JoeWallack

JW:
The only thing we can be certain about regarding the Christian Bible is that the Impossible was not Possible. This observation also creates considerable Doubt as to the Possible claims of the Christian Bible. Ironically, Believers possess the Opposite Argument - The Impossible claims of the CB make the Possible claims more believable.

Most Believers take the claims of the CB for granted being brought up by and surrounded by a Culture of fellow Believers, making little or no effort to Critically examine the claims of the CB. If we step outside the boundary of the Real world of Logic and Reason and accept the possibility that the Impossible is Possible (even though any related Conclusions will now have no Logical standing in the Real World) for the sake of Argument than an important question is:

HOW exactly was the Christian Bible created?

According to Christianity, the Christian Bible was Created by Someones/Somethings called "Church Tradition" and an important component of "Church Tradition" was Irenaeus because he wrote "On The Apostolic Preaching".

The first question to ask when studying a writing of a Church Father
is, WHO exactly was the author of what we now possess (extant)?:

1) How do we know what was Original?

2) How do we know what was Edited?

3) How do we know what was Mistranslated?

4) How much do we Discount what we have souly because of Motive and Opportunity to present what Christianity wanted or thought Irenaeus should say rather than what he actually said?

Assuming for now that the author of the Present "On The Apostolic Preaching":

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...ternetinfidels

was holy or at least priMarily Irenaeus, WHO was Irenaeus? Irenaeus was the most important Church Father during the second century as the subsequent
Church chose to preserve more of his writings than anyone else of the
second century and he is the first known person to mention all four
Gospels by their current names. As the second century appears to be
responsible for the creation of a very mysterious one Way force
called "Church Tradition" and also the likely time that Christianity
made a Jew-Turn going the wrong way down a One God Street Irenaeus
also becomes one of the most important Church Fathers in the history
of Christianity.

"Church Tradition" is a fascinating substance which unlike Jesus who apparently was only able to re-incarnate once, can magically
incarnate when it is needed to support important Christian assertions
such as WHAT is Scripture? (it was determined by "Church Tradition")
but can also magically disincarnate when it doesn't support modern
Christian assertions (they call me trinity). WHO were the guys
behind "Church Tradition"? Maybe Irenaeus? We'll see that when
someone like Irenaeus agrees with later Christian assertions he
becomes an invaluable contemporary witness of impeccable credentials
supporting "Church Tradition" but when he disagrees with later
Christian assertions he dwindles to just a man and not Scripture. The
puzzle this creates is did Scripture create the "Church Tradition" or
did "Church Tradition" create Scripture? Or put in theological
Christian terms, which came first, the Eucharchicken or the Easter
Egg?

I would encourage Everyone to read "On The Apostolic Preaching" because:

1) It demonstrates how Poor Irenaeus' reasoning skills were.

2) It demonstrates how Biased Irenaeus was.

3) It demonstrates Irenaeus' lack of evidence for concluding WHAT the Christian Bible should be.

4) It demonstrates the Uncertainty of what Irenaeus originally wrote.


Joseph

Church Tradition - A memorization technique involving the oral transmission of a story from generation to generation until Nobody remembers What the original story was.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

andrewcriddle

Ireaneus 'On the Apostolic Preaching or 'Proof of the Apostolic Preaching' can be accessed online at various sites eg http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/irenaeus_02_proof.htm

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack

JW:
I identified in the OP a fantastic Entity known as "Church Tradition" which unlike Jesus who apparently was only able to re-incarnate once, can magically
incarnate when it is needed to support important Christian assertions
but can also magically disincarnate when it doesn't support modern
Christian assertions. I also identified one of the most important supposed components of "Church Tradition", Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons"), who when he agrees with later Christian assertions becomes an invaluable contemporary witness of impeccable credentials but when he disagrees with later Christian assertions dwindles to just a man and not Scripture. The puzzle this creates is did Scripture create the "Church Tradition" or did "Church Tradition" create Scripture? Were Specific "Church Traditions" selectively Preserved and Promoted by Irenaeus because he liked what they said, similar to an Investment Adviser who only tells you about the half of his Investments that have gone up recently and continues to help you with your Investments until there's nothing left? Or were Specific Church Fathers like Irenaeus selectively Preserved and Promoted by "Church Tradition" because it liked what Irenaues said?

