Doug Shaver

Because they were convinced that he was no criminal.

aa5874

In 'Against Heresies' book 1 ch28 section1, Irenaeus described the confusion and chaos surrounding the character called Jesus and Christ.

"Many offshoots of numerous heresies have already been formed from those heretics we have described. This arises from the fact that numbers of them--indeed we may say all--desire themselves to be teachers, and to break off from the particular heresy on which they have been involved.

Forming one set of doctrines out of a totally different system of opinions, and then again others from others, they insist upon teaching something new, declaring themselves the inventors of any sort of opinion which they have been able to call into existence".

It is ironic that, about 200 years later, the NT would be a victim of the confusion and chaos described by Irenaeus in the 2nd century.

Ben C Smith

It matters not what I think could have happened.

My argument is that the antecedent of the embedded pronoun he is John, not Jesus.

What say you?

Ben.

aa5874

Of course it matters what you think. You have just given your thoughts on the matter which I think is important. However, I think it is likely that the 'he' in the passage may refer to Jesus since Irenaeus wrote he lived to be an old man.

If you believe that Jesus died in his thirties, then the 'he' can only be in reference to John, if you believe Irenaeus' episode then 'he' can refer to Jesus.

There may be some ambiguity. For example, look at my sentence, " However, I think it is likely that the 'he' in the passage may refer to Jesus since Irenaeus wrote he lived to be an old man".

If you are convinced that Jesus was never an old man and died in his thirties, would the he refer to Irenaeus or some other person?

Ben C Smith

I am convinced that (regardless of my own views on the matter) Irenaeus would never say that Jesus lived till the time of Trajan. He knew that Jesus died under Pontius Pilate, procurator under Tiberius.

I am also convinced that the statement in Irenaeus is not at all ambiguous. John precedes the pronoun, John comes after the pronoun, and John is the one to whom the pronoun refers.

Ben.

Gamera

I think this ranks as a cavil. The point is miraculous events are described in the "historical" texts from antiquity which apparently you are privileging.

So, the fact that miraculous events are described in the gospels is not evidence against the historigraphical nature of those texts. You've created false categories for a tendentious purpose, which is never good scholarship.

aa5874

You convince yourself by ignoring what is written and interject your own pre-conceived beliefs.

I already shown you passages from Against Heresies where Irenaeus claimed Jesus lived until he was an old man, or over fifty years old. See Against Heresies book 2 ch22 section 4-5.

I have also shown you passages from Against Heresies where there were many versions of Jesus and Christ. Some believed Christ raised Jesus from the dead, and that Jesus contiued to live without Christ in him. In that case, the crucufixion of Jesus did not determine his ultimate death. See Against Heresies book 1 chapter 26 section 1.

Now, I ask you, how can you be convinced of a matter, if it's not your view?

aa5874

Can you name and verify a single miracle in the NT?

Ben C Smith

Deal with the grammar. And with the context.

Ben.

Gamera

There are a number of miracles described in the gospels, just as there are in numerous "historical" texts from antiquity. No serious historian should accept any of them as empirical fact.

What's your point? And what do you mean by verify?