The Pauline letters were Unknown up to the 2nd century

dejuror · #1 by **dejuror** » Jan 31, 2012 3:57 pm

It has been PRESUMED for Hundreds of years that the Pauline letters to the Churches were composed Before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE but I have discovered that it can be EASILY shown that the Pauline letters were UNKNOWN up to the writing of "Against Heresies" c 180 CE.

In "Against Heresies" it is claimed that Jesus was ABOUT to be 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius when he was baptized as written in gLuke. See "Against Heresies" 2.22.5

The 15th year of Tiberius is about 29-30 CE.

In the very same "Against Heresies" 2.22. it is claimed Jesus was CRUCIFIED when he was about 50 years old and NOT only that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years but that John, the other Apostles, and the VERY GOSPEL did state and CONVEY the message that Jesus was CRUCIFIED at about 50 years.

In "Against Heresies" 2.22, Jesus was CRUCIFIED during the reign of Claudius and around 45-50 CE.

But, there is A MASSIVE problem, if the author of Against Heresies 2.22 did KNOW of Paul, the Pauline letters to the Churches and Acts of the Apostles he would have KNOWN the Paul preached that Jesus was CRUCIFIED since 37-41 CE during the time of Aretas.

2 Corinthians 11:32 KJV

In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison , desirous to apprehend me...

The reign of Aretas ended c 41

In the Pauline writings , Paul preached Jesus was Crucified since 37-41 CE

The author of "Against Heresies" 2.22 could NOT have known of Paul, the Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles or else he would have known that Jesus was supposedly ALREADY Crucified BEFORE Paul escaped from Damascus during the reign of ARETAS c 37-41 CE.

The Pauline letters to the Churches are ALL AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple and AFTER "Against Heresies" 2.22 c 180 CE.

The claim that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years in "Against Heresies" 2.22 also CONFIRMS that "Against Heresies" was MANIPULATED.

NamelessFaceless · #2 by **NamelessFaceless** » Jan 31, 2012 5:17 pm

Mostly just bookmarking, but is it possible the author of "Against Heresies" (is it Irenaeus?) got the '50 years of age' from the passage in gJohn 8:57 that says: "You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” and just didn't do a good job of cross-checking the math?

willhud9 · #3 by **willhud9** » Jan 31, 2012 6:16 pm

Wait....I do not understand the logic behind this reasoning. Irenaeus quotes from almost all the books of the New Testament aside from Philemon, Jude, 2 Peter, and 3 John, and even includes noncanonical work such as 1 Clement and Shepard of Hermas. To cite books would have to mean that the books were in circulation and known which suggests that the Pauline epistles were known prior to the writing of On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis. Furthermore, like NamelessFaceless stated above, there is a degree of uncertainty when discussing Jesus' age and ministry.

Furthermore furthermore, Irenaeus defends Paul's teachings against the criticisms launched by the Valentinian Gnostics. So yes, Irenaeus HAD to have known about Paul's epistles.

Finally, so what if Irenaeus botched his dates? The purpose of the text was not to address history but to address claims made against the Pauline epistles. Claims made against the Pauline epistles mean they were known prior to the 2nd Century and had been in circulation so that Irenaeus, who uses casual references within his text, need not explain himself deeply because people would have been familiar with the works of Paul already.

dejuror · #4 by **dejuror** » Feb 01, 2012 1:40 am

NamelessFaceless wrote:Mostly just bookmarking, but is it possible the author of "Against Heresies" (is it Irenaeus?) got the '50 years of age' from the passage in gJohn 8:57 that says: "You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” and just didn't do a good job of cross-checking the math?

The author called Irenaeus did state that Jesus was crucified under Claudius Caesar.

"The Proof of Apostolic Preaching" attributed to Irenaeus

For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar,206 came together and condemned Him to be crucified....

Again, if the author knew of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings he could NOT have made such an error.