Part of determining What it was that Irenaeus originally said is consideration of the Translating. TAP (On The Apostolic Preaching)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...435806-2580904

was translated by John Behr. The book itself does not state it but John Behr is a Priest. Is this a good idea having a Priest Translate the writing of a Priest? The problem with a Priest translating the works of a Priest is that due to the translator's background he may too easily accept the assertions of his predecessors and not look sufficiently hard for problems that his background has not exposed him to (pun intended).

On Page 1 of the introduction Mr. Behr writes:

"Irenaeus tells us that in his early youth he had known Polycarp, who
had himself known the apostles and been appointed by them as the
bishop of the church in Smyrna. This contact with the immediate
successors of the apostles was of importance for Irenaeus in his
later defence of both Christian practice and teaching."

The implication in Mr. Behr's second sentence above is that Irenaeus
had a reliable chain of witnesses going back to the Apostles. Is this
conclusion supported by the first sentence above? Is the first
sentence above supported by evidence? This is what we need to look at
and since Mr. Behr didn't write anything else in the introduction
other than footnote references for the first sentence in "Against The
Heresies" and "Ecclesiastical History" to help answer these questions
we will have to do the looking and related thinking ourselves."

When examining what an author says another author said one should
always check footnote references to try and find out for one's self
what the referred to author actually wrote. Mr. Behr's footnote
reference for what Irenaeus actually wrote is "Against The Heresies"
3-3.4. Here's what Irenaeus wrote according to Robert
Grant, "Irenaeus Of Lyons" (keep in mind we have all the same issues
with Mr. Grant):

"And there is Polycarp, who not only was taught by the apostles and
conversed with many who had seen the Lord, but also was established
by apostles in Asia in the church at Smyrna. We ourselves saw him in
our early youth, for he lived long and was in extreme old age when he
left this life in a most glorius and most noble martyrdom."

We have the following general reasons to question Mr. Behr's
implication that Irenaeus had a reliable chain of witnesses going back
to the Apostles:

1) The Church concedes that it edited the writings of its own Church
Fathers so it's possible that the above is not exactly what Irenaeus
wrote.

2) Some Church Fathers thought it was acceptable to lie in order to
promote belief in Jesus. At the start of Book II of Against The
Heresies Irenaeus wrote, "In this book we shall treat only what is
useful for us and what time permits" (if you asked yourself what
Irenaeus might have written here initially and answered "God knows"
you'd be right). So it's possible that Irenaeus is not being truthful
here.

Next, we need to look at the specifics of what Irenaeus wrote and
what Mr. Behr said Irenaeus wrote and see if there are specific
reasons to doubt Mr. Behr's implication.

Looking at what Irenaeus supposedly wrote we have the following
specific reasons to doubt the conclusion that Irenaeus had a
relieable chain of witnesses through Polycarp to the Apostles:

1) "was taught by the apostles". No specifics here. Which apostles?

2) "We ourselves saw him". Why does Irenaeus say "we" and not "I".
Does this imply that Irenaeus himself never saw Polycarp?

3) "We ourselves saw him". Does this mean that Irenaeus only saw him,
perhaps once, and never talked to him or even heard him?

4) "saw him in our early youth". How old was Irenaeus when he saw
Polycarp? Was he too young to remember much? Did they even speak the
same language? Was Irenaeus even a Christian then?

5)"for he lived long and was in extreme old age when he left this
life in a most noble and most glorius martyrdom". These assertions
come from an early Christian writing "The Martyrdom Of St. Polycarp"
which is doubted as being fully historical by many Bible scholars. Is
Irenaeus using this story to piece together his "testimony"?

6) The Apostles supposedly would have started apostliezing in the
early 30's while Irenaeus likely wrote the above late second century
and the average lifespan for this period was probably about 40. Isn't
it strange that Polycarp is the only link Irenaeus can identify for
such a relatively long time period? Did Irenaeus pick Polycarp as a
link because Polycarp was a famous early non-Apostle Christian?



Joseph

FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence, in what is told by those not identified, who speak without knowledge, of things without parallel.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

andrewcriddle

The lifespan of 40 was a result of high child mortality, (and death in childbirth for women). It was not uncommon for men who survived into adulthood to reach ages over seventy.

According to the 'Martyrdom of Polycarp' Polycarp was 86 at death probably in 156 CE. ie it is chronologically possible if John the Apostle survived (as traditionally held) till towards the end of the reign of Domitian for Polycarp to have had some contact with him.

