Adam

I guess I mistook you for for more cynicism here than is actual--I took your #76 as your main point, that the text of AH is too unverified to use for much.
So I'm supposed to see a real problem here with Irenaeus 150 years later saying that he knows Jesus was 50 when he died, but there is the Infancy Narrative (that no one here in FRDB believes) that sets his birth at 1 B. C? That this makes the Crucifixion about 50 A.D., which is later than half the events in Acts of the Apostles? That this proves that Acts and all of Paul (not to mention the gospels) were forged later by this same Irenaeus?

I'll admit this gives some comfort to convinced mythicists that some kind of a case can be made for overturning not just Christian orthodoxy, but 99% of reputable NT scholarship as well. But all this posturing "BUSTED' et all. Please! I'm taking note of people here who are not worth reading at all. At least I learned that much from the time I put into reading this thread, enough not to do another like it again.

Sheshbazzar

Sorry Adam, if you continue to join us in this Forum there will be plenty of future threads where Skeptics and Atheists will continue to discuss matters at length, some of which you won't care for.
No one here is forcing, or even requesting you to continue perusing this thread.
If you don't like its content or its length, it is perfectly acceptable for you to simply GTFO.

aa5874

You think Christians are BRAIN-DEAD??

A lot of people who post here were once Christians.

It may surprise you but Christians are NOT brain-dead.

Now, this is the END for the claim that the Pauline writings are from the 1st century.

"Against Heresies" 2.22 has UTTERLY DESTROYED the History of the Church, the NT Canon with Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

In "AH' 2.22, it is argued that JOHN the disciple of Jesus, the other Apostles and the ELDERS ALL TESTIFIED to people in ASIA that Jesus was about 50 years old when he was crucified.

Such a PUBLIC argument against 2nd century Heretics MUST be based on the PREMISE that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were UNKNOWN to the Heretics and the PUBLIC in the 2nd century.

In 2 Cor. 11.32-33 and Acts 9.24-25 it is claimed Paul was in a basket by a wall in Damascus during the REIGN of King Aretas.

King Aretas DIED before the reign of Claudius.

Acts of the Apostles, PAUL and the Pauline writings were UNKNOWN to the HERETICS and the PUBLIC in the 2nd century.

Sheshbazzar

What was it that I said?
From Post #42
Zombie Jebus Brain Disease makes its victims hear (or read) only what they want to hear or read

aa5874

So, I am supposed to ACCEPT what ADAM says about Jesus 1800 years later?

Well, Irenaeus will ASK you two questions.

'Against Heresies' 2.22
After 1800 years, why should WE believe Adam who never SAW an apostle and who never in his dreams attained the slightest trace of an apostle?

Kent F

If Jesus was 50 years old when he was crucified, then that's the opinion of Irenaeus and only proves that the story of Jesus on earth is still under construction. It sure doesn't prove this:
First: why do you include Acts in this? Of course Acts was unknown by the heretics because Acts is a creation of the Catholic church. Paul is not.

Irenaeus mentions and quotes Paul in the very first book of Against Heresies, and he does so in an argument against the heretic Valentinus, who died some two decades earlier. So how can the 2nd century heretic Valentinus be unaware of Paul when he's attacked by Irenaeus for misusing what the apostle had written?

The same with Marcion, who supposedly died even earlier, and was the first known collector of the Pauline epistles, attacked by Irenaeus, as well as Tertullian and others.

Both these heretics had plenty of followers, before Irenaeus wrote his books. The christian Justin Martyr also preceded Irenaeus and he quotes from several of the Pauline epistles.

Irenaeus constructs a theory supposing that Jesus had walked on earth and had died at the age of 50, because it was only by this age he could be a teacher and have disciples. This proves that the Jesus story is bogus, but it doesn't prove Paul is bogus, because Paul believed in a spiritual Jesus. Huge difference.

Irenaeus is the first to quote extensively from the Pastoral letters, and he used these letters to prove that Paul was not a gnostic. By your account, he or someone else first fabricated the so called genuine epistles which could be interpreted as Paul was a gnostic and then Irenaeus or someone else had to fabricate the pastorals to prove what they themselves had written earlier was not gnostic??