Irenaeus was supposed to be a Bishop of the Church and a presbyter so he should have KNOWN that Paul preached CHRIST CRUCIFIED since 37-41 CE but it is CLEAR that he did NOT know of Acts of the Apostles, Paul and the Pauline writings.

willhud9 · #5 by **willhud9** » Feb 01, 2012 1:54 am

dejuror wrote:
NamelessFaceless wrote:Mostly just bookmarking, but is it possible the author of "Against Heresies" (is it Irenaeus?) got the '50 years of age' from the passage in gJohn 8:57 that says: "You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” and just didn't do a good job of cross-checking the math?

The author called Irenaeus did state that Jesus was crucified under Claudius Caesar.

"The Proof of Apostolic Preaching" attributed to Irenaeus
For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar,206 came together and condemned Him to be crucified....

Again, if the author knew of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings he could NOT have made such an error.

Irenaeus was supposed to be a Bishop of the Church and a presbyter so he should have KNOWN that Paul preached CHRIST CRUCIFIED since 37-41 CE but it is CLEAR that he did NOT know of Acts of the Apostles, Paul and the Pauline writings.

Or he made an error like a lot of people did. :dunno:

dejuror · #6 by **dejuror** » Feb 01, 2012 2:16 am

willhud9 wrote:Finally, so what if Irenaeus botched his dates? .....

Well, that is the MASSIVE problem with "Against Heresies" 2.22.

Do you know that it was claimed Irenaeus was a Presbyter and Bishop of the Church?

So, it is NOT a simple question of bothched dates--Irenaeus PRESENTED an argument AGAINST the Heretics as an ELDER of the Church.

The HERETICS claimed Jesus was crucified at 30 years old and Irenaeus argued they were WRONG--He was crucified at about 50 years

Irenaeus did NOT use the Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles when he argued AGAINST the Heretics about the crucifixion date.

Once the Heretics had knowledge of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings then Irenaeus would have been found to be a LIAR and his CREDIBILTY destroyed.

It must be remembered that "Against Heresies" is supposed to be a Documented Argument which was made AGAINST the Heretics.

What teachings and doctrine were TAUGHT to Irenaeus as an ELDER of the Church and how long did Irenaeus PREACH, TEACH and ARGUE that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old.

It is CLEAR that the writer called Irenaeus as an ELDER, PRESBYTER and BISHOP of the Church could NOT have known of Acts of the Apostles, Pauline writings, did NOT KNOW of Paul and NEITHER DID the Heretics.

The Publicly Circulated argument that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old ONLY makes sense if the HERETICS ALSO were NOT aware of Acts of the Apostles, Paul and the Pauline letters.

dejuror · #7 by **dejuror** » Feb 01, 2012 2:24 am

willhud9 wrote:
Or he made an error like a lot of people did.

Irenaeus was an ELDER, a Presbyter and then Bishop of the Church so he MUST have been indoctrinated with the Teachings of the Church.

There is NO ERROR--We have a Publicly documented argumemt AGAINST Heretics who are claiming that Jesus was crucified at about 30 years old.

willhud9 · #8 by **willhud9** » Feb 01, 2012 2:27 am

and yet makes direct references to 1 Corinthians within his book and addressed Gnostic claims against the Pauline epistles. Something does not add up. If he makes references to various Pauline epistles, address claims against Paul made by the Gnostics, you come to the conclusion that he could not have known Paul's existence because he said that Jesus was crucified around 50 AD instead of 33 AD? You make a leap of faith there Dejuror.

willhud9 · #9 by **willhud9** » Feb 01, 2012 2:29 am

dejuror wrote:
willhud9 wrote:
Or he made an error like a lot of people did.

Irenaeus was an ELDER, a Presbyter and then Bishop of the Church so he MUST have been indoctrinated with the Teachings of the Church.

There is NO ERROR--We have a Publicly documented argumemt AGAINST Heretics who are claiming that Jesus was crucified at about 30 years old.

