aa5874

The more I read the writings from the Church it is becoming clearer to me that they were not known OUTSIDE the Church itself. It would seem that the Church writings were wholly or in part just written for the sole purpose of "INVENTING" history and then STORED.

There are many major contradictions, false statements and errors in the Church writings that would have been EASILY recognized by their opponents, HERETICS and Secular Historians, and would have gravely undermined the Church writer's arguments.

For example, it is claimed by a Church historian that Irenaeus wrote "Against Heresies" in the 2nd century but upon reading "Against Heresies" Irenaeus made a claim so outrageous, so erroneous and so illogical, even when using his own Gospel of Luke, that I find it extremely difficult to believe any heretic, any secular historian or writer, Jewish or non-Jewish, ever saw "Against Heresies" in the 2nd century or around 180 CE.

It would be expected that Irenaeus would have known the AGE OF JESUS at crucifixion based on the tradition of the Church, after all Irenaeus was supposed to be a BISHOP of the Church.

It would be expected that Irenaeus would have been able to make a chronologically sound argument for the AGE of Jesus at crucifixion once he opposed those HERETICS who claimed Jesus was ONLY 30 years old when he suffered.

The claims are basic.

1. Heretics claimed Jesus was crucified when he was 30 years.

2. Irenaeus claimed Jesus was OVER 50 years old when he was crucified.

Now, the points put forward by Irenaeus are so fundamentally ridiculous, weak and erroneous that it is inconceivable any HERETIC or secular Historian, Jewish or non-Jewish, did see and read "Against Heresies.

Irenaeus' argument would have been INSTANTLY destroyed and the passage in "Against Heresies" immediately RIPPED to Shreds.

Irenaeus claimed Jesus was about 30 years old when he was baptized in gLuke or at around the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

"Against Heretics" II. XXII.VIrenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified under Pilate.

"Against Heresies" XXXII.IV
Jesus of the NT could NOT have been OVER 50 years old once Irenaeus claimed Jesus was about 30 years at the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius and crucified under Pilate.

ALL secular historians would have KNOWN Irenaeus was completely in error. Heretics would have LAUGHED at Irenaeus.

Based on Irenaeus' OWN words Jesus could have been NO MORE than around 37 years old.

Who heard and saw Irenaeus self-destruct with such a ridiculous argument in the 2nd century?

No HERETIC or historian, Jewish and non-Jewish, external of the Church ever saw or heard "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus where he claimed Jesus was OVER 50 years old.

It is my view that "Against Heresies" by "Irenaeus" is wholly or in part PLANTED EVIDENCE known and fabricated by the Church for their "Church History" written long after the end of the 2nd century.

Transient

I remember reading a thread on tweb about those "50 years" - the christians there maintained that Irenaeus didn't mean 50 at all - beats me - I read it all and was no wiser afterwards - it seems that people can argue that black is white and win if that keep bashing away at it.
Try taking the argument to tweb and see how long it lasts there
btw I agree with what you are saying.

stephan huller

Actually Irenaeus's argument was that Jesus was ALMOST fifty or about 49 at the time of his crucifixion (ignore the title of the chapter in the English translation which wasn't written by Irenaeus and doesn't appear in the original manuscripts)

But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad," they answered Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, "Thou art not yet forty years old." For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year [AH ii.22.6]

I would argue that if it is conceded that Irenaeus is inventing this claim we have to wonder why the number 50 was chosen (or 49). There can be only one answer in my mind. Despite 'attacking' his enemies - i.e. the Marcosians - for their kabbalistic interest in numbers, he nevertheless has to find a number pregnant with mystical significance to get them to believe that he wasn't thirty (itself a number which they think is highly significant).

aa5874

Jesus of the NT could NOT have been 49 years old if he was about 30 years old during the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius and was crucified under Pilate.

It is NOT chronologically possible.

Irenaeus argument was totally ridiculous and most likely was not seen or heard by any Heretic or secular historian of the 2nd century.

And further, no Church writer seemed to have noticed the blatant error of Irenaeus which augments the theory that "Against Heresies" was PLANTED EVIDENCE which was written and then STORED away.

