JoeWallack

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

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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