aa5874

[QUOTE=jgibson000;4364543]
The Pope also condemned the search for the historical Jesus.

DNAReplicator

...and you display a similar level of irrational fundamentalist belief about Jesus as the Pope does.

aa5874

I was hoping that you would have told me how you regard the NT.
That would be great.

mountainman

So you believe, like the mainstream theoreticians of history,
that "the tribe of christians" were spoken of as early as
the second century CE, on the basis of the inference to
the historical truth of such events as published by Eusebius.

You have not yet commented upon Apollonius of Tyana and
"the tribe of neopythagoreans" who were IMO not fictitious,
and related their evolution --- in parallel with "the tribe of
christians" (who IMO, and in agreement with your position,
are a fictitious (literary only) tribe -- until some
point/event in history at which time they became "historical")

I believe that this may be very important in understanding
why purported authors in the 2nd century CE were writing
of philosopher/sage historical figures living to old age, as is
clearly the story of Apollonius, known apparently to most
of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries, and beyond with Eusebius.

Historicity is relative. Cannot be absolutist.
I will address this elsewhere.
You need to broaden your scope in this.




You should not have put down your pen in the second century.
This is a little of the substance of the writings of Bishop Irenaeus,
and the issue of "Jesus actually lived to old age" is IMO the far
lesser of these issues, for their is another issue by which we
can be reasonably certain that whoever was the author of
Irenaeus, made false reference to an inscription on a statue,
which is (I'd think) worth looking at in detail in some thread.

Why would the author of Ireneus fictionalise an existing inscription?

Here is the data:

You understand that the position that I am testing
with respect to history, is that Eusebius is writing
as the author Irenaeus from the fourth century.

IRENAEUS (120-c. 200) Saint, Martyr, Bishop of Lyons; ex-
Pagan of Smyrna, who emigrated to Gaul and became Bishop;
"information of his life is scarce, and [as usual] in some measure
inexact. ... Nothing is known of the date of his death, which may
have occurred at the end of the second or beginning of the third
century." (CE., vii, 130.) How then is it known that he was a
Martyr? Of him Photius, ablest early critic in the Church, warns
that in some of his works "the purity of truth, with respect to
ecclesiastical traditions, is adulterated by his false and spurious
readings" (Phot.; Bibl. ch. cxx); -- though why this invidious
distinction of Irenaeus among all the clerical corruptors of
"tradition" is not clear. The only surviving work of Irenaeus in
four prolific Books is his notable Adversus Haereses, or, as was
its full title, "A Refutation and Subversion of Knowledge falsely
so Called," -- though he succeeds in falsely subverting no little
real knowledge by his own idle fables. This work is called "one of
the most precious remains of early Christian antiquity." Bishop St.
Irenaeus quotes one apt sentiment from Homer, the precept of which
he seems to approve, but which he and his Church confreres did not
much put into practice:

"Hateful to me that man as Hades' gates,
Who one thing thinks, while he another states."
(Iliad, ix, 312, 313; Adv. Haer. III, xxxiii, 3.)

JESUS DIED OF OLD AGE!

Most remarkable of the "heresies" attacked and refuted by
Bishop Irenaeus, is one which had just gained currency in written
form in the newly published "Gospels of Jesus Christ," in the form
of the "tradition" that Jesus had been crucified to death early in
the thirties of his life, after a preaching career of only about
one year, according to three of the new Gospels, of about three
years, according to the fourth. This is rankly false and
fictitious, on the "tradition" of the real gospel and of all the
Apostles, avows Bishop Irenaeus, like Bishop Papias earlier in the
century; and he boldly combated it as "heresy." It is not true, he
asserts, that Jesus Christ died so early in life and after so brief
a career. "How is it possible," be demands, "that the Lord preached
for one year only?"; and on the quoted authority of John the
Apostle himself, of "the true Gospel," and of "all the elders," the
saintly Bishop urges the falsity and "heresy" of the Four Gospels
on this crucial point. Textually, and with quite fanciful
reasonments, he says that Jesus did not die so soon:

"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; a youth for 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.'

"They, however, that they may establish their false
opinion regarding that which is written, 'to proclaim the
acceptable year of the Lord,' maintain that he preached for
one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In
speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage,
destroying His work and robbing Him of that age which is both
more necessary and more honorable than any other; that more
advanced age, I mean, during which also, as a teacher, He
excelled all others. ...

"Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty
years, and that this extends onward to the fortieth year,
every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year
a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord
possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher,
even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were
conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord,
(affirming) that John conveyed to them that information. AND
HE REMAINED AMONG THEM UP TO THE TIMES OF TRAJAN [Roman
Emperor, A.D. 98-117]. Some of them, moreover, saw not only
John, but the other Apostles also, and heard the very same
account from them, and bear testimony as to [the validity of
] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe?" (Iren.
Adv. Haer. Bk. II, ch. xxii, secs. 3, 4, 5; ANF. I, 891-2.)

The Bishop's closing question is pertinent, and we shall come
back to it in due course.

Irenaeus also vouches his belief in magic arts, repeating as
true the fabulous stories of Simon Magus and his statue in the
Tiber and the false recital of the inscription on it; and as a
professional heresy-hunter he falls upon Simon as the Father of
Heresy: "Now this Simon of Samaria, from whom all heresies derive
their origin. ... The successor of this man was Menander, also a
Samaritan by birth; and he, too, was a perfect adept in the
practice of magic." (Adv. Haer. I, xxiii; ANF. i, 348.)




-- extracted from Joseph Wheless,
"FORGERY IN CHRISTIANITY", 1930

It goes to show that there is a kind of mystery over the exact
epoch in the history of antiquity that this name was first used
as a commonality amidst a "tribe of christians".

Mainstream resort to the unexamined postulate that the tribe
of christians existed in the first century but without a shred
of evidence outside the literary tradition. You are now doing
a similar handwaving exercise, and palming the big question
off to the second century, without having explained how a
fiction has suddenly become a living topical literary "fact"
of history, to be written about.

But of all this, at this time, the false inscription is something
concrete and something which one would expect in a grand
ecclesiastical fiction. Is this false recitation to the inscription
to be regarded as fiction or fraudulent misrepresentation?

aa5874

Could you please indicate one irrational post of mine? I need to see it, urgently. You may have been mistaken.

mountainman

Indeed the exercise would make you educated possibly
to the extent as to placing an estimate on the number
of these gods to be at least equal to the number of
gods observed (in the historical sense ) by every living
creature on the planet.

If you were to name all these gods, it would take you
more than a human lifetime, even if I were to give you
a Cray supercomputer.

J-D

You've lost me. How is that remark supposed to be relevant to this discussion?

J-D

I regard it as a compilation of material from heterogeneous sources which has not been edited into a coherent whole.

J-D

It has already been pointed out that you committed the fallacy of composition in this post (as well as in many others) and the fallacy of affirming the consequent in this post.

mountainman

The technology required to produce 50 bound copies
of the Constantine Bibles circa 330 CE would necessarily
required its --- at least shall we say temporary --- editorship
under the ministrations of Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea,
at that glorious time in the history of "the tribe of christians".

How can you say it "has not been edited into a coherent whole"
when clearly this task was historically accomplished?