DCHindley

Aa,

Sometimes it seems you think that early Christianity was monolithic, a unified movement. Oh sure, that is how they liked to portray themselves, but anyone who has surveyed their literature knows that there were many divergant traditions current among Christians.

There were varying traditions about the names of Jesus' 12 disciples, the fate of Judas Iscariot, whether James the Just was a kind of high priest, etc. Among the heterodox and gnostic factions, there were all sorts of alternate traditions about the disciples of John the Baptist, Paul & Peter, and the kinds of teachings they passed on.

I am consequently not surprised that Irenaeus, writing in Greek from Gaul and dependent upon traditions he learned in his early days as a student of Polycarp in Asia Minor, holds a tradition about the episcopate of Rome that differed from Tertullian, who wrote from thoroughly Romanized, and Latin speaking, north Africa.

From Tertullian's Roman POV (and he was proud of his Roman citizenship), this Clement was (what he supposed was) the first Latin speaking bishop of Rome, and not the Clement who supposedly wrote 1st or 2nd Clement, and who received his chair from Peter by rite of succession. Irenaeus looks at the matter from the point of view of actual successors, the first being Greek speakers from the east who just happened to be residents of the city of Rome, and thus not "Romans".

DCH

PS: I noticed that you have several times said "Tertullian ... implied the the Gospel of John terminated at the 20th chapter". This kind of nuanced reference is very unlike the Aa we have all come to know, so I am going to assume that you have a card up your sleeve that you haven't played yet. I'll call, and look forward to any cards you have to lay out.

aa5874

It is the Church writers, or at least some of them, who put forward the FICTION that there was unity in the Church.

So, it is rather easy to identify the fiction writers.

And some Church writers portray the themselves as EARLY writers when they were LATE.

It is NOT likely that "Paul" and "Peter" passed on any kinds of teachings. It is likely that all the disciples were FICTION characters.

Do you NOT understand that Irenaeus was a BISHOP?

Irenaeus should have been a Jesus believer for some time and well-versed in the doctrine of the Church in order to become a BISHOP

Do you NOT understand that Irenaeus claimed to be aware of FOUR gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the Pauline writings?

Irenaeus should have KNOWN when JESUS was crucified, resurrected and ascended to heaven according to the FOUR Gospels and Acts of the Apostles unless he wrote in a VACUUM and was NEVER a BISHOP.

But, the author "Tertullian" CLEARLY stated that he was giving the ROLL of the Bishop of ROME.

"Precription Against the Heretics"
"Tertullian" was supposedly arguing against Heretics and putting forward the claim that his religion could be traced back to the apostle Peter. Clement was ordained by Peter in the REGISTER of the Church of Rome.

"Tertullian" did NOT even write about LINUS as a bishop or a Jesus believer.

Where did Irenaeus get his records that stated Linus followed Peter as bishop?

Who was LINUS BEFORE Irenaeus mentioned that he was a Bishop?

Irenaeus was a FICTION writer.

aa5874

The statement in the Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching has opened a LARGE can of worms. This ERROR supposedly by Irenaeus in the 2nd century has SERIOUS historical implications.

Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching 74 Now, once Irenaeus claimed it was TRUE that Jesus was about 50 years old when was crucified during the reign of Claudius Caesar and that John the apostle ALSO taught that Jesus was 50 years old then he has completely OVERTURNED and DUMPED as garbage, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

If Jesus was crucified during the reign of Cladius when did "Paul" preach Christ crucified?

If Jesus was was resurrected during the reign of Claudius when did "Paul" PREACH that Jesus was raised from the dead.

A Pauline writer claimed he was in a basket in Damascus during the reign of Aretas so that would mean the Pauline writer was ALREADY converted by the bright light from the resurrected Jesus even long BEFORE Jesus was crucified.

It is just NOT realistic that a Bishop did NOT know the time "Paul" was converted according to the Church when he supposedly had Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings especially when It is claimed that he was ARGUING against Heretics.

1. Irenaeus did NOT KNOW when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea.

2.He did NOT know when Paul was in the basket in Damascus.

3.He did NOT know the age of Jesus when he died.

4. He did NOT know the chronological order of events in Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.


Irenaeus was a Fake Bishop. It would appear that the writings of Irenaeus were NOT seen by Heretics in the 2nd century and do not reflect history.

aa5874

"Against Heresies" appears to be a work of Fiction filled with Massive ERRORS that could NOT have been reasonably expected to have been written and read by the very Heretics, even Church writers or historians of that time period.

Irenaeus' claims about the BELIEF of the Church throughout the world is self-contradictory and even contraindicated by other apologetic writers of Antiquity.

Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" All the so-called Heretics in "Against Heresies" would be expected to call themselves Christians so they would have considered themselves as part of the Church therefore the claim by Irenaeus that the Church had ONLY one universal belief is completely False or ERRONEOUS.

Origen in De Principiis would STATE that many Christians would DIFFER on virtually every aspect of Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit.

