Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 10-10-2011, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

After 1800 years, why should WE believe Adam who never SAW an apostle and who never in his dreams attained the slightest trace of an apostle?

As I have said here before, "Anything's possible!"
You failed to notice my post (and my blog) in which I say I believe in reincarnation. ....

So, when are you going get around to telling us about the time the 'reincarnated' Apostle Paul dropped by your house to have a beer and pray with you?

icardfacepalm:

tanya · 10-10-2011, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Criddle

On the other hand traditions about 2nd century and very late 1st century events are likely to be reasonably accurate and Irenaeus did have access to written sources that have not survived.

In my earlier post I questioned the claim that if Irenaeus had access to the current NT text he could not have made his mistake about the chronology of Jesus. AFAIK no-one has given a detailed response on that point.

Thanks Andrew.

Is it possible that other documents, including those penned by Irenaeus himself, also have not survived? Is it possible that some of the documents today claimed to have been written by Irenaeus, have been altered, in some fashion?

Why do we attach conviction to the idea, that our extant library, attributed to his creations, are in fact writings produced by him, given this apparent discrepancy in something as fundamental as the birth of Jesus?

Is it not reasonable to imagine that even if living in France, Gaul if you prefer, this Bishop would have had some kind of written document describing the life story of Jesus of Nazareth? Irenaeus was not some sort of county priest, living his whole life in Iceland or Tanzania. He came from the heart of Christianity, in Turkey, emigrating to France, already well acquainted with the century old Christian church, having met Polycarp, face to face. That's not just any old gossip, or rumors, or "oral tradition". Can we really imagine that someone of that stature, with those credentials, appointed to function as a Bishop in a city not very distant from Rome, would be unaware of the birthdate of his saviour?

If one sought to discredit Irenaeus, a century or more, after his death, how better to accomplish that than by rewriting his texts? Maybe the original Irenaeus was a follower of Marcion, or one of the other heretics? It just seems unbelievable that he would not know when Jesus was born.

andrewcriddle · 10-10-2011, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Criddle

On the other hand traditions about 2nd century and very late 1st century events are likely to be reasonably accurate and Irenaeus did have access to written sources that have not survived.

In my earlier post I questioned the claim that if Irenaeus had access to the current NT text he could not have made his mistake about the chronology of Jesus. AFAIK no-one has given a detailed response on that point.

Thanks Andrew.

Is it possible that other documents, including those penned by Irenaeus himself, also have not survived? Is it possible that some of the documents today claimed to have been written by Irenaeus, have been altered, in some fashion?

Why do we attach conviction to the idea, that our extant library, attributed to his creations, are in fact writings produced by him, given this apparent discrepancy in something as fundamental as the birth of Jesus?

Is it not reasonable to imagine that even if living in France, Gaul if you prefer, this Bishop would have had some kind of written document describing the life story of Jesus of Nazareth? Irenaeus was not some sort of county priest, living his whole life in Iceland or Tanzania. He came from the heart of Christianity, in Turkey, emigrating to France, already well acquainted with the century old Christian church, having met Polycarp, face to face. That's not just any old gossip, or rumors, or "oral tradition". Can we really imagine that someone of that stature, with those credentials, appointed to function as a Bishop in a city not very distant from Rome, would be unaware of the birthdate of his saviour?

If one sought to discredit Irenaeus, a century or more, after his death, how better to accomplish that than by rewriting his texts? Maybe the original Irenaeus was a follower of Marcion, or one of the other heretics? It just seems unbelievable that he would not know when Jesus was born.

Hi Tanya

Are you claiming that if Irenaeus had access to the standard NT he could not have made this mistake ? In which case please justify your argument.

Or are you claiming that Irenaeus must have had access to some hypothetical non-canonical text which would have provided accurate chronological information ?

Andrew Criddle

Iskander · 10-10-2011, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Criddle

On the other hand traditions about 2nd century and very late 1st century events are likely to be reasonably accurate and Irenaeus did have access to written sources that have not survived.

In my earlier post I questioned the claim that if Irenaeus had access to the current NT text he could not have made his mistake about the chronology of Jesus. AFAIK no-one has given a detailed response on that point.

Thanks Andrew.

Is it possible that other documents, including those penned by Irenaeus himself, also have not survived? Is it possible that some of the documents today claimed to have been written by Irenaeus, have been altered, in some fashion?

Why do we attach conviction to the idea, that our extant library, attributed to his creations, are in fact writings produced by him, given this apparent discrepancy in something as fundamental as the birth of Jesus?

Is it not reasonable to imagine that even if living in France, Gaul if you prefer, this Bishop would have had some kind of written document describing the life story of Jesus of Nazareth? Irenaeus was not some sort of county priest, living his whole life in Iceland or Tanzania. He came from the heart of Christianity, in Turkey, emigrating to France, already well acquainted with the century old Christian church, having met Polycarp, face to face. That's not just any old gossip, or rumors, or "oral tradition". Can we really imagine that someone of that stature, with those credentials, appointed to function as a Bishop in a city not very distant from Rome, would be unaware of the birthdate of his saviour?