Most serious scholars agree that there are a whole lot of interpolations in the Pauline epistles. Why would this be the case if the epistles were written as late as you claim? Irenaeus had the backing of an Emperor. What stopped him from writing or re-writing the Epistles so that they confirmed the Catholic doctrine at that time in every aspect? Why didn't he or someone else add more historical detail into the Epistles, confirming without a doubt that Paul was aware of a Jesus as portrayed in the gospels? Where's Bethlehem, Nazareth, the virgin Mary, John the Baptist, the twelve disciples, Jesus miracles, Lazarus, the trial and crucifixion in Jerusalem, the empty tomb? Paul's writings are so extensive it would have been a piece of cake for Irenaeus or someone else to add at least some of these details into the epistles. Instead, they are all missing. Instead, they are full of phrases which gnostic heretics took to their hearts. Why?

It's much more logical to assume that the genuine Pauline epistles had a different origin, that Paul indeed were "the apostle of the heretics", i.e. the founder of an earlier church and then his writings were stolen by the later Catholic church - with the help of the creation of Acts and the Pastorals. This explains why the Epistles look the way they do, why Marcion had them and why they have been interpolated later with no historical details about Jesus.

mountainman

What do you mean Acts was unknown to the heretics?
The heretics were responsible for the authorship of ....

The Act of Peter
The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew
The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew
The Acts of Andrew and John (*H)
The Acts of Andrew and Matthew (*H)
The Acts of Barnabas
The Acts of Bartholomew
The Acts of John the Theologian
The Acts of Luke
The Acts of Mark
The Acts of Matthew
The Acts of Paul and Thecla
The Acts of Peter and Andrew
The Acts of Peter and Paul
The Acts of Philip
The Acts of Pilate
The Acts of Simon and Jude
The Acts of Thaddaeus
The Acts of Timothy
The Acts of Titus
The Acts of Andrew (*H)
The Acts of John (*H)
The Acts of Paul (*R)
The Acts of Peter
The Acts of Thomas
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles


n.b. the (*H) denotes that this specific Act was awarded the official status of heretical by the Master Heresiologist Eusebius.

All the canonical books of the NT are a creation of the church, the question is really in which century the authorship was "divinely inspired", and at the moment the early centuries are not looking good.

Sheshbazzar

What do you mean Acts was unknown to the heretics? :hysterical: (me) + :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: + + + +> Skeptics & Atheists
Christianity was a frigging forging - factory.

aa5874

Your claim is ILLOGICAL. If Jesus was indeed crucified at about 50 then that would be a FACT not an opinion.

In "Against Heresies" 2.22, it is STATED quite clearly that JOHN the DISCIPLE of JESUS, the Other APOSTLES and ALL the ELDERS did CONVEY the INFORMATION that Jesus was about to be fifty years old when he was crucified.

The claim that Jesus was about to be 50 years old at crucifixion was NOT based solely on John 8.57 but on the information from JOHN the DISCIPLE of JESUS, the other APOSTLES and ALL the ELDERS.

Please EXAMINE "Against Heresies" 2.22
"Against Heresies"2.22 is NOT about opinion it is about a TRADITION handed down by JOHN THE DISCIPLE OF THE LORD who LIVED up to 98-117 CE, the OTHER APOSTLES and the ELDERS.

The TRADITION of JOHN, the Elders and the Apostles that Jesus was crucified when he was about to be FIFTY years MUST mean that ACTS of the Apostles, Paul and the Pauline writings could NOT have been known to the author of the 2000 word argument in 'AH' 2.22 and NOT known to those Heretics against whom the PUBLIC argument was made.

Your statement is BLATANTLY ERRONEOUS.

Justin Martyr did NOT mention Paul, the Pauline writings or Acts of the Apostles.

arnoldo

Due to the heavy use of Pauline writings by Marcion and other so called heretics it's not surprising that Justin Martyr or Irenaeus would avoid quoting Paul. However earlier writers who lived before the so called heretics made their full impact upon the early church quoted Paul extensively. For example Clement quotes from 1 Corinthians 1:12 (Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?)in the following passage.


Additionally, another early christian writer, Ignatius of Antioch also quotes from the 1 Corinthians in the following passage.


Compared with 1 Corinthians 1:20-25