jakejonesiv

The heretics had an allegorical understanding of Jesus.
In which public register did Irenaeus look up Jesus true age?

According to Irenaeus, Jesus became "an infant for infants, ... a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men." IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES 3.22.4.

aa5874

Irenaeus never did claimed that he personally looked in any public register.

Look and you will see that Irenaeus was claiming that it was those who said Jesus was not yet fifty years old that may have used the public register.

Against Heresies 2.22.6

It is absolutely clear that the writer of Against Heresies 2.22 was not making any allegorical argument once he mentioned that people may have ascertained the age of Jesus by using the public register.

jakejonesiv

Of course Tertuallin was a historist. Why do you keep belaboring the obvious? I never said he wasn't.
I said the heretics had an allegorical understanding of Jesus.
How do you explain the allegorcial nature of the heretics views about Jesus? Do you believe that Eusebius and Constaintine invented the heretics and their teachings?

aa5874

I never wrote about Tertullian in this thread.

You are the one who made claims about allergories and heretics.

My position is that Irenaeus did not make an allergoric claim when he wrote Jesus was over fifty years old when he suffered. Irenaeus appeared simply not to know, at the time of writing, the age of Jesus when he had died, and also appeared not to know the lenght of time Pilate was governor in Judaea.

I have produced the pertinent information from Against Heresies 2.22 to establish my position.

The author used gLuke to establish that Jesus, after baptism by John, was begininng to be about thirty years old at the 15th year of Tiberius. He then used gJohn to establish that there were three Passovers before Jesus suffered, and claimed people may have used public records to establish that Jesus was over forty years old, after he had written that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

Now, it can be deudced that Irenaeus did not know the established age of Jesus when he died and that he did not know the lenght of time that Pilate was governor of Judaea. It therefore is unlikely that Irenaeus did present Against Heresies 2.22 to the heretics of his time, or to any church writer, his absurd argument would have immediately rejected.

If Irenaeus was a bishop of Lyons how is it that he did not know the age of Jesus at his death which was already established by the Church?

Jesus was supposed to have died about 150 years before Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies 2.22.

It would appear to me that the author of Against Heresies was not a bishop and that no so-called heretic saw Against Heresies 2.22.

jakejonesiv

How would any "heretic or church writer" know to discard it if they never saw or read it? That makes no sense.

Why would Iranaeus or anyone write a work Against Heresies (Latin: Adversus haereses) in five volumes if there were no second century heretics? There are heretics galore in Ireneaues' works, and every single one of them undercut the doctrines or authority of the proto-orthodox church fathers on some key point.

And how can you have heretics without orthodoxy? :shrug: You claim not to know.

Why would fourth century (or later) "church writers" invent non-existant second century heretics that in your skewed theory never read anything except to discard it?

Even if the second century heretics did read Irenaus and discarded it, so what? The church fathers still had their copies and perpetuated it to this day.

Best,
Jake Jones IV

aa5874

I did not ever claim that Irenaeus invented heretics.

It would appear that the writer who used the name Irenaeus invented orthodoxy when by exposing his fictitious bishops and the vast diversity of doctrines he actually showed that there was really no orthodoxy, or Church system of bishops, with regards to belief in Jesus or Christ

I am claiming that Irenaeus was not likely to have been a bishop of the Church since he did not know the age of Jesus when he had died even though he claimed Jesus was beginning to be about thirty years old at the 15th year of Tiberius and suffered under Pontius Pilate.

I am also claiming that Irenaeus appear not to know the chronology of the governorship of Pilate.

And further I am claiming that Against Heresies 2.22 was seen not seen or known by any heretic, church writer, or secular historian in the 2nd century since anyone who knew the period of Pilate's governorship would have easily discredited Irenaeus.

jakejonesiv

Let me get this straight.
A church writer in the fourth century pretended to be Ireneaus. This church writer invented orthodoxy. Yet this church writer didn't know the age of Jesus, this church writer did not know the the chronology of the governorship of Pilate. This church writer was in fact the person who made all the errors that you find impossible for Ireneaus himself to have made? okestick:

That is the saddest, most naive theory I have seen.

