by his supposed disciples of whom Cephas/Peter was a bishop of the Church and John was supposedly alive after the death of Cephas/Peter in the Church at Ephesus..

Examine a writer called Tertullian in "Answer to the Jews" 8

This writer claimed Jesus was about thirty years when he suffered.


But, now examine "Against Heresies" 22.5 Irenaeus has shown quite to the contrary that there was no such thing as orthodoxy within the Church itself, that it was not established among the bishops or Church writers when Jesus died or that if there was orthodoxy he himself was an heretic and was propagating a "system of error".

But, it is most disturbing and displays a total disregard for credibility and veracity, when Irenaeus, a supposed bishop, after having claimed Jesus was about thirty years of age at the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius that he SUDDENLY became over fifty years oldafter being crucified under Pilate less than eight years after being thirty years old..


See http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine...s/advhaer2.txt

So, Jesus could have only been about 38 years old using the very information supplied by the writer called Irenaeus.

How could a bishop of the Church be so wrong?

How could a bishop of the Church produce a whole chapter of bogus information just from a mathematical calculation alone?

It is because the HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

aa5874

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

One of most significant piece of information that clearly destroys the HJ is that Jesus believers would NOT have worshiped Jesus as a God if he was known to be ONLY a man.

This is Justin Martyr in "First Apology" XXVI So, if Jesus was just a man and called himself a God then Justin Martyr would have considered Jesus an agent of the Devil and not worthy of worship as divine.

This is extremely noteworthy, Jesus must first be a God for Justin Martyr to have worshiped him as a Divine entity.


Again, based on Justin Martyr there was a MAN, a magician whose name was Simon Magus, who was called or called himself the HOLY ONE of GOD. Justin Martyr, a Jesus believer, did advocate that Simon was operating under the power of the Devil.

In "First Apology", Menander a follower of Simon claimed that he would not die but Justin Martyr, even though claiming Jesus was raised from the dead, called Menander a deceiver.

This indicates that if Justin Martyr knew that Jesus was simply a man that he would have called Jesus a deceiver and an agent of the Devil just like Simon Magus who being a man was called and worshiped as a God and Menander who claimed he would never die.

Jesus believers did NOT worship mere men as Gods.

Now look at the writer using the name Tertullian, this writer implied that he did not worship dead men as Gods or that the deification of dead men was not necessary.

This is an excerpt from "Apology"10 under the name Tertullian.

So, Tertullian claimed Jesus believers would not worship gods that were mere men. Jesus believers only worshiped God and his Son.

And later the writer Tertullian would claim God could make himself a another God without the need to have dead men deified.

"Apology" 11
The message is clear Jesus must have been a God for Jesus believers to have worshiped him as a God. Jesus was not known at any time to be a mere man while he was on earth based on the Church writers.

Jesus believers would NOT have worshiped a mere HJ as a God.

And it was precisely their refusal to worship men as Gods why they were persecuted.

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition since Jesus believers would not have worshiped HJ as a God.

ApostateAbe

SENSELESS!

aa5874

But, I thought you wrote that you had me on "ignore".

You were reading my posts all along.

Please apologize for mis-leading other posters.

ApostateAbe

I apologize.

mountainman

It is suggested that the reason for these statements was an attempt to conflate the legends associated with the securely historical figure of Apollonius of Tyana, the Pythagorean sage, holy man, author and man of letters with Constantine's Jesus. Apollonius lived to an advanced age and was famous throughout the empire in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries.

All this suggests that Eusebius was simply twisting the historical truth of Apollonius out of the mouth of bogus "bishops of the church" so that it might be conflated with the fabricated stories of Constantine's Jesus.

The HJ is an unexamined proposition since there is no ancient historical evidence by which to gauge its validity. Blind belief drives Constantine's Jesus down from the door where it began - Constantine's bloody sword.

aa5874

Now, repeat after me. The HJ is a most Senseless proposition.

But, as I have been writing for the past months, the HJ is a most irrational guess after the NT, Church and Apocryphal writings, and secular writings are examined.

1. Jesus was described in an implausible way from conception to ascension.

2. There are no external historical sources to corroborate his whereabouts.

3. The supposed contemporaries of Jesus did not write that they personally interacted with him.

4. Even the bishops of the Church did not established his age at death and were off by about 20 years even though they all claimed he died under Pilate and was 30 years in the 15th year of Tiberius.

5. The bishops of the Church were confused about the siblings of Jesus. At one time they implied James was the brother of the Lord, at another time they claimed Jesus did not have any brothers.

6. Jesus as Jew would not have been worshiped as a God and asked to forgive the sins of Jews and to abolish the Laws of God including circumcision when Jesus himself was circumcised and asked others to present offerings to the high priest.

7. Jesus believers would not have worshiped Jesus as a God if he was known to be a man living in Judea as a man for about 30 years.

8. Jesus was not the origin of the term "Christian". There were Christians in the 1st century since the days of Claudius who did not worship Jesus.There were probably thousands of Christians in Samaria and other nations who worshiped Simon Magus

9. The Church writers provided bogus information about the authorship, dating and chronology of the Gospels. It would appear that no disciple of Jesus wrote any of the Jesus stories. The Gospels are not eyewitness accounts.

10. The salvation of mankind is directly dependent upon a non-historical event, the resurrection. HJ cannot be raised from the dead. HJ is irrelevant or not needed at all.

After examining the NT, the Church and Apocryphal writings, and secular writings including Philo and Josephus the HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

ApostateAbe

The HJ is a most Senseless proposition.

The HJ is a most Senseless proposition.

The HJ is a most Senseless proposition.

mountainman

And so we finally have an explanation and exposition for the Holy Trinity.