In all these passages, therefore, as I have already said, these men must either allege that the apostle expresses opinions contradicting himself, with respect to that statement, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;" or, on the other hand, they will be forced to make perverse and crooked interpretations of all the passages, so as to overturn and alter the sense of the words. For what sensible thing can they say, if they endeavour to interpret otherwise this which he writes: "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality;" and, "That the life of Jesus may be made manifest in our mortal flesh;" and all the other passages in which the apostle does manifestly and clearly declare the resurrection and incorruption of the flesh? And thus shall they be compelled to put a false interpretation upon passages such as these, they who do not choose to understand one correctly. [AH 5.13.5]
Does anyone out there really believe that every single one of these passages which allegedly 'proves' that the apostle believed in the resurrection and incorruption of the flesh was shared in the heretical collection of his writings or - as I would argue - Irenaeus succumbed to temptation and cited from his Catholic Apostolikon to prove the falseness of his adversaries point of view?
dating back to conversations with his grandfather, Gaston Frank. "He said we represent one of the last descendants of the Frankist Jewish faith in the world," he muses. "I grew up thinking that our family was something like the Last of the Mohicans."