So being an elder, a presbyter, and a bishop makes one immune to errors. And people call Christians crazy for believing in infallibility.

dejuror · **#10** by **dejuror** » Feb 01, 2012 3:07 am

willhud9 wrote:and yet makes direct references to 1 Corinthians within his book and addressed Gnostic claims against the Pauline epistles. Something does not add up. If he makes references to various Pauline epistles, address claims against Paul made by the Gnostics, you come to the conclusion that he could not have known Paul's existence because he said that Jesus was crucified around 50 AD instead of 33 AD? You make a leap of faith there Dejuror.

...Yet claims Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old.

....Yet claims John, the other disciples and Elders of the Church PREACHED that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old.

"Against Heresies" REPRESENTS a Massive Forgery and Manipulation.

You seem to be rather naive.

There are more than ONE author of "Against Heresies".

T

willhud9 · **#11** by **willhud9** » Feb 01, 2012 3:29 am

dejuror wrote:
willhud9 wrote:and yet makes direct references to 1 Corinthians within his book and addressed Gnostic claims against the Pauline epistles. Something does not add up. If he makes references to various Pauline epistles, address claims against Paul made by the Gnostics, you come to the conclusion that he could not have known Paul's existence because he said that Jesus was crucified around 50 AD instead of 33 AD? You make a leap of faith there Dejuror.

...Yet claims Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old.

First of all, where is this magic 50 coming from?

Most references I get have Irenaeus putting Jesus' death anywhere from 30-45 years of age. NOT just 50 years flat.

....Yet claims John, the other disciples and Elders of the Church PREACHED that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old.

Nowhere that I have found has him making this claim. He does his best using the 4 Gospels and Pauline epistles to make a timeline for Jesus' birth and Crucifixion. Seeing as today's biblical scholars cannot come to agreement on both, it's hardly a surprise that Irenaeus differed from Paul on Jesus' age when he died.

"Against Heresies" REPRESENTS a Massive Forgery and Manipulation.

A massive forgery by whom and what? Historical evidence pray tell or be gone with your conspiracy theory!

You seem to be rather naive.

and you seem to be stubborn, but instead of pointing out faults in the person, why not stick to the argument.

There are more than ONE author of "Against Heresies".

Oh! Who are they?

dejuror · **#12** by **dejuror** » Feb 01, 2012 4:33 am

willhud9 wrote:
So being an elder, a presbyter, and a bishop makes one immune to errors. And people call Christians crazy for believing in infallibility.

Infallibility has NOTHING to do with the claim that Jesus was about fifty years old when he was Crucified in "Against Heresies" 2.22. Irenaeus PRESENTED an argument AGAINST Heretics who claimed Jesus was crucified when he was about 30 years old which is THE VERY SAME teaching of the Church.

Do you NOT understand that the Heretics were claiming Jesus was crucified at about the age of 30?

It could NOT be an ERROR. Irenaeus simply did NOT know of the Age of Jesus when he was crucified because he NEVER did have Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

Was Irenaeus SO DUMB that he ARGUED AGAINST the Church of which he was a Presbyter and Bishop?

Do you NOT understand that The Church and its writers, LIKE the Heretics, also claimed Jesus was crucified at about 30 years of age?

Clement of Alexandria claimed Jesus was crucified when he was 30 years old EXACTLY as the Heretics.

The Stromata

And again in the same book: “And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old,” and so on. And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: “He has sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord .” This both the prophet spoke, and the Gospel. Accordingly, in fifteen years of Tiberius and fifteen years of Augustus; so were completed the thirty years till the time He suffered.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are Comptatible with the claim that Jesus was crucified at about 30 years but NOT at about 50 years.

The author of Against Heresies 2.22 did NOT know of Paul, the Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles.

willhud9 · **#13** by **willhud9** » Feb 01, 2012 5:06 am

dejuror wrote:
willhud9 wrote:
So being an elder, a presbyter, and a bishop makes one immune to errors. And people call Christians crazy for believing in infallibility.

