Bernard Muller

Since when Eusebius set the canon? It was still a work in progress. Eventually 2Peter became canonical. It is now.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
That's not an answer to my questions :banghead:
Dare to reply? Or did you hit a wall?

Kent F

Very good questions! And a typical answer by aa: which answers nothing.

May I add, to aa: If AH by Irenaeus was manipulated by later editors, then why did these editors keep the statements about a 20 year ministry for Jesus and Jesus being 50 years old when he was crucified? Why didn't they change this into the "correct beliefs" when they were at it?

aa5874

After reading sources of antiquity I have found that all writings that mention the name of the so-called Apostle Paul and that he wrote letters to churches are fiction, fraudulent or forgeries.

1.A letter attributed to Ignatius mentioned Paul---the letters of Ignatius are considered forgeries or very questionable.

2. A letter attributed to Clement of Rome mentions Paul---Clement of Rome is a Fictitious character.

3. Writings attributed to Irenaeus mentioned Paul---the author of Against Heresies 2.22 did NOT know of the Pauline writings and claimed the Gospel, the Elders and the Apostles preached that Christ was crucified during the reign of CLAUDIUS which is AFTER Paul preached Christ crucified in the Pauline writings since the time of King Aretas c 37-40 CE.

4. "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian mentioned Paul---No Church writer or Apologetic source of antiquity claimed Tertullian wrote "Against Marcion" and did NOT quote a single sentence for over at least 200 years after "Against Marcion" was supposedly written.

5. "Commentary on Matthew" 1 attributed to Origen mentione Paul---Origen claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke when it is also claimed Paul died under NERO. Paul could NOT be dead c 68 CE and still be AWARE of gLuke deduced to be written at least after c 70 CE.

6. Acts of the Apostles mentioned Paul---Acts of the Apostles is considered a work of Fiction.

7. 2nd Peter mentioned Paul--even an apologetic source claimed 2nd Peter does NOT belong in the Canon--it is NOT genuine.

8. Letters to and from Seneca mentioned Paul---ALL Letters to and from Seneca that mentioned Paul are forgeries.

9.The Pauline letters themselsves mention Paul--It has been deduced that the Pauline writings have been manipulated.

The History of the Church is directly dependent on an historical Paul and that he actually wrote letters to churches but every single source that mentioned Paul and that he wrote letters to Churches are NOT credible and are themselves forgeries, fiction or fraudulent.

The history of the Church has been BUSTED--Paul was FABRICATED and historicised by fraudulent means.

It was the gMark story by an UNKNOWN author that was most likely the FIRST Jesus story that was BELIEVED in antiquity and AFTER the Fall of the Temple which was most likely INITIATED some time AFTER the writings of Josephus and Pliny the younger.

Duvduv

Too much was riding on such texts. They couldn't very well start delegitimizing one contradiction after the other without bringing down the whole house of cards after the Constantinian period that established the whole structure.
After Irenaeus would be the gospels and then the epistles.

aa5874

Well, why did the author of the Long-Ending of gMark COPY virtually all of the Short-Ending gMark word-for-word and added 12 verses which CONTRADICT the Markan Jesus story??

Mark 16.8 contradicts Mark 16.10.

Why didn't they change the contradiction???

Why didn't they change the contradictions in genealogies of gMatthew and gLuke???

Matthew 1.16 contradicts Luke 3.23

Why did they NOT just use the same genealogy for both gospels???

Why didn't they just Canonise ONE Jesus story instead of Four to avoid all the Contradictions????

Why did they Canonise Acts when it CONTRADICTS the Pauline writer???

If Acts was the Last to write then why didn't they just harmonise Acts with the Pauline writings???

Acts 9.26 Contradicts Galatians 1.17

If the Pauline letters were ALREADY known and circulated in the churches all over the Roman Empire then why didn't they just Canonize Only the Pauline writings to AVOID all the BLATANT contradictions in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles????

Duvduv

I noticed one very interesting thing, that the Talmudic Amoraim rabbis make no mention at all of any gentiles believing in a messianic figure even in the 4th century. Of course the Jerusalem Talmud was completed by the mid-4th century, and the Babylonian Talmud made references to 4th century rabbis in Babylonia where Christian sects had not yet penetrated.

Even events cited in the writings of the church writer Sozomenus (a successor to Eusebius) that mentions that in the late 4th century Julian the Apostate wanted to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple is mentioned nowhere in tradtional Jewish sources as far as I know. Nor are the events surrounding the expulsion of the Jews from Alexandria by Theodosius II and the alleged libel concerning the burning of Haman effigies as representing Jesus.

Church councils and apologists at the end of the 4th century make mention of assorted Judaizing tendencies among Christians, their following the Jewish calendar, using matzah, observing the sabbath on Saturdays, etc. even in the writings of Jerome are not found in any Talmudic sources. However, the fact of so much alleged Judaizing would itself suggest that the doctrines established by the NT canon, especially the epistles, were not at all universally accepted by people who called themselves Christians.

Kent F

So you "answer" my question with a lot of other questions. But consider this again: a massive forgery would not allow for contradictions to stand. That's my whole point. That all of these contradictions are still there goes against your theory. They prove that several of the writings you mention have different roots, established somewhere else first and then interpolated by the Roman church but not wholly forged.

"The heretics" had just one gospel and the Pauline epistles so the Roman church could not go for that option. It had to discredit this earlier canon. Irenaeus provided an alternative with his fourfold gospel along with the falsified Paul of the Pastorals and Acts and it has survived to this day. His interpretation, and preference, of gJohn that Jesus was about 50 years old when he was crucified has not. But gJohn can still be read that way.

Irenaeus wrote during the time of the Roman Emperor Commodus and I can imagine that few dared to oppose him. He made full use of his powerful backing, establishing the fourfold gospel, quoting texts not quoted before and providing a list of bishops to show that the Roman church was the true heir of christianity (when it was not).

Sheshbazzar

Perhaps that was because these didn't ever call themselves 'Christians'.
Because that 'name' signified and identified something that was alien to their Faith, to their beliefs, and to their practices.
There was a split in the Faith, when some desiring to grab power, began to 'make a name' for themselves.

I am giving you a friendly hint. Think about it.

Duvduv

So let me restate it as referring to "people who in some form or other believed in a Christ messiah or savior...."