Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

cora wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:21 pm....... Irenaeus was going to do it: by constantly lying, forgery and complete fake he produced 22 books of the NT, and set up the catholic church. In 185 his book was ready in which he presented everything very casually.
greetings, Cora.

PS: Irenaeus even put himself in the sermon on the mount, where we find "Blessed are the peacebringers". Irenaeus means peacebringer. He wrote Mathew.

It is virtually impossible for Irenaeus to have produced 22 books of the NT and then claim Jesus was crucified when he was an old man at about 50 years of age.

Irenaeus' Against Heresies 2.22.4


Against Heresies 2.22.5

Irenaeus "Against Heresies" is a corrupted writing--a product of multiple authors.

Hai,
There are people working on Marcion and the rest of the gospels to find out the order. I cannot explain the method, it has to do with language.
It has been found: Marcion is first. Then comes Luke. Mark comes after Luke. Mathew is last.
Which means Luke is the first of the synoptics, which is logical because there are pieces of Marcion in it.
It is exactly as I had thought myself, but it seems proven now.
Which is the end of 1st century gospels.
Of course the whole biblical world will disagree, because Mark is so special being nr. 1. Too bad, I go with this research.

The whole Mark first idea works only if they are in chronological order in the NT. Well, they are not. Nothing in the NT is in chronological order. The letters of Paul WERE in chronological order. In the NT they are not anymore. Why would that be?

By the way, after Luke comes John. And after that Mark, and then Mathew. The NT order is probably theological. Irenaeus delivered them without order, the order was decided much later.

greetings, Cora.

cora wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:07 pm Hai,
There are people working on Marcion and the rest of the gospels to find out the order. I cannot explain the method, it has to do with language.
It has been found: Marcion is first. Then comes Luke. Mark comes after Luke. Mathew is last.
Which means Luke is the first of the synoptics, which is logical because there are pieces of Marcion in it.
It is exactly as I had thought myself, but it seems proven now.

LOL. Well, good. Glad to hear that has been settled.

cora wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:07 pm Hai,
There are people working on Marcion and the rest of the gospels to find out the order. I cannot explain the method, it has to do with language.
It has been found: Marcion is first. Then comes Luke. Mark comes after Luke. Mathew is last.
Which means Luke is the first of the synoptics, which is logical because there are pieces of Marcion in it.

The short gMark or its source must have been or most likely was the earliest version of the NT Jesus story. All other NT writers expanded on the Jesus story found in the gospel according to Mark.

As I have shown before the Temptation of Jesus in gMark is one of the many examples where it can be clearly seen that gMatthew and gLuke must be later versions of the Temptation.

The Tenptation story of Jesus in gMark required 1 single verse but in gMatthew and gLuke multiple fictional accounts were invented in the Temptation which was unknown to gMark.

See Mark 1.13 --Matthew 2.1-11 ---Luke 4.2-13.

Hakeem,
No, Irenaeus wrote "Against the gnostics" as it was called when he wrote it, all by himself. And the 22 books (partially forging only). And he still wrote much more. He seemed not to be able to stop. When he had died they found still the completely fake "martyrdom of Polycarp" in his papers, so he went on till his death with fake stories. He did the whole so-called catholic history from the year 0 till his own days. It had to be an ongoing story of course. They still have not found it out, so he was really good. He could write in different styles, which is very useful when you are interpolating. He was a great talent, he was a genius. And he let everything disappear that could point to the real origin and the real story.

About Jesus becoming 50: do you think Irenaeus is retarded or what? This man is the biggest liar in history. He writes that on purpose of course. In that way he has a totally other opinion than those 22 books he produced. In other words, he has personally nothing to do with the CONTENTS of those books. Very easy to see. You should not believe everything he writes. Better you should not believe anything he writes.
Jesus (which is a false name) did not exist. And he knew that before he started writing (he went checking in Judea). Jesus is only a paper-character from a fictional story, written in 72. So no, it did not happen. It was also not a gospel. But you could use it as such of course. The story is about a prophet, a normal human being. Irenaeus made a totally different story of it. He invented the resurrection, the core belief of Christians all over the world. He invented miracles. He came with the virgin Mary. It is all Irenaeus work.

I understand it must be difficult. It is, but it is the truth.
The only thing left of the original story is the middle part of Luke. Anyway it looks like it. Or the middle part of Marcion. The original story plays in Judea, there is no gallilea in it. Gallilea is there because of the birth stories. So Jesus of Nazareth is really completely fake.

greetings, Cora.

Hai,
It is all done by one person. Why he did it the way he did it I cannot answer. I cannot look in his brain. As you might understand the temptation story is fake. Jews do not have a devil. It is a catholic invention, of which we have had much "fun" during the ages. By coincidence I know who invented it: it was Justin Martyr. Crazy Justin is better. After his death his papers went to Irenaeus in 170. Everything with a devil in it is written therefore AFTER 170 by Irenaeus. Including Mark. Not 70, but 170. This is proved. Apart from that I found a rather large part of Justin in Mark. Satisfied? And don't say "this must be" because you don't know Irenaeus. He is way ahead of us all.
What do you think about stories written after 170? Are they true?

greetings, Cora.

cora wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:51 pm About Jesus becoming 50: do you think Irenaeus is retarded or what? This man is the biggest liar in history. He writes that on purpose of course. In that way he has a totally other opinion than those 22 books he produced. In other words, he has personally nothing to do with the CONTENTS of those books.