Infallibility has NOTHING to do with the claim that Jesus was about fifty years old when he was Crucified in "Against Heresies" 2.22. Irenaeus PRESENTED an argument AGAINST Heretics who claimed Jesus was crucified when he was about 30 years old which is THE VERY SAME teaching of the Church.

Do you NOT understand that the Heretics were claiming Jesus was crucified at about the age of 30?

It could NOT be an ERROR. Irenaeus simply did NOT know of the Age of Jesus when he was crucified because he NEVER did have Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

First of all Acts is not Pauline. The most conservative scholars attribute it to the author of gLuke, but modern scholarship does not know who wrote it. Second of all, nowhere in the Pauline epistles does Paul discuss Jesus' life, age, etc. When he does, he never uses exact numbers or dates. So the only books that Irenaeus would have used in determining the dates of Jesus' crucifixion were the 4 gospels (which were written in his day). We do not know if Acts was written, since we do not know it's authorship. But this argument does not mean Irenaeus did not know Paul or the Pauline epistles. I have stated multiple times that he quoted and cited directly from 1 Corinthians and other epistles. So the epistles WERE around, and Irenaeus like other attributed them to Paul.

Was Irenaeus SO DUMB that he ARGUED AGAINST the Church of which he was a Presbyter and Bishop?

Being mistaken in dating and being dumb are too completely different things.

Do you NOT understand that The Church and its writers, LIKE the Heretics, also claimed Jesus was crucified at about 30 years of age?

Clement of Alexandria claimed Jesus was crucified when he was 30 years old EXACTLY as the Heretics.

The Stromata
And again in the same book: “And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old,” and so on. And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: “He has sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord .” This both the prophet spoke, and the Gospel. Accordingly, in fifteen years of Tiberius and fifteen years of Augustus; so were completed the thirty years till the time He suffered.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are Comptatible with the claim that Jesus was crucified at about 30 years but NOT at about 50 years.

Yes, hence many scholars dismiss Irenaeus' dating today.

The author of Against Heresies 2.22 did NOT know of Paul, the Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles.

And again you make a jump from A and B to point F. Acts of the Apostles is not a Pauline writing, but he did know the Pauline writings because he took citations from these epistles. If he knew the Pauline epistles than it's fairly certain he knew of the author of these epistles which was Paul. So Irenaeus knew of Paul.

dejuror · **#14** by **dejuror** » Feb 01, 2012 6:38 am

willhud9 wrote:
First of all Acts is not Pauline. The most conservative scholars attribute it to the author of gLuke, but modern scholarship does not know who wrote it....

Irenaeus was NOT a conservative Scholar and the supposed Church writers claimed Acts of the Apostles was authentic and written by a companion of Paul.

Church writers of antiquity used Acts as an historical account including the writer under the name of Irenaeus.

By the way, No-one knows who wrote the Pauline writings because they were NOT written in the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple. The Pauline writings are NOT historically reliable and the author affixed NO dates to the letters.

willhud9 wrote:...Second of all, nowhere in the Pauline epistles does Paul discuss Jesus' life, age, etc. When he does, he never uses exact numbers or dates. So the only books that Irenaeus would have used in determining the dates of Jesus' crucifixion were the 4 gospels (which were written in his day). We do not know if Acts was written, since we do not know it's authorship. But this argument does not mean Irenaeus did not know Paul or the Pauline epistles. I have stated multiple times that he quoted and cited directly from 1 Corinthians and other epistles. So the epistles WERE around, and Irenaeus like other attributed them to Paul.

It is Remarkably easy to determine if the Pauline Jesus was claimed to be crucified during the reign of Claudius.

It is as easy as 1-2-3.

