Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bernard Muller · 02-22-2012, 08:14 PM

to Sheshbazzar,

Quote:

By 180 CE the approximate time of 'Adverses Heresies' publication, Irenaeus should have been well aware of the contents of the Gospels of St Luke and St John__IF they were available to the church.

Actually, as I wrote before, in AH 2.22, Irenaeus was aware of gLuke and gJohn, which he quoted and named the alleged respective author. However, neither gLuke, gJohn or any other Christian writings stipulate how long Pilate & Caiaphas tenures in office lasted. That info is only in Josephus' works, which Irenaeus obviously missed.
Irenaeus referred to Josephus in one of his surviving fragment (32) (not AH or 'demonstration'), something about Moses, and nobody knows if he bothered to read much of Josephus' works.
See here for fragment 32 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0134.htm

Bernard Muller · 02-22-2012, 08:30 PM

to Sheshbazzar,
Actually, some years later, Origen stated that Jesus' ministry was only one year and a few months long, but in a later work, he changed his mind and went for three years. From my website:
"Origen (185-254) (De Principiis, IV, 1, 5 "[Christ] taught about a year and a few months")"
"The first one to mention a three-year ministry might have been Origen (changing his mind!) in 'Commentary on Matthew' (Book XXIV), written late in his life,"

Sheshbazzar · 02-22-2012, 08:31 PM

The foremost writer of the Church of his day, producing huge amounts of Christian history and doctrinal disputations, not only errs in this matter, and not with just a word or two, but with elaborately constructed arguments and assertions.
Has to be one of three things. Either the Gospels that he was using at that time did not contain the same information as the ones that have came down to us.
Or he did not understand what he was reading. (some 'church Father' that. What happened? Holy Ghost fly out the window?)
Or he was deliberately attempting to avoid what these texts did say, and to swap in a new and different version of the Jeebus story.
Whatever, something is seriously out of whack between Christian claims and Irenaeus's stated views.

Bernard Muller · 02-22-2012, 08:46 PM

to Sheshbazzar,
I think you miss that:
"However, neither gLuke, gJohn or any other Christian writings stipulate how long Pilate & Caiaphas tenures in office lasted. That info is only in Josephus' works, which Irenaeus obviously missed."
No gospel specifies how long Jesus' ministry lasted. However the Synoptics (more so gLuke) imply one year.

Sheshbazzar · 02-22-2012, 09:11 PM

Again a problem with Christian claims. The Gospels need or require the writings of Josephus to interpret them???
Where went the 'Holy Ghost' or 'the anointing which you have received of him abideth in you, and you need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teaches you of all things.'
Apparently not, Christians (even 'Church Fathers') need to read 'the Gospel which is according to Josephus' in order to correctly interpret the content of their Christian Gospels.
The Gospel collection contains a lot of contradicting and confused statements, little wonder that no one even yet knows how long this fictional ministry lasted.

aa5874 · 02-22-2012, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mullerb

to Sheshbazzar,

Quote:

By 180 CE the approximate time of 'Adverses Heresies' publication, Irenaeus should have been well aware of the contents of the Gospels of St Luke and St John__IF they were available to the church.

Actually, as I wrote before, in AH 2.22, Irenaeus was aware of gLuke and gJohn, which he quoted and named the alleged respective author. However, neither gLuke, gJohn or any other Christian writings stipulate how long Pilate & Caiaphas tenures in office lasted. That info is only in Josephus' works, which Irenaeus obviously missed.
Irenaeus referred to Josephus in one of his surviving fragment (32) (not AH or 'demonstration'), something about Moses, and nobody knows if he bothered to read much of Josephus' works.
See here for fragment 32 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0134.htm

Your explanation is totally absurd.

Irenaeus was supposedly ARGUING against Heretics who stated Jesus was 30 years old when he was crucified.

If the Heretics, and the very Church had knowledge of gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings then it would have been completely utter nonsense and idiotic for Irenaeus to attempt to argue that Jesus was about 50 years at crucifixion.

If Irenaeus was a presbyter and then Bishop of the Church then he should have known WHEN PAUL preached that Christ was crucified all over the Roman Empire.

1. Irenaeus, the Church and Heretics should have known that Peter was executed UNDER NERO.

2. Irenaeus, the Church and Heretics should have known that PAUL was executed under Nero.

3. Irenaeus, the Church and Heretics should have known from Acts of the Apostles that James the Apostle was executed by Herod.

