aa5874

I use them to EXPOSE the FRAUD called Paul. You very well know that in order to show that a person is a FRAUD and a LIAR that their FRAUDULENT actions and THEIR LIES MUST be FIRST DOCUMENTED and then SHOWN exactly as it was recorded.

Let me continue to EXPOSE the FRAUDS like Paul using their OWN LYING WORDS.

Again, Irenaeus MUST have been an Heretic whose writings were MANIPULATED and heavily re-worked to give the False Impression that in the time of Irenaeus, the late 2nd century, that he knew of the FOUR GOSPELS, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings when he did NOT.

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
Why don't you do your own research and decide upon it?

Duvduv

There is no "research" involved. Either you accept the conventional dating given by the party hacks known as heresiologists or you don't. There is no archeology or archival investigation involved.

Toto

This is not my experience. Scholars look for external and internal evidence, what you would call archival investigation.

It gets boring when you just dismiss things as coming from "party hacks." I think you follow your own party line, in fact.

This is supposed to be a discussion board - at least make an attempt to engage with others' ideas.

Duvduv

I am challenging the so-called truths establishing dates for virtually unknown authors for whom there is no evidence. If someone asserts that someone wrote in a certain year as a matter of fact, that needs to be questioned or recognized as an article of faith.
The fact is that church writers served as biased opinion makers. And they were party hacks. Especially a guy like Eusebius IF he even existed, as opposed to being a composite of assorted writers employed by the Empire.

Toto

In all ancient history, you need to treat such claims as best guesses. Everyone recognizes the uncertainty of the evidence. You need to show why an alternate date makes more sense.

I don't think anyone would dispute the bias. You make yourself look like a crank when you keep repeating the emotionally charged words "party hack." It's okay once or twice, but the constant repetition makes it seem that you've run out of things to say.

In fact, Eusebius ran a scriptorium that employed lots of scribes. He might have had editorial assistants or even ghost writers - how would that change anything?

Duvduv

I can acknowledge what you are saying, but I would certainly not be the first or the only one on this board deserving of that adjective. But I have had to make a point where "best guesses" are enshrined as fact in discourse. So sometimes it needs a needle to pop the balloon.

And more than ghost writers there may have been subsequent writers collectively known as "Eusebius" well into the 4th century and maybe even the fifth. Of course there were subsequent heresiologists/historians also full of bias obviously (and I am not talking about Giacondo who "discovered" the letter of Pliny).

People such as Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret who were said to have "relied" on Eusebius and each other. One of them may have been a major contributor to "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus.........

aa5874

Why does Duvduv need to show you why an alternate date makes more sense when you have STATED that OTHER PEOPLE are GUESSING.

Those who GUESSED their date cannot show why their date makes sense and that is PRECISELY why they just GUESS.

Well, the Guessing game is over.

It is a Fact that NO Canonized source ever claimed Paul wrote letters to Churches before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

You MUST realize that people will think that so-called Scholars are CRANKS if they Just GUESS their history.

It is NO Secret now that ALL writings of antiquity which claimed Paul wrote letters to Churches are Fraudulent, heavily interpolated, and NOT historically reliable.

1. Acts of the Apostles is regarded as a Work of Fiction.

2. The 2nd Epistle of Peter which mentions Paul does NOT belong in the Canon.

3. The Pauline sources are known to be manipulated.

la70119

I am NOT expecting Irenaeus to know everything. YOU seem to be putting that forward. Either he cherry-picked, or he was very much ignorant of gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, Acts and the Pauline Epistles.

FACT:

gMatthew and gMark imply a 1-year ministry.

gLuke state a one-year ministry outright ("acceptable year of the Lord") which Irenaeus stated in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, was HERESY.

gJohn implied a two, two-and-a-half, maximum three-year ministry that included THREE passovers.

Eusebius claimed a three-and-a-half to four year ministry, ending the same year Caiaphas became the High Priest, 18 CE, then later on changed the end date to 30 CE.

The writer of Against Heresies 2:22 would have called them ALL heresies.

gLuke said John the Baptist began preaching in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, 28-29 CE; and said Jesus himself was baptised during John's ministry and preached for one year.

Per gLuke, Jesus was CRUCIFIED under the Prefect Pontius Pilate in the SIXTEENTH year of Tiberius Caesar, 30 CE.

The writer of Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching said Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate, Governor of CLAUDIUS Caesar.

One CANNOT be knowledgeable about the Synoptics, gJohn even, the Acts and the Pauline Epistles and put forth a 20-year ministry ending under Pontius Pilate, Governor of Claudius Caesar and not knowingly, willfully cherry-picking and lying through one's teeth.

la70119

I used "or" because I saw no point on going out on a limb. And as aa5874 has remarked upon, it is quite impossible for such a writer to espouse such unorthodox ideas and still be retained a Bishop of the Church, if the Four Gospels, Acts and the Pauline Epistles in their present form were known for about a century or longer.

We know about Eusebius' 18 CE "mistake." It also appears to be present in the Epistula Apostolorum, at the line where it says Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate and Herod Archelaus. Except Archelaus was sent into exile after one of the early revolts in 6 CE and died 18 CE.

The Epistula is also confused exactly where jesus was buried, as opposed to the four Gospels. It says Jesus was buried not in a garden (tomb) in the Kranion, not necessarily crucified at it.

Epistula Apostolorum 9

It also says the Twelve Apostles were to preach to the Twelve Tribes AND the Heathen with no hint about Paul. Then it abruptly says Paul will show up, coming straight out of Cilicia to Damascus to harass Christians, and he will have an expierience, and become the Salvation of the Gentiles.

Epistula Apostolorum 30, 31, 33

If this is not a forgery, or riven through with forgeries, then it is a snapshot of the four gospels and Acts under development, 140-150 CE. Curious, though, that Justin Martyr who wrote 150-160 CE seems not to know about Acts or the Epistles of Paul. And if he knows the gospels, he knows one or two of them. Under a different name or different names.