1. PAUL preached CHRIST CRUCIFIED. 1 Cor.1.23

2. PAUL preached CHRIST CRUCIFIED in Damascus when he escaped during the reign of Aretas ---NO later than 40 CE. 2 Cor.11.32-33.
3. PAUL preached CHRIST CRUCIFIED at least 3 years BEFORE he escaped from Damascus during the reign of Aretas---No later than 37 CE. Galatians 1.16-18

The Pauline Jesus in the Pauline Epistles was CRUCIFIED no later than c 37 CE.

The author of "Against Heresies" 2.22 did NOT KNOW that PAUL implied that he preached CHRIST CRUCIFIED since at least 37 CE and NEITHER did the Church that Irenaeus attended.

The Pauline writings were UNKNOWN up to c 180 CE based on "Against Heresies" 2.22.

willhud9 · **#15** by **willhud9** » Feb 01, 2012 7:00 am

Dude, you are still making too many major leaps of faith to dismiss the Pauline writings. You are not making a solid connection, at best you have a few threads connected, but not enough to come to the conclusion you are reaching. You still have not addressed why the author of On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis was able to use the 4 Gospels, and the Pauline epistles within his writings if he had no knowledge of them before hand.

Not mentioning the fact that today modern scholars view Irenaeus' dates to be wrong. Irenaeus believed Paul to be an apostle for Jesus. Where the heck does his knowledge of Paul come into if he has no knowledge of Paul prior to his writings? Where the heck does he get the direct quotes from Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Colossians, etc? If not from the Pauline writings?

Furthermore, I have not read Against Heretics in over 2 years, and do not possess a copy. So if you would be so courteous as to provide the quotations of Irenaeus' passages where he dates Jesus' crucifixion, I'd be grateful!

dejuror · **#16** by **dejuror** » Feb 01, 2012 7:33 am

willhud9 wrote:Dude, you are still making too many major leaps of faith to dismiss the Pauline writings. You are not making a solid connection, at best you have a few threads connected, but not enough to come to the conclusion you are reaching. You still have not addressed why the author of On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis was able to use the 4 Gospels, and the Pauline epistles within his writings if he had no knowledge of them before hand....

Dude, you don't understand what FORGERIES are.

We have more than one author that composed "Against Heresies".

One author who did NOT know of the Pauline writings and another who did.

The author of Against Heresies 2.22 did NOT know of the Pauline writings.

Just like Antiquities of the Jews 18., the TF, had MORE than one author.

Josephus did NOT know of the TF.

It is REMARKABLY easy to tell when texts were manipulated because they tend to be CONTRADICTORY.

Macroinvertebrate · **#17** by **Macroinvertebrate** » Feb 01, 2012 9:35 am

willhud9 · **#18** by **willhud9** » Feb 01, 2012 6:24 pm

dejuror wrote:
willhud9 wrote:Dude, you are still making too many major leaps of faith to dismiss the Pauline writings. You are not making a solid connection, at best you have a few threads connected, but not enough to come to the conclusion you are reaching. You still have not addressed why the author of On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis was able to use the 4 Gospels, and the Pauline epistles within his writings if he had no knowledge of them before hand....

Dude, you don't understand what FORGERIES are.

Where is your scholarly evidence that it was forged? What other scholars agree with you on this? Provide the evidence. If not, it's just your opinion claim.

We have more than one author that composed "Against Heresies".

Again evidence is needed. Who are these other authors?

One author who did NOT know of the Pauline writings and another who did.

The author of Against Heresies 2.22 did NOT know of the Pauline writings.

Just like Antiquities of the Jews 18., the TF, had MORE than one author.

Josephus did NOT know of the TF.

And modern scholars are still in argument over the depth of context of that verse. But the thing is there is a scholarly debate concerning Joesphus' writings, where is the debate over Irenaeus' writings? Show me where other scholars have adopted your view and maybe, I will start listening with more rapt attention. Until then, I hold the notion that you are making a conclusion based off of speculative evidence. You have too many gaps.