If so Polycarp would have been a last link to the apostles surviving long after the others were dead. This is maybe why Irenaeus mentions him specifically.

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack

JW:
So what you are suggesting is a "Church Tradition" from Jesus to John to Polycarp to Irenaeus. Looking over the Threads in this Forum many involve "Church Tradition":

The Challenge for the Mythicists: the Earliest Martyrs

The Challenge of the mythicists - the earliest heretics

The Challenge for the Naturalists: the Earliest Martyrs

The Papalsi Challenge for the Son of Men and the Women Who Love One Another

The Challenge for the Hebrewdashers: the Naked Young Man, Boxer or Briefs?


Any claim that Irenaeus had a Relieable "Church Tradition" is interesting because Irenaeus' famous Christian predecessor, Justin Martyr (add it to the list Yuri!), used a philosophical argument and showed no knowledge of a chain of reLieable witnesses.

Let's take a look at the Climatic (actually anti-Climatic) ending of what is likely the First Gospel written, "Mark", to see what the author had to say about "John's" role in "Church Tradition":

16: (KJV)
1 "And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.
5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid."

The implication from "Mark" is that all of Jesus' Disciples, including John, gave up on him before the Crucifixion. Permanently. It's the author of "Mark" that tells us about Jesus and not "John". In context, "Mark" is primarily an Apology as to why Jesus' audience Failed him. See:

Jewish Bible Prophecy Fulfillment By Jesus According To “Mark�

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=122958

So Andrew should the likely Original Gospel story concerning Jesus, The One that "Matthew" and "Luke" relied on more than any other source, indicating "John who?" be part of "Church Tradition" also? Or is Irenaeus such a great witness on the subject that we can ignore the related implication from the Original Gospel?

Really the point here is more for Yuri who upon hearing his own voice calling him from Heaven has Adopted the Apologetic argument that early Christian martydom is evidence for a (fill-in-the-blank) Historical/Supernatural Jesus.

Ignoring Christian writings for the moment common sense tells us that Jesus was for the most part either rejected or ignored by "The Jews". This not only directly contradicts any argument that Jesus was Historical/Supernatural because of a few supposed early Christian Martyrs, it outweighs it.

When we move to Christian writings it gets even worse for Yuri. The whole point of "Mark's" Gospel is that Jesus' entire audience Failed him, especially his Disciples and most of all Peter. "Mark" specifically gives an illustration of how Peter will not only not die for him, he will deny him. This is "Mark's" point. Hell, disciples being Martyrs for Jesus? They wouldn't even acknowledge him. This is the opposite of being willing to die for Jesus.

Here's another thought for Yuri to ignore, go through "Matthew" and "Luke" and find common Action stories not Originating in "Mark". When "Mark" is not a source "Matthew" and "Luke" seem to differ alot. Apparently when they looked for a non-Markan source there just wasn't any one reliable witness. What does this say for "Church Tradition?" What you do find are common Sayings and not Action. So it was easier for "Matthew" and "Luke" to find Sayings attributed to Jesus than to find non-Markan actions attributed to Jesus.

Now add to this problem what was pointed out to Yuri before. The primary historical Promoter of Jesus, Paul, specifically tells us that he Relied on Personal Revelation as Opposed to supposed stories of the historial Jesus. So what does this leave you with Yuri to support your position that Early Christian Martyrs support a Historical Jesus, Irenaeus?

While we're on the subject of reactions to Jesus' supposed resurrection I will note that in the US when a Jew is cornered by Christians and pushed to say what he thinks happened the normal response in order to be good to the future health of your body is "I don't know but it sounds like something happened." And in the South "something" should be followed by "big".



Joseph

MYTHOLOGY, n.
The body of a primitive people's beliefs concerning its origin, early history, heroes, deities and so forth, as distinguished from the true accounts which it invents later.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Steven Avery

Joe, you always make the same conceptual error, taking liberal theories in order to make points, that fail completely in discussions with those who truly believe in the NT text (MT/TR/Majority as in the King James Bible)

You don't even need Dean Burgon, even the non-TR writer Jim Snapp can show you the rather overwhelming evidences that Mark ends with verse 20.