4. Irenaeus, the Church and Heretics should have known of the DAY of Pentecost.

5. Irenaeus, the Church and Heretics should have known when Paul had his blinding light conversion.

6. Irenaeus, the Church and Heretics should have known that HEROD was tetrarch in gLuke so Jesus could NOT have been crucified at about 50 years old.

7. Herod was tetrach up to 39 CE,

8. Tiberius was Emperor up to 37 CE,

9. Caiaphas was High Priest up to 36 CE.

10. Pilate was governor up to 37 CE.

It is Virtually impossible for "Against Heresies" 2.22 to have been argued by a Bishop of the Church who knew of gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

"Against Heresies" MUST be a massive forgery.

Grog · 02-23-2012, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Let me review the FACTS.

It is claimed in "Against Heresies" 2.22 that Jesus was crucified when he was about 50 years of age and that John, the other disciples and the elders did convey that information to people of antiquity.

I grant that there was considerable confusion regarding the exact historical circumstances surrounding the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth.

Quote:

It simply cannot be that a Presbyter and Bishop of the Church could have known of gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings and still argue that Jesus was crucified at about fifty years of age.

"Against Heresies"2.22 must be or is most likely before the Pauline letters.

The Pauline letters--those most commonly accepted as "authentic"--do not place the Jesus events in any historical context. While I accept a very late date for gLuke/Acts, I don't see how this necessarily applies to the epistles.

Quote:

It is also claimed that a Bishop called Clement of Rome was aware of Paul and the Pauline letters to the Corinthians but upon investigation it is found that NOT even the Church and its writers can properly accout for Clement as a Bishop of Rome.

The chronology for the succession of Bishops of Rome shows UTTER confusion--some apologetic say Clement was bishop at c 68 CE, others c 78 and some c 90 CE.

There was simply no succession of Bishops as stated in apologetic sources up to at least the end of the 2nd century.

The history of the Church as stated by the Church writers is bogus--there wasNO Jesus, NO Paul and No Bishops in the 1st century.

I agree with everything except the NO Paul statement. Sure to be skewered for it, I also would like to point out that my conclusion that there was an early Paul is tentative, as I believe most of our conclusions regarding this particular topic ought to be.

Grog · 02-23-2012, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

False

there was a Saul who wrote epistles

What makes you think there was someone named "Saul" who wrote epistles?

aa5874 · 02-23-2012, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Let me review the FACTS.

It is claimed in "Against Heresies" 2.22 that Jesus was crucified when he was about 50 years of age and that John, the other disciples and the elders did convey that information to people of antiquity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

I grant that there was considerable confusion regarding the exact historical circumstances surrounding the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth.

Your statement is absurd. There is NO other existing apologetic source that claimed Jesus was about 50 years when he was crucified.

Before Irenaeus, Justin Martyr claimed Jesus was crucified under Tiberius when Pilate was governor and, AFTER Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria claimed Jesus was 30 years old when he was crucified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It simply cannot be that a Presbyter and Bishop of the Church could have known of gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings and still argue that Jesus was crucified at about fifty years of age.

"Against Heresies"2.22 must be or is most likely before the Pauline letters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

The Pauline letters--those most commonly accepted as "authentic"--do not place the Jesus events in any historical context. While I accept a very late date for gLuke/Acts, I don't see how this necessarily applies to the epistles.

You don't make much sense at this point. No Church writer ever claimed the Pauline Jesus was crucified in the Sub-Lunar and that the Pauline writings are non-historical.

You have mistaken Irenaeus for DOHERTY.

Ireneaus did NOT ever claim that there were non-authentic Pauline Epistles.

Quote:

It is also claimed that a Bishop called Clement of Rome was aware of Paul and the Pauline letters to the Corinthians but upon investigation it is found that NOT even the Church and its writers can properly accout for Clement as a Bishop of Rome.

The chronology for the succession of Bishops of Rome shows UTTER confusion--some apologetic say Clement was bishop at c 68 CE, others c 78 and some c 90 CE.

There was simply no succession of Bishops as stated in apologetic sources up to at least the end of the 2nd century.

The history of the Church as stated by the Church writers is bogus--there wasNO Jesus, NO Paul and No Bishops in the 1st century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

I agree with everything except the NO Paul statement. Sure to be skewered for it, I also would like to point out that my conclusion that there was an early Paul is tentative, as I believe most of our conclusions regarding this particular topic ought to be.