It is REMARKABLY easy to tell when texts were manipulated because they tend to be CONTRADICTORY.

And this is why I ask you to provide the actual text from Against Heresies to show me that it is contradictory.

dejuror · **#19** by **dejuror** » Feb 01, 2012 6:58 pm

It is most preposterous that some think that ORDINARY people cannot read "Against Heresies" 2.22 and see that the author did NOT know that it is found in the Pauline letters that PAUL preached CHRIST CRUCIFIED since at least c 37 CE.

I did NOT come to this forum to BELIEVE and ACCEPT the Bible and the Church writings but to EXAMINE them for Credibility and historical veracity.

The supposed author of "Against Heresies" is claimed to have been a Presbyter and Bishop of the Church so he MUST HAVE been doctrinated and taught of the time of the crucifixion of Jesus.

What Church did Irenaeus attend that allowed him as a Presbyter and Bishop to ARGUE AGAINST Heretics that Jesus was crucified at around 30 years old when that was the also supposed to be the teachings of the Church?

Before Irenaeus, Justin Martyr wrote that Jesus was crucified by PILATE during the reign of TIBERIUS.

What Church did Irenaeus attend that allowed him to preach that Jesus was crucified during the reign of CLAUDIUS?

It was NOT the Pauline Church of the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Thessallonians, Philippians, or Colossians.

What Gospel did Irenaeus read that stated Jesus was crucified under CLAUDIUS?

It was NOT gMark, gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn.

Please look at "The Proof of Apostolic Preaching" attributed to Irenaeus

For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified....

As soon as Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified Under Claudius Caesar then we KNOW that he also could NOT have logically known of gLuke because ONLY gLuke SPECIFICALLY mentioned TIBERIUS the Emperor of Rome and that Pilate was the Governor under Tiberius, NOT Claudius.

Luke 3

1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee...

It is CLEAR that ONE of the authors of "Against Heresies" did NOT know of gLuke, Acts of the Apostles, Paul, the Pauline writings and the Pauline Churches up to c 180 CE.

dejuror · **#20** by **dejuror** » Feb 02, 2012 1:41 am

In some of Willhud's posts, he put forward a most absurd idea that Irenaeus made an error.

But it cannot be an error. We have TWO writings attributed to Irenaeus that are compatible with his view that Jesus was about 50 when he was crucified.

If One attempts to argue that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old in "Against Heresies" 2.22 was Simply an ERROR then the claim that Jesus was crucified when Claudius was Caesar in "The Proof of Apostolic Preaching" DESTROYS such an argument.

Now, because we have TWO writings attributed to Irenaeus which place the crucifixion during the time of Claudius we can now deduce that NOT even the Church, and the very Heretics were AWARE of gLuke, Acts of the Apostles, Paul, the Pauline writings and the Pauline Churches.

It would have been virtually impossible for Irenaeus to have made the VERY SAME Mistake twice and YEARS apart when the supposed Heretics and the Church would have SEEN the supposed first mistake and allowed him to continue to make the SAME ERROR.

People of the Churches and the Heretics who knew the actual history of any Pauline Churches, if they did exist at c 180 CE, should have told Irenaeus that PAUL preached CHRIST CRUCIFIED long Before the reign of Caudius.

People of the Churches and the Heretics that read Acts of the Apostles, if they did exist at c 180 CE, should have told Irenaeus that PAUL preached CHRIST CRUCIFIED long Before the reign of Claudius.

People of the Churches and the Heretics that read gLuke, if they did exist at c 180 CE, should have told Irenaeus that Jesus was crucified when Pilate was governor under TIBERIUS, NOT Claudius.

But we have TWO writings composed YEARS apart with the same claims that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years or under Claudius.

gLuke, Acts of the Apostles, Paul, the Pauline writings and Pauline Churches were UNKNOWN to people of Antiquity up to at least the 2nd century and this is also confirmed by Justin Martyr who NEVER used Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.