aa5874

After spending YEARS reading apologetic sources of antiquity the History of the Church has been FINALLY BUSTED.

Once it is understood that "Against Heresies" is Massive forgery where the writings of Heretic who did NOT know of the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were heavily manipulated then the Bogus Pauline History can be easily EXPOSED.

There were NO Pauline writings and NO Acts of the Apostles in the 2nd century.

It would appear that some apologetic source, most likely the Roman Church, FORGED writings under the Name of some 2nd century writers.

I have EXAMINED apologetic sources that mentioned the name Paul and have found that virtually ALL of them are fraudulent, forgeries, or manipulated.

The supposed letter of Clement of Rome to the Church of Corinth mentions the Name Paul but it will be seen that the Church and its writers did NOT HAVE A CLUE when Clement was Bishop of Rome.

1. Irenaeus "Against Heresies"---1. The Apostles 2. Linus 3. Anacletus 4.Clement.

2. Tertullian "Prescription Against Heresies"---1.The Apostle Peter 2.Clement.

3. Jerome "De Viris Illustribus--1. The Apostles 2. Linus 3. Anacletus 4. Clement.

4. The LATINS "De Viris Illustribus---1. The Apostle 2. Clement

5."Apostolic Constitutions"---1. Paul and Peter 2. Linus 3. Clement.

6."Augustine of Hippo"---1. Peter 2. Linus 3. Clement.

7.Optatus "Against the Donatist" ----1. Peter 2. Linus 3. Clement.

8. Rufinus "Recognitions"---Linus and Cletus Before Peter---Clement AFTER Peter.

The Church and its writers could NOT decide when Clement should be Bishop of Rome and have a 20 year Discrepancy which CORRUPTS the chronology of the Other supposed Bishops and the Great Dissension.

We can CLEARLY see that Clement was a FICTITIOUS Bishop of Rome--an INVENTION to historicize Paul and Paul's letters to churches of Corinth.

All the Bishops of Rome in "Against Heresies" appear to be INVENTIONS.

Next we will see that "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian was FABRICATED and assigned to Tertullian but upon examination NO Apologetic source used "Against Marcion" by Tertullian for hundreds of years after it was supposedly written.

Bernard Muller

to la70119,
Before Irenaeus, there was no orthodox "canonical" duration for Jesus' ministry. Even Justin martyr did not come up with any. So there was a void. Dubiously, by some argumentation from gJohn, Irenaeus tried to justify 20 years. There is nothing heretical about that (actually what was heretical for him was the one year proposed by heretics). And 20 years is better than one year theologically, avoiding believers to think Jesus was a flash in the pan. If Pontius Pilate would have ruled for 25 years, no problem. The problem is that he did not. But now we are talking about a historical error, not heresy. Not something to kick out a bishop. And who would have terminated Irenaeus anyway? There was no pope yet. Sure Acts and the Pauline epistles (because of the mention of Aretas) do not allow for a 20 years ministry, but I do not think Irenaeus ever thought of these when he was writing AH 2.22. He was only considering gLuke and gJohn, his hate for heretics and the benefit to have Jesus preaching at all phases of life, from young to old.

Sheshbazzar

Hmmm. a hundred years of Christians practicing Christianity, supposedly with written Gospels and Epistles, which the Bishop would have been exposed to long enough to learn, and to rise to a prominent position within the Church.
.....but he simply composed AH without having heard the content of these texts being discussed among his fellow Christians?
He just takes this off-the-wall 50 year ministry as being what is described in the Gospels? and his fellow church members and Bishops have nothing to say? Something is mighty strange here.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
1Clement does not state that Clement is the writer of the letter. And if Clement of Rome existed (which is likely the case despite his various placement in the list of bishops) he would not be a bishop anyway. Bishopry that early, more so for Rome, is a lie. All we can say is a prominent member of the church of Rome wrote the letter, according to internal evidence, 96 for many, and around 81 for myself. And even if you declare anything as forgery, that does not mean you have to postdate it or throw it away.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
Shall I conclude now that you never read the NT?

Sheshbazzar

What is of interest in 1 Clement is how it is composed. Reading it, many familiar Gospel and Epistle sayings and tropes appear but are presented as integral thoughts to the text, and are not at all presented as being quotations from other earlier church figures or writings, which would have given them even more weight and authority.

Actually it appears to me that the Gospels and 'Pauline' Epistles were fashioned around sayings that were gleaned from 1Clement and then rearranged and fluffed up into the seminal narratives and writings that eventually, through several revisions, became the familiar Gospels and Epistles rather than the other way around.

1 Clement itself reads like a much older, cruder, and less polished version of the NT writings. Many of his sayings and verses are slightly rephrased and smoothed out as they appear in the Gospels and Epistles.
It is quite inconceivable that the writer would have taken these better phrased and more expressive forms and deliberately rephrased them into inferior forms. The natural progression would have been in the opposite direction, with subsequent rewritings making the improvements seen in the finished and polished NT manuscripts.
Methinks that the cart has been placed ahead of the horse to suit Church tradition.




.

Bernard Muller

to Sheshbazzar,
Why do you think Christians then would discuss the historical side of these texts?
It is not 50 years ministry but 20 years. You see how easy it is to make error. Shall I think you never read this thread?
Maybe the fellow members and bishops did not dare to say anything. What did they have to gain by pointing an error to a powerful and influential bishop?

Sheshbazzar

Why would you think that they wouldn't?
Err, maybe they were at the least a -little bit- sincere about their beliefs?

Enough to at least ask some questions of the high and mighty? :huh:

Are you suggesting that all of these other Christians simply didn't give a shit about what their precious texts said?


.

aa5874

Your ought to know that "Against Heresies" was written precisely to give the IMPRESSION that there was ORTHODOXY since the time of the Apostles. So, if you are now claiming that there was really NO Orthodoxy then you have inadvertently suggested that "Against Heresies" is a Bogus document.

And You very well know that Justin Martyr did claim Jesus was crucified when PILATE was governor under TIBERIUS.

Again, You have already IMPLODED. "Against Heresies" was written PRECISELY to argue that there was ORTHODOXY since the supposed apostles of 1st century.

Please Examine Against Heresies 2.22 Your argument has been destroyed.

It is claimed in "Against Heresies" that the APOSTLES did TELL people that Jesus was crucified when he was about 50 years old.

"Against Heresies" is about the TRADITION received from the supposed Apostles.


"Against Heresies" 2.9

Duvduv

The Epistula is said to have originated in the second century, long after the gospels and epistles were said to have been written just as the dating of Against Heresies, and yet the author doesn't get his details straight from the texts that supposedly had been around for a century, and his knowledge of Paul is rather incomplete compared to the Paul of the epistles.

If Irenaeus supposedly knew of Acts, then when did he think Paul was preaching if Jesus lived to age 50, being born under Augustus and crucified in the time after Caligula but before the destruction of the temple?!