Again, you don't make much sense. It is illogical that I should come to your conclusion about Paul when I am far more advanced in knowledge of the evidence from antiquity than you.

Your request is like an unlearned in astronomy who begs Galileo to be cautious about his findings and conclusions about the motion of the earth around the sun.

Examine "Against Heresies" 3.13.3

Quote:

3. But that Paul acceded to [the request of] those who summoned him to the apostles, on account of the question [which had been raised], and went up to them, with Barnabas, to Jerusalem, not without reason, but that the liberty of the Gentiles might be confirmed by them, he does himself say, in the Epistle to the Galatians: "Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking also Titus.

But I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that Gospel which I preached among the Gentiles."(8) And again he says, "For an hour we did give place to subjection,(9) that the truth of the gospel might continue with you."

If, then, any one shall, from the Acts of the Apostles, carefully scrutinize the time concerning which it is written that he went up to Jerusalem on account of the forementioned question, he will find those years mentioned by Paul coinciding with it.

Thus the statement of Paul harmonizes with, and is, as it were, identical with, the testimony of Luke regarding the apostles.

The author of "Against Heresies" 2.22 could NOT have known of Acts of the Apostles and Galatians and also claim Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old under Claudius.

It is clear to me based on the abundance of evidence that "Against Heresies" is a massive forgery with Multiple authorship.

Duvduv · 02-23-2012, 06:49 AM

The fact of all the confusion in Against Heresies on its own merits is enough to show that those parts were written BEFORE the canonical texts emerged, especially since a forger had to give Irenaeus the added fake claim of advocating the four gospels and epistles to cover up all the confusion.
Throw into that pot the confusion of Justin as well. Second century productions? No way.
And a consensus of all scholars just ignores these facts to fit these writings into the traditional dating of church propagandists.

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

02-22-2012, 08:30 PM	#212
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	to Sheshbazzar, Actually, some years later, Origen stated that Jesus' ministry was only one year and a few months long, but in a later work, he changed his mind and went for three years. From my website: "Origen (185-254) (De Principiis, IV, 1, 5 "[Christ] taught about a year and a few months")" "The first one to mention a three-year ministry might have been Origen (changing his mind!) in 'Commentary on Matthew' (Book XXIV), written late in his life,"

02-22-2012, 08:31 PM	#213
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	The foremost writer of the Church of his day, producing huge amounts of Christian history and doctrinal disputations, not only errs in this matter, and not with just a word or two, but with elaborately constructed arguments and assertions. Has to be one of three things. Either the Gospels that he was using at that time did not contain the same information as the ones that have came down to us. Or he did not understand what he was reading. (some 'church Father' that. What happened? Holy Ghost fly out the window?) Or he was deliberately attempting to avoid what these texts did say, and to swap in a new and different version of the Jeebus story. Whatever, something is seriously out of whack between Christian claims and Irenaeus's stated views.

02-22-2012, 08:46 PM	#214
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	to Sheshbazzar, I think you miss that: "However, neither gLuke, gJohn or any other Christian writings stipulate how long Pilate & Caiaphas tenures in office lasted. That info is only in Josephus' works, which Irenaeus obviously missed." No gospel specifies how long Jesus' ministry lasted. However the Synoptics (more so gLuke) imply one year.

02-22-2012, 09:11 PM	#215
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Again a problem with Christian claims. The Gospels need or require the writings of Josephus to interpret them??? Where went the 'Holy Ghost' or 'the anointing which you have received of him abideth in you, and you need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teaches you of all things.' Apparently not, Christians (even 'Church Fathers') need to read 'the Gospel which is according to Josephus' in order to correctly interpret the content of their Christian Gospels. The Gospel collection contains a lot of contradicting and confused statements, little wonder that no one even yet knows how long this fictional ministry lasted.

02-23-2012, 06:49 AM	#220
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	The fact of all the confusion in Against Heresies on its own merits is enough to show that those parts were written BEFORE the canonical texts emerged, especially since a forger had to give Irenaeus the added fake claim of advocating the four gospels and epistles to cover up all the confusion. Throw into that pot the confusion of Justin as well. Second century productions? No way. And a consensus of all scholars just ignores these facts to fit these writings into the traditional dating of church propagandists.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.