Mark 16:19-20
So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

http://www.waynecoc.org/MarkOne.html
The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20

The chart gives lots of dates (even if you don't agree with all the references,
you will see lots of pre-Vaticanus/Sinaiticus references)
http://www.waynecoc.org/Evidence.html

Timothy Dunkin puts it nice and clear.
http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/markend.html
Why Mark 16:9-20 Belongs in the Bible
A Case Study in Westcott-Hortian Silliness

You probably know all this, cause Jim Snapp took one or two folks to pieces on TWeb on this, however you tend to repeat the same conceptual error again and again, as I point out to you again and again.

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Vorkosigan

You mean people took this argument on and lost? You've got to be kidding me. Dunkin simply uses an old apologetic tactic of killing the arguments piecemeal while refusing to face what they way the work as a whole. The inauthenticity of the Longer Ending is confirmed by the weight of the evidence. Any one text with all the features of that Ending -- non-Markan vocabulary, non-Markan theology, awkward transitions, non-presence in ancient manuscripts -- is certainly inauthentic. Any one of those would not be arguable, but all together indicate inautheniticity.

Dunkin's argument follows the same logic as if he and a friend had chanced upon an auto accident.

FRIEND: Look! Two cars had a smashup!
DUNKIN: Nonsense. They merely had dented front ends, and have parked touching each other.
FRIEND: But what about the broken glass in the road?
DUNKIN: People have car windows shattered all the time. Last year over 50 cars on this road had windows broken by stones kicked up by trucks.
FRIEND: And what about the fluid leaking all over the highway?
DUNKIN: Puh-lease! Vehicles overheat and leak all the time. Odds are sooner or later two parked vehicles will experience simultaneous overheating.
FRIEND: But what about the two drivers with their heads through the windshield?
DUNKIN: I have it on good authority that people in these parts are especially prone to attempt suicide by sticking their heads through windows.

Once again, it is the concatenation of evidence that precludes the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20.

Metzger's argument from A Textual Commentary is online here

Vorkosigan

Chris Weimer

:notworthy: Excellent satyre, Vork. :rolling: Mind if I save this? :notworthy:

Vorkosigan

Thanks! It's all yours! :devil3:

Steven Avery

Leading to another one of those excellent examples of Metzger, following Westcott-Hort, skewering evidences. On the early church writers, while Metzger does include the extremely important evidence from Justin,Irenaeus and the Diatessoran, he omits other early evidences from Tertullian, Hippolytus, the Apostolic Constitution and the 3rd century Council of Carthage, along with a number of other references either before or contemporaneus to the first manuscript evidences. Then Metzger is woefully incomplete with Jerome, since Jerome not only quotes from the ending, he includes it in the Vulgate, with a little similar maneuvering done with Euseubius. Then, to top it off Metzger includes two very weak evidences from silence, especially dubious since he simply omits so many church writer evidences. Overall, a typical example of Westcott/Hort/Metzger totally misrepresenting the early church writer evidences. 1 Timothy 3:16 is another similar example.

Metzger skewers similarly on the other hard evidences, the manuscript evidences. (The Old Latin being a perfect example, also not even mentioning the famous Vaticanus empty column). However, you can work that through on the web sites I shared above :-)

As for the soft evidences, such as theology and style, those tend to be rigged to meet ones glasses. The awkwardness of the chopped-up ending, the point of this thread, could easily be given on the other side as the strongest of the internal evidences. Overall there is a paper on those internal issues referenced by Jim Snapp which goes into this stuff in more depth. In my experience, some of such arguments are almost laughable, others are dubious, and often the strong counter-arguments are simply omitted. I remember when I went through a litany of such soft arguments on the authorship of 2 Peter, and it was easy to see the mistakes, errors and games that were being played to take a few interesting but generally weak arguments and blow them up as much as possible.

Back to the manusciprt evidence, of course even Metzger has to acknowledge that the "vast number of witnesses" are for the traditional ending. However "modern scientific textcrit" has been trained and propagandized to virtually ignore the primary evidence that true believers in the Scriptures consider.

Overall, modern scientific textcrit labors under many paradigmic unbelieving delusions (Metzger himself is much like the infidels here in his view of NT authorship, as in 2 Peter) and that is why the skeptics like Joe refuse to battle the true inerrantists on their actual turf of defending an inspired and preserved Bible. This will be noted by folks like me, and is why so much of the skeptic and errantist efforts of folks like Joe are simply irrelevant... GIGO.

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/