Which Bishop is / was more correct about Jesus . Bishop Irenaeus or Bishop Epiphanius ?

Question

Bishop Irenaeus is a 2nd century Bishop and said Jesus was still alive between 98-117 CE .
Bishop Epiphanius is a 4th century Bishop and said Jesus was born between 73-4 BCE .

Or , did Jesus live until he was 120 years old and they are both correct ?

All answers have severe problems fitting Jesus into a Historical framework.


( Please Note , I don’t think Jesus ever Existed , I just want to know the lie of the land in Christendom among believers of the faith. )

Answer 1

Jesus, if he existed, died long before anything was written about him. Wikipedia lists him as living 7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE.

Answer 2

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c130 - 200) is well known but there were two Bishop Epiphanius. One was bishop of Salamis and the other was Bishop of Ticium. There may have been more. Which one do you mean and do you have the references?
The normally accepted dates for Jesus were from circa 4BC to about 33 CE but if you don't believe he ever existed I can't see why you are interested.

Answer 3

If Jesus never existed, why were there so many Christians prepared to lose their lives in the roman arenas when all they had to do was renounce their faith to save their lives and those of their family?

The JEWISH historian Josephus speaks of Jesus in his writings. It is ridiculous to question Jesus historicity. How could a man who never existed have had such a profound impact on humanity?
It may be understandable to question what he taught , or the accounts of his life, but to question his existence is absurd.

The truth is that Jesus died in 33CE, so both the bishops are wrong. So no surprise there then.

Answer 4

Jesus died at 33. The fact is that man has had trouble with calendars and dates for almost all historical events, not just Jesus. You don't believe so why do you bother. There is not "land" of Christendom.. It is 75% of your neighbors. The other neighbors being Muslim, Hindu, Ethno religions and shamanism, Sikhs, Jews and Wiccans. Pagans.. If you can't learn to tolerate your neighbors, you are propagating a dangerous mind set of hate. If humans can't learn what hate does from things like the Holocaust, and Stalin's rampage, we are doomed as a species.

Answer 5

Since there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed (in other words, Jesus is a fictional character), neither is right.

* * *
Did a historical Jesus exist?
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
[Excerpt]

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

* * *

The Myth of the Historical Jesus
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead?
http://www.ffrf.org/about/bybarker/rise.php

Pagan origins of Jesus:
http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/index.html
http://geocities.com/christprise/
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_silence_that_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_for_jesus
http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/pcc/pcc09.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa3.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/virgin.html
http://www.harrington-sites.com/motif.htm
http://altreligion.about.com/library/weekly/aa052902a.htm

Answer 6

I admire your honesty and the fact that you still have an inquiring mind. :)

Both would be wrong. Jesus died at the age of 33, in keeping with bible prophecy which said the messiah would only preach for 3-1/2 years before being "cut off". Jesus was annointed as the Messiah at his baptism in 29CE. To be equally honest, right now I couldn't give you the scripture if my life depended on it, but I can research it for you and get back to you at some point.

Answer 7

Can't answer the first part of your Question. (far beyond my humble knowledge as a student of life) But your note is interesting, for a person obviously so well read as your good self it surprises me that you are not familiar with the writings of Josephus a 1st century secular writer (no axe to grind there) concerning this troublemaker Jesus.

Answer 8

Is this a 'how many Jesus' can dance on the head of a pin' question?

I think its probable that the hippy one did exist, but also these 2 learned gentlemen didn't have a clue.

Answer 9

Current theory is that Jesus was born about 4BC and died around 32 AD. That makes both theories wrong - but being good at history isn't a necessary qualification for being a bishop.

I suppose you don't believe in Alfred the Great either. There's more evidence that Jesus existed.

Answer 10

Do you deny Julius Caesar existed?

There is more independent contemporary data extant today concerning Jesus of Nazareth than there is about Julius Caesar.

I suppose you deny also the existence of Cleopatra, Hannibal, Alexander the Great . . . all pretty sketchy historical figures, with conflicting accounts.