Best,
Jake

aa5874

But it is even most absurd and naive to think that a real person, being a bishop in the 2nd century, did claim that Jesus was over fifty years old, while asserting that Jesus was beginning to be about thirty years in the 15th year of Tiberius and suffered under Pontius Pilate.

And it is similarly absurd for a real person, being a bishop, to have presented that argument to the citizens of the Roman Empire, including historians, and the habitable earth at that time while he was alive.

It must be realised that whoever wrote Against Heresies 2.22 was not a bishop, did not know how long Pilate was governor of Judaea and sdid not present his absurd argument while he was alive.

The author of Against Heresies 2.22 was most naive and horribly absurd.

jakejonesiv

Dear aa⁵⁸⁷⁴,

It is absurb to claim, as you do, that the church writer known as Ireneaus was dead when he wrote Against Heresies.

It is absurb to claim, as you do, that the church writer known as Ireneaus was not a real person.

It is absurb to claim, as you do, that the church writer known as Ireneaus, who you say invented orthodoxy, didn't know the age^orthodox of Jesus, or the the chronology^orthodox of the governorship of Pilate. The orthodox position had hardened on these questions by the time of the fourth century.

If the church writer known as Ireneaus, had written in the fourth century or later, he could never have presented those arguments to the citizens of the Roman Empire, including historians, and the habitable earth at that time in the fourth century. Only an earlier writer, in the second century before the dogma had hardened, could have offered opinions this different from fourth century orthodoxy! :vomit: The passage would have been immediately discarded if it had first come to light in the fourth century or thereafter. The orthodox church officials of the Nicene Creed didn't play around with those who voiced contrary opinions. Your hypothetical church writer is the nonexistant figment of your imagination. If he were of the 4th century, Athanasius would have murdered him and burnt his writings.

You are claiming that the inventer of orthodoxy wrote many things at odds with the orthodoxy of his time. That is the saddest, most naive theory I have seen.

The best explanation of the evidence is that Against Heresies was written in the 180's CE by Ireneuas. It is a document of that time period and none other, when the orthodox positions were still fluid, in the process of being formulated.

Jake Jones IV

aa5874

But, I am not claiming that a dead man wrote anything. I am claiming that Irenaeus, if he lived, would have been already dead when someone used his name.

Again, I am claiming that the person claiming to be Irenaeus was really some other person living at a later time, most likely the 4th century.

It is my claim that the writer called who called himself Irenaeus was not a bishop of any church, and wrote fiction about the authorship of the gospels, the date of writing of the gospels, the order of the gospels, the authorsip of the Pauline Epistles, and the date of writing of the Pauline Epistles.

It is my claim that the writer who called himself Irenaeus wrote fiction about knowning a person who knew the apostle John, and that Irenaeus wrote fiction when he claimed that Peter was the first bishop of Rome.

It is my claim that the writer called Irenaeus did not establish that there was any orthodoxy in doctrine or belief about Jesus in the 2nd century when he, in effect, demonstrated that there was not even any orthodox position with regards to the age of Jesus and that there was a multiplicity of versions of Jesus and Christ.

Now, if Church History is examined, it will be noticed that it was not yet solidified when Jesus was born. Eusebius gave two dates which appear to be out by about 8 years, if Antiquities of the Jews 18.1.1 is taken into consideration.

Twenty-eight years after the death of Antony and Cleopatra is around 2 BCE and the census of Cyrenius was around 6 CE.

Church History 1.5.2

You very well know that I never did claim that a writer named Irenaeus presented any arguments in the 4th century to the citizens of Roman Empire, including historians, and the habitable earth.

Please read my claims carefully.


Who got murdered for the TF?

Where did I claim such a thing.

You have destroyed your argument once you say that orthodoxy was still fluid and in the process of being formulated.

Irenaeus was claiming that orthodoxy was already established in the Church.

You have prove once again that the author who used the name Irenaeus was a fiction writer.

The best explanation is that someone was writing under the name of Irenaeus and backdated their writing to the 2nd century.