FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-28-2009, 08:21 AM   #1
JoeWallack
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default Irenaeus. 7 Firsts @ the XXX Olympiads. The Conversion of Revelation to Historical

Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons"). 7 Firsts @ the XXX Olympiads. The Conversion of Revelation to Historical Witness

JW:
The name Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") has recently revealed itself as significant in the following Thread on these Unholy Boards:

The Original Ending of "Mark". Debate - James Snapp, Jr. verses Joseph Wallack

The argument for the originality of Mark 16:9-20 rests primarily on the testimony of Patristic witness. Historically, Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") appears as the first Patrician to make any type of reference to Mark 16:9-20 (LE). Those following this absolutely fascinating debate know that before Irenaeus, "Mark", "Matthew", "Luke", Justin, "John" and Celsus, unlike Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons"), appear to have never heard of it.

Strangely, Apologists, while confessing that the LE is disputed, apologize that it does not effect any significant Christian doctrine. However, as "Mark" is the original post resurrection narrative, the LE makes the difference between "Mark" as a Revelation verses Historical witness for the supposed resurrection. The Christian assertian of Historical witness for the supposed resurrection is not only a significant doctrine of Christianity but the most important one for if Jesus was not historically resurrected than Christian faith is useless.

So, in our brief inquiry above it is revealed that Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") is the founder of the very critical Christian assertian of the LE. In the Spirit of Orthodox Christianity let's first assume our conclusion that for spiritual reasons of divine Providence Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") has split his soul into 7 horcrucifixes of critical first Assertians for OCD (Orthodox Christian Dogma).

Especially important to consider is how Irenaeus of Lyon's (yes, "Lyons") historical firsts coordinate with the Timeline of OCD conversion from Revelation based to Historical witness based. Note that well before Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") is Marcion who is Revelation based. In between is Justin who Transitions from Revelation to Historical witness and after is Clement/Tertullian who are completely Historical witness. We don't need to guess at the Conversion, God, in a wonderful Act of Providence, has made OCD unwittingly preserve the evidence that condemns them.

I throw out the first here, Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") discovery of the LE. Now what are the other six? The objective reader should note that as discoveries increase for one discoverer long after something should have been discovered, coincidence decreases while something else increases.

Everyone is welcome to comment except for Oded Golen.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
JoeWallack is offline  
Old 07-31-2009, 06:40 AM   #2
JoeWallack
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default Luukee! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do.

JW:
Time to start Inventorying Irenaeus of Lyons ("yes, "Lyons") Historical Firsts. First, the Timelyon of major Christian author Assertian:

Middle First = Paul = Revelation

Late First = Fake Paul = Revelation

Early Second = "Mark" = Revelation

Early Second = Marcion = Revelation

Middle Second = Justin = Revelation/Historical

Late Second = Irenaeus of Lyons ("yes, "Lyons") = Historical

Since we can be absolutely certain that the basic Gospel story is Fiction it must have started with Revelation and not Historical witness. This is exactly what we see in the Timelyon above so we have the extant evidence to explain HOW Christianity converted from Revelation to Historical. To the extent that claims of Historical firsts congregate in one author, this further supports the Timelyon and pressures the credibility of the one author.

On to the Inventory of Historical First claims for Irenaeus of Lyons ("yes, "Lyons"):

1) The LE

Every category of evidence indicates that the LE is not original:

The Original Ending of "Mark". Debate - James Snapp, Jr. verses Joseph Wallack

Note that this debate has not reached the Internal evidence yet which will clearly indicate the LE as not original. Of special interest here is that the LE:

Quote:
17 And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.

20 And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen.
Has a theme that is the opposite of the body of "Mark". "Mark's" theology is that followers of Jesus will suffer and die for Jesus. The LE theology is that followers of Jesus will be protected from suffering and dying by Jesus. This theology is introduced in Acts, also late second century and Acts was also first discovered by ...Irenaeus of Lyons ("yes, "Lyons").

In order than, the LE is the original conversion of evidence for post resurrection from Revelation to Historical witness and Acts is the original conversion of the Gospel narrative from Revelation to Historical witness. Note that as the Brits say, this is the "cruncher" that Marcion had the original "Luke". Since Canonical "Luke" was likely written by the author of Acts, the only reasonable explanation for "Marcion" having "Luke" early second century and Acts not being discovered until late 2nd century is that Canonical "Luke" was written well after Marcion's "Luke" and likely in reaction to it.

What other critical Historical firsts can we attribute to Irenaeus of Lyons ("yes, "Lyons")?