Iskander

Robin Fox includes Irenaeus among the “Christian elders in Asia”, preferring to focus on Luke and John ---- implying that Iranaeus is a minor figure.

Fox is asking, in the quote below, how old was Jesus when he began to preach.

The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible
Robin Lane Fox
Penguin; New Ed edition (6 July 2006)
ISBN-13: 978-0141022963
Pgs 34-35

stephan huller

Okay. I'd say that even the most pious orthodox believer would agree with you (although there is another thing you haven't noted - Irenaeus EVEN goes so far as to argue that the date of the crucifixion was in the reign of Claudius!). The real question you have to answer is WHY Irenaeus makes up this stupid story?

My answer is that he is trying to destroy the heretical interest in the number 30 with a parallel poison the numbers 49 and 50 i.e. trying to combat heroin addition by introducing cocaine to the addict.

The question is can you come up with a better explanation.

The pious will again just laugh and say 'Irenaeus is mistaken' or 'sometimes he goes to far' being inspired by the Holy Spirit or something stupid like that. The question is again HOW DO WE EXPLAIN HIS MISINFORMATION? Is it a lie or 'mistake'? If it is a lie why is it THIS LIE i.e. the 49 and 50?

Just for your information the reason why the editors went wrong saying that he was 'more than fifty' is that they misunderstood the age of a 'master' i.e. Latin magister to be fifty. The passage is here:

Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He has appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be "the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence," the Prince of life, existing before all, and going before all. [AH ii.22.4]

They seemed to have assumed that fifty was the proper age of a magister but clearly this is incorrect. Chapman not only establishes the correct age as between 40 and 50 but the fact that a man became a magister at forty:

http://books.google.com/books?id=XG0...enaeus&f=false

Incidentally Chapman explains Irenaeus's argument as a misunderstanding of Papias FYI

aa5874

Irenaeus clearly stated that Jesus died under Pilate.

"Against Heresies" 2. 32.4"Against Heresies 3.4.2"Against Heresies" 5. Irenaeus did NOT argue at all that the date of the crucifixion was in the time of Cladius.

Irenaeus claimed multiple times that Jesus Christ was crucified under Pilate.

But, why are you making the claim that Irenaeus argued that Jesus was crucified under Claudius when he claimed Jesus was crucufied under Pilate?

You need to answer that first.

It is my view that no so-called Heretic or secular historian saw or heard that "stupid story" from Irenaeus in the 2nd century or else Irenaeus would have been made a laughing stock and the passage would have to be pulled.

Once it is claimed Jesus was about 30 years old at the 15th year of Tiberius and was crucified under Pilate then he could not have been 49 years old when he suffered.

It is not conceivable that Irenaeus publicly presented such a stupid story to heretics and to secular historians.

"Against Heresies" appears to be PLANTED evidence.

stephan huller

Irenaeus in Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 74 identifies Pilate as "the governor of Claudius Caesar."

aa5874

Please quote the passage itself in Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 74 where Irenaeus identifies Pilate as the "governor of Claudius Caesar."

stephan huller

And again David (says) thus concerning the sufferings of Christ: Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people imagine vain things? Kings rose up on the earth, and princes were gathered together, against the Lord and his Anointed.(Ps. ii. 1 f.) For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified. For Herod feared, as though He were to be an earthly king, lest he should be expelled by Him from the kingdom. But Pilate was constrained by Herod and the Jews that were with him against his will to deliver Him to death: (for they threatened him) if he should not rather do this than act contrary to Caesar, by letting go a man who was called a king.

Notice the interest in Psalm 2 again with its reference to "the Lord and his Christ." I am not even sure that all the attacks against those who divide 'Jesus' and 'Christ' in the surviving collection of Irenaeus's writings (i.e. the Five Books) actually belong to Irenaeus. There are authentic 'bits' throughout but I don't have a clue how much is actually from Irenaeus. If it turned out even less than fifty percent was actually by Irenaeus I would be as shocked as let's say it turns out that I am related to the royal family.