Your statement is contradictory. If Irenaeus was not retarded then why would he write things that makes him look dumb? And if he had nothing to do with the contents of the books then he had nothing to do with the contents of the 22 NT books that you supposed he wrote.

cora wrote: Very easy to see. You should not believe everything he writes. Better you should not believe anything he writes.

Based on my research, I believe "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus is a corrupted writing mutilated by multiple unknown writers at least as late as the 4th century.

It appears to me that Irenaeus was himself a heretic who wrote against the teachings of Church. Any supposed elder or bishop who preached that Jesus was crucified when he was an old man near fifty years of age could not have written or known of gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles unless they were retarded.

cora wrote:Jesus (which is a false name) did not exist. And he knew that before he started writing (he went checking in Judea). Jesus is only a paper-character from a fictional story, written in 72. So no, it did not happen. It was also not a gospel. But you could use it as such of course. The story is about a prophet, a normal human being. Irenaeus made a totally different story of it. He invented the resurrection, the core belief of Christians all over the world. He invented miracles. He came with the virgin Mary. It is all Irenaeus work.

Yeah. NT Jesus was a fictional character however I place the Jesus story no earlier than c 110 CE or after the writings of Tacitus and before Aristides' Apology.

cora wrote:I understand it must be difficult. It is, but it is the truth.
The only thing left of the original story is the middle part of Luke. Anyway it looks like it. Or the middle part of Marcion. The original story plays in Judea, there is no gallilea in it. Gallilea is there because of the birth stories. So Jesus of Nazareth is really completely fake.

greetings, Cora.

My position differs from yours. Based on my research, the original Jesus story was simply a conspiracy theory to explain the reason for the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE using supposed prophecies found in the OT.

Christian writers admitted that they believed the fall of the Jewish Temple must mean that the prophesied Jewish Messiah must have already come.

cora wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:14 pm .. I found a rather large part of Justin in Mark ...

Hai, cora. Welcome to this forum.

I'd welcome finding out more about Justin in Mark (or vice versa).

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:28 pm
Basilides was a Christian gnostic who extrapolated on Christian beliefs. He did not belong to a separate religion generated in Greece in the 4th century BC, even if Basilides was said to adopt Aristotle's systems.

Irenaeus and Hippolytus in their critiques of Basilides, also said his theories mentioned Christian items, such as Christ, god of the Jews, Jesus to be crucified, appearing on earth as a man who wrought miracles.

The fact Basilidies, a Valentinian or semi-Valentinian, is said to have mentioned or in fact didi Christian 'items' such as Christ or Jesus 'to be crucified' (?) doesn't mean he was a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, Bernard, or that he was even aware of him.

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:28 pm
[That] Basilides [is said by Irenaeus to have] modif[ied] a passage from gMark & GMatthew about the role of Simon of Cyrene, the bearer of Jesus' cross, but "so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them.".

The above is from Irenaeus.

Irenaeus was seeking to re-write history. What he says is likely the opposite of the truth. Many gnostic scholars will support that.

The descriptions of the Basilidian system given by Irenaeus (in his Adversus Haereses) and Hippolytus (in his Philosophumena/Refutations) are so strongly divergent that they seem to many quite irreconcilable. Historians, such as Philip Shaff, have the opinion that: "Irenaeus described a form of Basilideanism which was not the original, but a later corruption of the system. On the other hand, Clement of Alexandria and Hippolytus, in the fuller account of his Philosophumena, probably drew their knowledge of the system directly from Basilides' own work, said to have been the Exegetica."

Cement and Hippolytus recount a Matthias spoke mystical doctrines to Basilides and Isidore "his true child and disciple", which, in turn, Matthias had heard in private teaching from "the Saviour" (Clement, Strom vii; Hippolytus, Philosophumena VII,9)

Philosophumena VII,11 gives Basilides’ Account of the “Sonship” which says in part, near the end, -


Philosophumena VII,12 starts -

rgprice wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:06 pm Matthew, however, focused more on his Gospel, dedicating more time to re-working Marcion. This is why, it appears that Goodacre is wrong about parts of his treatment of Luke. For example Goodacre claims that Luke reworked Matthew by spreading the Sermon on the Mount out across lots of scenes, but it rather seems that Marcion (the writer of his Gospel) invented the material that Matthew collected together to create the Sermon on the Mount. So it was really Matthew doing the editorial work to revise the original, not the other way around. This is why the Synoptic Problem is so difficult. Because sometimes it appears that Matthew is first and sometimes Luke.

The way Klinghardt has it, Luke is the last of the canonical Gospels written, being a copy of Marcion's that is then revised in light of Matthew, Mark, and John. And possibly this was done in two revisions, by two different editors. So its really Marcion > Revision using Mark and John > Revision using Matthew with addition of birth story & special ending. Or something like that.

I've gone through all 72 logia of Thomas and their version in the canonicals - and hadn't even heard of Marcion at that point. But the order clearly is Luke before Matthew in most cases, whereas Matthew (top of my head) could be earlier in some cases.
But, why doesn't anyone hold to the theory that Luke and Matthew were written together, or even by one person?

Take Marcion and turn it into Luke, it will take you a good weekend and a case of beer - it's not that it must have taken great effort. Take the verbatim agreements on top of that, and it's a closed case: if you want to refute Marcion, you take his gospel, wrap it into your context, add a bit to it and write your own to go along with it so they strengthen one another. Make sure they differ and you can say "Hey dudes! I have these two divergent stories here and they tell Da Truth, and look how much Marcion looks like Luke! What a shameless plagiarist he is, tsk tsk"

But, if you like a challenge, please do read viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7707