Everyone is welcome to comment except for Oded Golen.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
JoeWallack is offline  
Old 08-05-2009, 03:58 PM   #3
JoeWallack
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default

JW:
Time to start Inventorying Irenaeus of Lyons ("yes, "Lyons") Historical Firsts. First, the Timelyon of major Christian author Assertian:
Middle First = Paul = Revelation

Late First = Fake Paul = Revelation

Early Second = "Mark" = Revelation

Early Second = Marcion = Revelation

Middle Second = Justin = Revelation/Historical

Late Second = Irenaeus of Lyons ("yes, "Lyons") = Historical
On to the Inventory of Historical First claims for Irenaeus of Lyons ("yes, "Lyons"):

1) The LE

Every category of evidence indicates that the LE is not original:

The Original Ending of "Mark". Debate - James Snapp, Jr. verses Joseph Wallack

2) Acts

Next is the identification of the author of "Mark":

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xi.html

Quote:
5. Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make the paths 426 straight before our God.”
Note that it is a Mark who is the supposed author of Canonical "Mark". The wording here, "the interpreter and follower of Peter", suggests that the source is Papias who likely was not referring to the Gospel "Mark". No author before Irenaeus of Lyons (yes "Lyons"), including Justin, identifies the author. Note the gradual transition of Revelation to Historical claim through Justin. Justin progresses to the general assertian of Gospels having Apostles as sources but does not make specific identifications except once to Peter (which must than be suspect).

There is not a single good reason to think that Papias, Irenaeus, likely source, was referring to "Mark", but here are the reasons again why it is unlikely:

The Tale Wagging The Dogma. Which "Mark" Wrote "Mark"? A Dear John Letter
1) "Mark, who had indeed been Peter's interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered". "Mark" looks like an original Greek composition not based on any Aramaic source.

2) "accurately wrote as much as he remembered". "Mark" looks like a Complete composition.

3) "yet not in order". "Mark" is a Narrative and therefore, by Definition, is in Order.

4) "Peter, who would make the teachings anecdotally but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's reports". Only "Teachings/Sayings" are mentioned here. "Mark" has a Primary theme of Minimizing the Sayings and Maximizing the Passion.

5) "so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled". This indicates some Incompleteness but "Mark" is a Complete Narrative.

6) "For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them." This indicates Mark avoided any effort to Connect Sayings yet "Mark" is Connective Narrative.

7) The above gives Credit to Peter's Witness but a Primary theme of "Mark" is to Discredit Peter as a witness to Jesus.

8) Subsequent Christianity can not find any quotes of "Mark" in Papias, who was a prolific writer and claims to be a collector of Jesus tales.

9) Biased Christian Bible scholarship has serious doubts as to whether Papias was referring to "Mark".
Thus we have it on good authority that Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") was the first to assert a known historical author for "Mark". Again, the congregation of historical first assertians in one Father suggests non-history as well as the original creation of the assertain (late second century).

What other critical Historical firsts can we attribute to Irenaeus of Lyons ("yes, "Lyons")?

Everyone is welcome to comment except for Oded Golen.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
JoeWallack is offline  
Old 08-07-2009, 07:36 AM   #4
JoeWallack
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default

JW:
Time to start Inventorying Irenaeus of Lyons ("yes, "Lyons") Historical Firsts. First, the Timelyon of major Christian author Assertian:
Middle First = Paul = Revelation

Late First = Fake Paul = Revelation

Early Second = "Mark" = Revelation

Early Second = Marcion = Revelation

Middle Second = Justin = Revelation/Historical

Late Second = Irenaeus of Lyons ("yes, "Lyons") = Historical
On to the Inventory of Historical First claims for Irenaeus of Lyons ("yes, "Lyons"):

1) The LE

Every category of evidence indicates that the LE is not original:

The Original Ending of "Mark". Debate - James Snapp, Jr. verses Joseph Wallack

2) Acts

3) "Mark"

Note that with "Mark" we can actually see the basis for Irenaeus of Lyons' (yes, "Lyons") misidentification of the author of "Mark":

It starts with Papias:

http://www.textexcavation.com/papias.html

Quote:
{Eusebius quoting Papias]
And the elder would say this: Mark, who had become* the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, yet not in order, as many things as he remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings to the needs, but not making them as an ordering together of the Lord's sayings, so that Mark did not sin having thus written certain things as he remembered them. For he made one provision, to leave out nothing of the things that he heard or falsify anything in them
JW:
I used "Lord's sayings" in place of Ben's "lordly oracles" which is not supported by the usual meaning of the word or the context. Ben points out that Carlson translates as "ex-interpreter" (former) of Peter. I'll have to have Dr. Carrier comment on that.

As noted before, at this point, based on what Papias actually wrote above, we have no good reason to think that Papias was referring to the Gospel "Mark".

Presumably, since there is no evidence that Irenaeus had any source other than Papias to identify the author of "Mark", the following has been asserted by Irenaeus based on Papias above:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html

Quote:
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.
JW:
Irenaeus goes on to quote from "Mark" and attribute it to this Mark. Note that Irenaeus is likely wrong about everything he says regarding "Matthew":

1) There probably was no original Hebrew/Aramaic "Matthew".

2) "Matthew" did not write first.

3) "Matthew" was dependent on "Mark".

If Irenaeus is wrong about using Papias to identify the author of "Matthew" than this is evidence that he is also wrong about identifying the author of "Mark".

What other critical Historical firsts can we attribute to Irenaeus of Lyons ("yes, "Lyons")?

Everyone is welcome to comment except for Oded Golen.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
JoeWallack is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:00 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.