If one sought to discredit Irenaeus, a century or more, after his death, how better to accomplish that than by rewriting his texts? Maybe the original Irenaeus was a follower of Marcion, or one of the other heretics? It just seems unbelievable that he would not know when Jesus was born.

Quote:

we are led to believe that Jesus may have been born A.U.C. 747, 748, 749

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08377a.htm

Christians say that the year of birth of Jesus is not known even today.

This one is a contemporary estimate:

The historian Robin Lane Fox agrees with Saint Ireneaus. Lane Fox says that John the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod Antipas, ruler of Galilee, because John had criticized the marriage of Antipas to Herodias, his sister-in-law. It was after the imprisonment of John that Jesus’ ministry began.

He dates the marriage of Antipas to Herodias to 33/34 and this means that Jesus began to teach early 34. The fourth gospel mentions three Passovers during Jesus’ ministry, on the third of which Jesus was arrested. Jesus, Lane Fox concludes, was crucified on Friday, 30 March AD 36.

How old was he at the time? Lane Fox asks.

Lane Fox says that Jesus was probably born between the years 14 and 10 BC. We are left with an uncertain birth-date, Lane Fox says.

aa5874 · 10-10-2011, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Irenaeus wrote sufficiently late that oral traditions recorded by him about events before 50 CE are unlikely to be reliable.[

On the other hand traditions about 2nd century and very late 1st century events are likely to be reasonably accurate and Irenaeus did have access to written sources that have not survived.

In my earlier post I questioned the claim that if Irenaeus had access to the current NT text he could not have made his mistake about the chronology of Jesus. AFAIK no-one has given a detailed response on that point.

Andrew Criddle

This is an EXTREMELY serious matter. Crimes against mankind were committed by the Church. Acts of the Apostle, Paul and the Pauline writings were UNKNOWN up to the late 2nd century.

You appear to have a vast amount of information but are asking questions as if you are in denial.

It is TOO late, now. We have FINALLY BUSTED the Church.

The 2000 word argument in "Against Heresies" 2.22 that John the disciple, up to 98-117 CE, the ELDERS and the Other Apostles conveyed to people in Asia that Jesus was about to be FIFTY years old when he was crucified is a confirmation that there were at least TWO authors of "Against Heresies".

One author that was totally unaware of Acts of the Apostles, Paul and the Pauline writings and the other who was completely familiar with the supposed Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

The 2000 word argument should have been PUBLICLY MADE and CIRCULATED AGAINST HERETICS of the 2nd century but such an argument is WHOLLY ABSURD if the same author of 'AH' 2.22 Already knew Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

"Against Heresies" 3

Quote:

3. But that Paul....... does himself say, in the Epistle to the Galatians: "Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking also Titus...............If, then, any one shall, from the Acts of the Apostles, carefully scrutinize the time concerning which it is written that he went up to Jerusalem on account of the forementioned question, he will find those years mentioned by Paul coinciding with it.

Thus the statement of Paul harmonizes with, and is, as it were, identical with, the testimony of Luke regarding the apostles.

It is virtually impossible that the same author who knew Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings could have claimed that John the disciple and the other Apostles conveyed that Jesus was about to be fifty when he was crucified when ALL the Apostles including John the disciple should have RECEIVED the Promised Holy Ghost AFTER Jesus supposedly ASCENDED to heaven in Acts BEFORE the reign of Claudius.

"Against Heresies" is a compilation of FRAUD, FICTION AND FORGERIES with multiple authors.

andrewcriddle · 10-10-2011, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is TOO late, now. We have FINALLY BUSTED the Church.

The 2000 word argument in "Against Heresies" 2.22 that John the disciple, up to 98-117 CE, the ELDERS and the Other Apostles conveyed to people in Asia that Jesus was about to be FIFTY years old when he was crucified is a confirmation that there were at least TWO authors of "Against Heresies".

One author that was totally unaware of Acts of the Apostles, Paul and the Pauline writings and the other who was completely familiar with the supposed Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

The 2000 word argument should have been PUBLICLY MADE and CIRCULATED AGAINST HERETICS of the 2nd century but such an argument is WHOLLY ABSURD if the same author of 'AH' 2.22 Already knew Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

"Against Heresies" 3

Quote:

3. But that Paul....... does himself say, in the Epistle to the Galatians: "Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking also Titus...............If, then, any one shall, from the Acts of the Apostles, carefully scrutinize the time concerning which it is written that he went up to Jerusalem on account of the forementioned question, he will find those years mentioned by Paul coinciding with it.

Thus the statement of Paul harmonizes with, and is, as it were, identical with, the testimony of Luke regarding the apostles.

