Bernard Muller

Duvduv wrote:
I agree with that. He would rather do his homework on Heretics, scriptures and Christian writings. He was not about finding the truth, just do orthodox Christian propaganda.

AtheistGamer

Oh ok. So aa is trying to use an argument from silence. That's a big fallacy. Especially when it comes to doing history.

aa5874

Your claim is total BS.

gLuke and gJohn has enough information to show that the SUPPOSED Jesus was crucified under Tiberius.

Now, if you claim Irenaeus was NOT aware of Josephus then why did he claim Jesus was crucified under CLAUDIUS Caesar when Claudius is NOT mentioned at all in the Gospels when Jesus was crucified???

None of the Canonical Gospels mentioned CLAUDIUS or that Pilate was the governor of Claudius.

Luke 3:1 KJVJohn 18:13-24 KJV
The author of Against Heresies" 2.22 did NOT know of Luke 3.1 and John 18 because NOWHERE in gLuke and all the Gospels is it stated that Pilate was a governor of Claudius.

And NOWHERE in Josephus is it stated that Pilate was a Governor of Claudius.

"Against Heresies" is a massive forgery since Irenaeus would be regarded as an IDIOT, a LIAR or a Madman or a combination of all three in the 2nd century if he dared to argue Jesus was about 50 years old when he suffered while gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were SUPPOSEDLY already known and circulated in the Roman Empire.

Bernard Muller

And where would that be, evidence please? I mean where is it specified the crucifixion happened when Tiberius was still emperor in gLuke or gJohn? Do not hesitate to quote the verses.

Irenaeus calculated that a twenty years ministry would bring the crucifixion within Claudius' reign. He could have got the "imperial" dating from any chronology of Roman emperors. But obviously he was not aware of the one of Pilate.

Does it matter? Didn't I say already it is most likely Irenaeus did not read (or forgot about) the relevant passages indicating the duration of Pilate's rule as governor and the fact he was removed before Tiberius' death?

aa5874

Where in gLuke and gJohn is it stated that Pilate was a governor of Claudius Caesar?

Where in gLuke and gJohn is it stated that Jesus was crucified when Pilate was governor under Claudius Caesar??

Please look again at the "Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching" attributed to Irenaeus.

Nowhere in gLuke and gJohn can such nonsense be found that Pilate was the Governor of Claudius Caesar.

Please, explain where Irenaeus, the supposed Presbyter and Bishop, got his bogus info???

Bernard Muller

Did I say "in gLuke and gJohn it is stated that Pilate was a governor of Claudius Caesar"? NO

Did I say "in gLuke and gJohn it is stated that Jesus was crucified when Pilate was governor under Claudius Caesar"? NO

It is like me saying to you, out of the blue:
Where is it stated the moon is flat? And expect an answer from you, defending the moon is actually flat.

But I am still asking you: where is it specified the crucifixion happened when Tiberius was still emperor in gLuke or gJohn?

Because you wrote: "gLuke and gJohn has enough information to show that the SUPPOSED Jesus was crucified under Tiberius."

Just explain that. Don't change the subject and mess up the issues.

I already explained. I have to repeat myself:
"Irenaeus calculated that a twenty years ministry would bring the crucifixion within Claudius' reign. He could have got the "imperial" dating from any chronology of Roman emperors. But obviously he was not aware of the one of Pilate."

aa5874

You have NOT explained where Irenaeus got the name "Pilate the Governor of Claudius Caesar"??

Did you NOT say Irenaeus was NOT interested secular history???

Did you NOT conclude that Irenaeus did NOT know much about Josephus???

Well, Mullerb, Irenaeus did NOT know of gLuke and gJohn. That is the FINAL explanation. Repeat it for yourself.

Pilate the governor of Claudius Caesar is NOT in gLuke, gJohn, Josephus and secular history.

If Irenaeus knew of gLuke, gJohn, Josephus and secular history he would NOT have claimed Pilate was the Governor of Claudius Caesar.

But, even most SIGNIFICANT, we know that the Church and the Heretics could NOT have known Irenaeus was either an IDIOT, A liar and a Madman or combination of all three in the 2nd century . They too did NOT know of gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings in the 2nd century.

"Against Heresies" is a MASSIVE forgery.

Bernard Muller

This is not a name. This is only a way for Irenaeus to indicate he thought Pilate was still governor during Claudius' rule.
I did not say he did not know anything about the most basic historical facts of his time, such as the list and years of rule of the past emperors, which was most likely well known, without getting into detailed studies, or reading Josephus' works.
At about the same time, Clement of Alexandria provided two lists of Roman emperors with years of rule for each in 'Stromata', I, XXI. Nothing to do with Josephus' works.
WHAT? All over his works, Irenaeus quoted gospels and named their alleged authors. In AH 2.22, he quoted extensively gJohn and named John as the alleged author. He also quoted gLuke and named Luke as the alleged author.
I quote from AH 2.22
But again you are trying to confuse the issues. I repeat, there is no indication in gLuke or gJohn that Jesus was crucified when Tiberius was ruling. If there is, why don't you tell that to all, as I already asked you.
Irenaeus knew about gLuke & gJohn, about some parts of Josephus' works, about some historical basics such as the succession of emperor but obviously not about the duration of Pilate's rule in Judea (at the time of writing).

aa5874

Of course "Against Heresies" and Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching" attributed to Irenaeus can be used to DEDUCE if the author was aware of any Canonised writings.

The very first thing that must be considered is that Irenaeus was claimed by the Church to be a Presbyter and Bishop of the Church.

Secondly, and of Great importance, the author was attempting to describe the ORTHODOX teachings of the Church with regards to Jesus.

Thirdly, "Against Heresies" and Demostration of Apostolic Preaching" should have been known by the Church itself and the Heretics against whom the very books were written.

Fourthly, the very Heretics were arguing that Jesus was crucified about 30 years old.

Now, if Irenaeus claimed Jesus was NOT the Son of Mary and that his father was Philo, the Jew of Alexandria, people would deduce that Irenaeus did NOT know the Gospels.

Well, Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old which shows that he could NOT have known of gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings which corroborates an EARLIER writer Justin Martyr.

Again, look at the FACTS.

1. In gLuke Jesus was supposedly about to be 30 years old in the I5th year of Tiberius. Luke 3

2. In gJohn, Jesus was supposedly crucified when in the year Caiaphas was High Priest. John 18

3. In Acts, Paul escaped in a basket by a wall in Damascus. Acts 9

4. In the Pauline writings Paul escaped in a basket in Damascus in the reign of Aretas. 1 Cor 11.31-32

The author of "Against Heresies" 2.22, the Church and the Heretics could NOT have known of gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

aa5874

Show me the list with Pilate as the Governor of Claudius

You MUST know that in the Stromata the author claimed he used gLuke TO PROVE Jesus was crucified at 30 years of age.

Stromata 1 If Irenaeus knew of gLuke then he would have been able TO PROVE Jesus was supposedly 30 YEARS at crucifixion when Tiberius was Emperor.

The Stromata has DESTROYED you. The author who claimed Jesus was about 50 years at crucifixion did NOT know of gLuke.


You make me LAUGH. This is like quoting the "TF" to prove Josephus wrote it.

You are quoting the FORGERIES in AH 2.22

Come on. "Against Heresies" is a massive forgery.

The author of the Stromata PROVED that Jesus was 30 years old by using Luke and DESTROYED your argument instantly.