aa5874

When Bernard Muller answered me with questions you declared that they were VERY GOOD questions.

Now look at your response.

And you EVEN added some more questions.

Well, I have questions too for you and Bernard Muller.

Why do we have all the contradictions in the NT if the Gospels were and Acts were written AFTER the Pauline writings???


You are UTTERLY confused. You are now admitting that Against Heresies is a forgery whether wholly or in part.

You have NOT read Against Heresies or do NOT understand it.

You seem to think Irenaeus was operating in a VACUUM with "his" FOUR Gospels that was completely unknown even to the Church and Heretics.

And you put forward the most absurd notion that the same FOUR Gospels of Irenaeus did contain gLuke which ONLY the Heretics knew which is completely illogical.

Now, you have NOT read gJohn or don't understand it.

In gJohn, Jesus was FAR older than 50 years.

Again, Irenaeus could NOT have known of gJohn and claimed Jesus was 50 years old at crucifixion.

The VERY NEXT verse after gJohn 8.57 the Johanine Jesus told them he was BEFORE Abraham.

[John 8[/u]Please, please, please!!!!

Read your Bibles.

The author of Against Heresies 2.22 could NOT have known of gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings when he suposedly argued AGAINST Heretics that Jesus was about 50 years old at crucifixion.

The Johanine Jesus SPECIFICALLY stated that he was BEFORE Abraham was born.

Now, you too have IMPLODED.

Duvduv

Kent, please see my short reply #7089721 / #325.
Anyway, you assume that "Irenaeus" wrote when church writers said the book Against Heresies was written. A mere 30 years or so after Justin was said to have written his Dialogue with Trypho (which is mostly a monologue of propaganda) and poorly argued Apology.
And we know that those works showed no knowledge of Paul or writings attributed to him, or even the four gospels as we know them.

But how do we know which heretics had one or more gospels from among the canon gospels? There isn't a single document that says, "We only use the Gospel of Mark or of Matthew" etc.
The canon gospels are always presented as a group, just like the epistles are.

Sheshbazzar

Do you choose to miss the point? or is it just escaping you?

To them who held themselves separate (holy) and held to their received tradition, these distinctions about titles and names would have made a huge difference.

And those that paraded under the invented name 'Christian' introduced radical ideas and doctrines that the Faithful in Jerusalem and in Judea had never received nor accepted.

The biggest lie that has ever been told, is that the religion called 'Christianity' is the religion of the New Testament.

It is a foreign usurper religion , and the murderer of the Faithful. The early Believers were not 'Christians', never took up 'Christian' doctrines or practices, and never became 'Christians'.

'Christianity' is the Great Whore religion, that murdered the early saints, and has worked every manner of evil ever since.
.

Kent F

The contradictions are there because some of the gospels and Acts don't have the same roots as the Pauline epistles. The Pauline epistles and gMark have Alexandrian roots while Acts, the Pastorals, gMatthew and gLuke probably all have Roman roots. I happen to believe that the Pauline writings and gMark are the oldest and that christianity started in Alexandria.

I have read it and I stand by my statement: If AH is a massive forgery, the contradictions would not be there. If the NT was wholly fabricated by the Roman church, the contradictions would not be there either. They would never have been written. Why would forgers with the same beliefs contradict themselves?

Irenaeus is the first to say there are four gospels and to name them all. He quotes from gLuke so obviously he knew it.

To the Jews, Jesus looked to be close to 50 years old. So Irenaeus claimed, based on this verse, that Jesus in his human shape had to be close to 50. He dismissed gLuke on this because Jesus had to be older than 30 to be a teacher and master. Jesus goes on to say in the next verse in gJohn that he's divine and before Abraham and the Jews then tried to stone him. But this has got nothing to do with the age of Jesus at crucifixion. He died on the cross when he was about 50 years old in his human shape and resurrected in his divine shape. That was what Irenaeus believed and wanted to promote.

AH 3.11.8: "Therefore this Gospel is deserving of all confidence, for such indeed is his person."

Duvduv

Hi, Kent. What this for "Irenaeus" is that despite his so-called awareness of the 4 gospels, epistles and Acts, he didn't know the implications of what he was saying. If his Christ lived to around the year 50 CE give or take, his Paul who preached for around 30 years and only became a believer several years after the crucifixion would have died around the year 80, which was AFTER the destruction of the Temple.

So either "Irenaeus" (who supposedly lived about 100 years or so after Paul) didn't know when the Temple was destroyed (less than a century earlier) or didn't know the documents his writings say he knew........

aa5874

It is ALREADY known that people BELIEVE all sorts of things about the Canon but have ZERO evidence from antiquity for their Beliefs.

What you Happen to Believe is worthless when you have ZERO corroboration from credible sources of antiquity.



Well, well, well!!!! You have imploded.

Do you Not see what you have done to your own argument???

You have stated that "If the NT was wholly fabricated by the Roman church, the contradictions would not be there either.

Now, based on your own statement--If "Against Heresies" was written by ONE author the contradictions would NOT be there either.

"Against Heresies" is a product of MULTIPLE authors.

The original author in AH 2.22 who claimed Jesus was about 50 years at crucifixion and that John with the other disciples did CONVEY that same information to the Elders of the Church did NOT know of Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters.

Against Heresies 2.22.1, 3.14.3 and 3.13.3 proves WITHIN reason that Against Heresies is the product of Multiple authors.



Against Heresies 2.22.1 The author claims Jesus was NOT baptized at 30 years of age.


Against Heresies 3.14 3 Now this author claims he knows from gLuke that Jesus was baptized in the 15th year of Tiberius.

Against Heresies 3.13.3. And this author knows that Paul went again to Jerusalem AFTER 14 years.

It is virtually impossible that the author of Against Heresies KNEW of gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings and ARGUED that Jesus was NOT baptized at 30 years of age, suffered at about 50 years and still wrote another book which stated Jesus was crucified under Claudius.

Against Heresies is a massive forgery with Multiple authors.

I deal with the WRITTEN statements of antiquity but you deal with BELIEF.

mountainman

Why did the authors who fabricated the "Historia Augusta" dedicate a massive self-contradictory "mockumentary", replete with hundreds of forged documents, to the Emperor Constantine?

Duvduv

Personally I'd like to know why the original Nicene Creed had no Jewish elements if those who developed it supposedly had all the OT and NT texts that made that link to the Jewish messiah.

Sheshbazzar

Getting closer and closer.

aa5874

Incredibly in Against Heresies 2.22.3 the author called Irenaeus did SHOW that in gJohn the ministry of Jesus lasted for THREE Passovers AFTER Jesus was supposedly baptized.

"Against Heresies" 2.22 3. It is just virtually impossible for the same author to have claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old while stating that the ministry of Jesus LASTED for THREE Passovers.