It is virtually impossible that the same author who knew Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings could have claimed that John the disciple and the other Apostles conveyed that Jesus was about to be fifty when he was crucified when ALL the Apostles including John the disciple should have RECEIVED the Promised Holy Ghost AFTER Jesus supposedly ASCENDED to heaven in Acts BEFORE the reign of Claudius.

"Against Heresies" is a compilation of FRAUD, FICTION AND FORGERIES with multiple authors.

Please explain why it is impossible for someone to a/ know Acts the Pauline writings and the Gospels and b/ believe that Jesus died very early in the reign of Claudius.

Andrew Criddle

tanya · 10-10-2011, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Criddle

Are you claiming that if Irenaeus had access to the standard NT he could not have made this mistake ? In which case please justify your argument.

Or are you claiming that Irenaeus must have had access to some hypothetical non-canonical text which would have provided accurate chronological information ?

Thanks again, Andrew.

I have no idea what texts Irenaeus possessed. I do not believe that a BISHOP of the Christian church, living in the latter half of the second century, more than one hundred years after the church began, living in a city (Lyon) 1000 km from Rome, (3500 km to Jerusalem) would have had only rumor and gossip to point to, when confronted with potential investors.

It is just not reasonable to assume that Irenaeus was uninformed about something so fundamental as the birth of Jesus.

I have no reason to suppose that he did not have either Matthew, or Luke, the two synoptic gospels with a nativity story, available in 180 CE.

It seems to me, far more reasonable to assume forgery. Someone sought to discredit Irenaeus' extant manuscript evidence in the third or fourth century, but why? The problem with invoking Irenaeus' writing for support on any issue, is this significant discrepancy between the reasonable date for Jesus' birth, and the date proposed by Irenaeus.

Even if Irenaeus' only written texts as resources, were non-canonical, though, the guy had met Polycarp, so, it appears to me, anyway, unreasonable to explain this nativity discrepancy by faulty, defective, or absent written texts, in his possession.

Are we then to assume that Polycarp also did not know with accuracy, the date of Jesus' birth? Do we then go further back, to the Apostle John, Polycarp's advisor? Are we then to assume that the apostle John did not know the date of Jesus, birth?

andrewcriddle · 10-10-2011, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Even if Irenaeus' only written texts as resources, were non-canonical, though, the guy had met Polycarp, so, it appears to me, anyway, unreasonable to explain this nativity discrepancy by faulty, defective, or absent written texts, in his possession.

Are we then to assume that Polycarp also did not know with accuracy, the date of Jesus' birth? Do we then go further back, to the Apostle John, Polycarp's advisor? Are we then to assume that the apostle John did not know the date of Jesus, birth?

Did Polycarp a/ obtain accurate chronological information from John and b/ pass it on to Irenaeus whom he knew for a few years when Polycarp was a very old man and Irenaeus a very young one ?

Andrew Criddle

mountainman · 10-10-2011, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

It seems to me, far more reasonable to assume forgery. Someone sought to discredit Irenaeus' extant manuscript evidence in the third or fourth century, but why?

Hey tanya,

A supreme (Barbarian?) Roman Emperor had managed to convince himself that he'd had a Christian religious experience, and decided as "Pontifex Maximus" to also become the "Priest of Priests" or "Bishop of Bishops" so as to cash in on the temple gold and silver and real-estate, for authoritarian purposes, and to guide the faithful flock in difficult times. "War is a Racket".

You might also like to try and review the forged and fabricated nature of the "Historia Augusta" and its similarity in certain respects to the "Historia Ecclesiastica".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwin Johnson

"[the fourth century was] the great age of literary forgery,
the extent of which has yet to be exposed"

...[and]...

"not until the mass of inventions
labelled 'Eusebius' shall be exposed,
can the pretended references to Christians
in Pagan writers of the first three centuries
be recognized for the forgeries they are."

--- Edwin Johnson, "Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins"

Best wishes

Pete

arnoldo · 10-10-2011, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Due to the heavy use of Pauline writings by Marcion and other so called heretics it's not surprising that Justin Martyr or Irenaeus would avoid quoting Paul....

You seem not to be familiar with "Against Heresies". Virtually ALL the supposed Pauline writings are mentioned by name but the 2000 word argument in 'AH' 2.2 that JOHN the disciple CONVEYED to the ELDERS that Jesus was crucified when he was about to be fifty means that "Against Heresies" must be MANIPULATED and are forgeries.

The author of 'AH' 2.22 was NOT aware of Acts of the Apostles, Paul and the Pauline writings. . .

I stand corrected, Irenaeus does refer to the Pauline writings in many sections from Against Heresies. . the following are but a few

Quote:

Against Heresies (Book II, Chapter 22)

and by Paul, of whom the apostle, calling to mind the Scripture, says in the Epistle addressed to the Romans, "As it is written, for your sake we are killed all the day long, we are counted as sheep for the slaughter." (Romans 8:36]

and

Quote:

Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)

as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself." (Titus 3:10)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.