"Preface to De Principiis" 2 So, Irenaeus would contradict himself by writing about a multitude of HERESIES and still claim that the Church had one UNIFIED doctrine and Origen would write that Christian were NOT unified in their beliefs about Jesus up to the 3rd century.

Now once there was NO unified belief up to the 1st half of the 3rd century then Irenaeus most likely wrote when the Church was UNIFIED.

The Church was UNIFIED under Constantine in the 4th century.

aa5874

"Against Heresies" by "Irenaeus" has turned out to be a DISASTER of historical proportions.

It is most incredible that a BISHOP of the Church did NOT KNOW when his LORD and SAVIOUR, the LAMB of God, the Creator, JESUS CHRIST was SACRIFICED for the Remission of SINS.

Irenaeus claimed in "Against Heresies" that there were four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline writings and Revelation.

Now, once "Irenaeus had READ and STUDIED the four Gospels he should have known that Jesus was CRUCIFIED in the Gospels when CAIAPHAS was the high priest.

Examine Matthew 26:57 - Examine John 18:24 - So, once Irenaeus claimed Jesus was about 50 years old when he died even though he was around thirty years old in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius then Irenaeus did NOT KNOW when CAIAPHAS was the high priest.

CAIAPHAS was high priest during the reign of Tiberius.

"Irenaeus was LOST"

It is now no wonder that "Irenaeus" got his whole chronology, dating, authorship and contents of the NT Canon wrong.

Irenaeus may have been writing in the 4th century thinking it was the 2nd.

1. Irenaeus claimed to be aware of Acts since the 2nd century.

John Chrysostom in the 4th century claimed many people did NOT even know such a book exist or who wrote Acts.

2. Irenaeus claimed Linus was the bishop of Rome IMMEDIATELY after Peter.

Tertullian claimed Clement was ordained bishop of Rome by Peter.

3. Irenaeus quote a passage that appears to be from John 21.

Tertullian claimed that gJohn terminated at a verse found in John 20.31.

4. Irenaeus claimed the Church was UNIFIED in their Beliefs about Jesus.

Origen claimed that many Jesus believers were NOT at all UNIFIED, differing from trifling to matters of great importance.

5. Irenaeus claimed the Gospels were written by disciples called Matthew and John and others called Mark and Luke.

Justin Martyr did NOT name any gospel writers called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John .

6. Irenaeus claimed Jesus believers used all four NAMED Gospels.

Justin Martyr ONLY mentioned that the "Memoirs of the Apostles" were read in the Churches on Sundays.

7. Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified under Pilate a governor for Claudius Caesar.

No other Church writer claimed Jesus was crucified during the reign of Claudius Caesar.

8. Irenaeus claimed Jesus was about 50 years old when he suffered.

No other Church writer claimed Jesus about 50 years old when he suffered.

Irenaeus was a FAKE bishop.

The so-called Heretics of the 2nd century could NOT have seen the DISASTER called "Against Heresies" or could NOT have heard the BISHOP preach publicly.

DCHindley

Ahh, ahh, ahh, Aa,

According to the 1889 revised American Edition of the Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 1 Volume 11, edited by Philip Schaff (the original edition was published 1851), Chrysostom says:

Ca. 387 CE, Antioch, In Principium Actorum, Homily I: "We are about to set before you a strange and new dish.…strange, I say, and not strange. Not strange; for it belongs to the order of Holy Scripture: and yet strange; because peradventure your ears are not accustomed to such a subject. Certainly, there are many to whom this Book is not even known (πολλοῖς γοῦν τὸ βιβλίον τοῦτο οὐδὲ γνώριμόν ἐστι) and many again think it so plain, that they slight it: thus to some men their knowledge, to some their ignorance, is the cause of their neglect……We are to enquire then who wrote it, and when, and on what subject: and why it is ordered (νενομοθέτηται) to be read at this festival. For peradventure you do not hear this Book read [at other times] from year’s end to year’s end." [This work is not translated into English, it seems, but is in Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum (CPG) 4371, ed. E. L. Von Leutsch and F. G. Schneidewin, 2 vols. (Göttingen, 1839 and 1851). The translation above was in a footnote to the citation below, so it likely dates to the 1851 edition of N&PNF. It indicates that in Antioch, where Chrysostom was first ordained Bishop, Acts was liturgically read throughout the entire year].

Ca. 400 CE, Easter season, Constantinople, A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily I: "To many persons [here in Constantinople - dch] this Book is so little known, both it and its author, that they are not even aware that there is such a book in existence. For this reason especially I have taken this narrative for my subject, that I may draw to it such as do not know it, and not let such a treasure as this remain hidden out of sight. For indeed it may profit us no less than even the Gospels; so replete is it with Christian wisdom and sound doctrine, especially in what is said concerning the Holy Ghost. Then let us not hastily pass by it, but examine it closely." [Comments by the translators indicate that they believe Acts was not regularly read in Constantinople, except in the Easter season, something Chrysostom set about to change his 3rd year as Bishop there].

Like here, I think your other examples infer much more than the evidence actually indicates.

DCH

aa5874

What a tragedy! What irony! What arrogance!

You claim I infer more than the evidence indicates but look at what you have done.

You have INSERTED your OWN words in the passage.

The words "here in Constantinople" CANNOT be found in the Homily of Acts of the Apostles by John Chrysostom.

Examine excerpts of HOMILY 1, you ADDITIONAL WORDS are NOT in the passage.

I have NOT inferred anything that is NOT in the passage.

You are the ONE who have done so and quite blatantly.

Not even the word "Constantinople" is anywhere at all in Homily 1 of Acts by John Chrysostom.

You have inferred and ACTUALLY inserted MORE than the written statement indicates.

DCHindley

So, Aa, is this the part where I'm supposed to take the bait and get into trading knee jerk reactionary responses with you? Naaah, not today (and I doubt you actually thought I would).

The "here in Constantinople" was added, yes by me (hence, the "-dch") to clarify context. If in Antioch the book is read periodically over the course of a year, and he can freely refer to it without assuming "many" won't know what it is, but in Constantinople he has to introduce it as something many were not familiar with, we can reasonably infer that it was not routinely read in liturgy there as it was in Antioch.

You, on the other hand, like to unreasonably infer the craziest things from specific statements in a source. You claim his statement that "many don't know" about Acts in the Constantinople homily of 400 CE as an indictment that there cannot have been any Book of Acts before his time (that it is some sort of recent fabrication or something), without even looking at the fact that 13 years earlier in a different place he assumes his hearers are familiar with it. If it existed in 387 it existed in 400.

Comparing and contrasting sources is pretty routine stuff. Not too many pay attention to it here, sure. I think you know that though. You are too good at researching sources when you have a mind to do it. That Caribbean sun hasn't fried your brain, I'm pretty sure. What gears, I wonder, are turning in that evil mind of yours? You will have to throw the thinking of the believers back into the face of some other person, as I am not one of them.

Keep it up, Aa.

DCH

aa5874

You cannot accuse me of making inferences that are not found in the written statements and then go straight ahead and blatantly INTERPOLATE a passage.

You know that the words "HERE IN CONSTANTINOPLE" is NOT at all in Homily 1 of ACTS.

You claim is FALSE.

It is you who have put your own words in a passage to come up with a crazy inference that is not at all in the passage.

I will show what is WRITTEN in Homily 1 and you will see that "many were NOT even aware of the existence of a book called Acts of Apostles.

I do not HAVE to ADD any words like you.

Homily 1. Why are trying you to demonize me because I do not agree with you?

I throw back the words you ADDED to Homily 1 by John Chrysostom.

It is written that many were NOT even aware there was a book called Acts and that it will no longer REMAIN hidden.
Homily 1
How could Acts of the Apostles be part of a Canon for hundreds of years and was HIDDEN out of Sight?

How do you HIDE ACTS of the Apostles in a Canon when Acts of Apostles is the ONLY book that deals with POST-ASCENSION history of the Apostles, PETER the first Bishop of ROME and "Paul"?

I can INFER without making any ADDITION to the passage that Acts of the Apostles was NOT Canonised when John Chrysostom wrote Homily 1 and was written very late.

DCHindley

A literary "interpolation" is not clearly marked by square brackets and marked with my initials. It was a scholia. The reader is free to take them or leave them.

This was the inference of the translators or editor of this particular N&PNF volume (series 1, volume 11). I sincerely doubt you will find any other interpretation of the passage in question (Commentaries on Acts, Homily 1) in academic literature, but go ahead and prove me wrong if you can. I would not be horrified to discover I am wrong, but even if you found one, maybe two, examples ypu will find that all the rest agree with the conclusion of the N&PNF series translators/editors, and it will be on the basis of a comparison with what is said about Acts in the Homily he gave in Antioch 13 years earlier.

Without context and contrast, what is "written" is insufficient to discover what the author meant. That's fundie talk, man! "Are you now, or have you ever been, a card carrying member of the fundamentalist mindset?"

Oh, that is not true. As I have stated several times in this and other threads, I think you are good at research but I do not agree with what you are posting as interpretations of the passages you reproduce. In fact, I do not think you are bad or misguided at all.

I think you are trying to make a farce of the thinking processes of many, characterized by far fetched interpretations of evidence, especially evidence which on the face of things seems to cast doubt on commonly held beliefs, intended to confirm those existing beliefs, to make fun of them. While here most members associate this with Christians, it is also identical to the process of many athiests and mythers who populate this board.

It's not like folks could go out and buy a bible at the store for under $10, or get one for free from some church. The bulk of Christians got exposed to approved books from sermons at church. That is the function of liturgical readings. Depending on the area and their traditions, as well as the bishop, some books get emphasized more than others. Big churches are like big ships, they don't turn on a dime. It took Chrysostom over two years to come up with a series of homilies to rectify the local disinterest in the book.

Sure you can.

DCH