aa5874

Mountainman, I have noticed that the author of the book called John did not include the ascension story in his writing. And the final chapter ends this way, John 21:25, And there are many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

The statement by Irenaeus that Jesus lived until the time of Trajan, as reported by those who knew the disciple John, is very interesting. That would mean that Josephus would have been a contemporary of Jesus.

But then the Jesus of Irenaeus would be different to the one in Luke or Matthew.

J-D

You mean that the story Irenaeus tells about Jesus is different from the stories about Jesus told by Luke and/or Matthew.

So what? What's your point?

aa5874

It is fiction. Or to use your fancy 'term' , it is 'supernatural' or 'magical' fiction

aa5874

I think Matthew's or Luke's Jesus would already be in heaven, while the one of Irenaeus would still be on earth.

J-D

What makes you think that is a good explanation?

J-D

At a given time, according to their respective stories, yes. But still, so what? What's your point?

mountainman

YOU SAID: I regard it as a compilation of material from
heterogeneous sources which has not been edited
into a coherent whole.

I SAID: Constantine Bible was edited by Eusebius 333 CE.

YOU SAID: It is incoherent.

I SAID: Constantine is regarded as a respectably coherent
theologician by some of our contemporary scholars. In
particular, see this Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2000.07.07

I thought you may have been referring to Theological
coherency; in which Constantine the great, according
to this article, is well versed in "the literature tradition".

If we are to believe this, then Constantine was qualified
to look over the fifty expensive bound velum Constantine
Bibles, in some form of theological coherency, while at the
same time edicting for the destruction of the literature
of foremost influential non-christian authors.

"The Oration to the Saints reveals an emperor who was able to give more substance to his faith than many clerics, and an apologist whose breadth of view and fertile innovations make it possible to rank him with the more eminent theologians of his age."

J-D

Well, that was your mistake right there. Why would you think that?

mountainman

I think you'll find that that some interpret those words to mean
that Irenaeus is saying John was alive until Trajan, and thereby
avoid the implication that Jesus lived to his nineties, as does
Apollonius as per his 3rd century biographer Philostratus.

That is the assumption that you are making.
You are working on the premise that the Jesus
of Irenaeus is non fictional, while the NT Jesus
is fictional.

Eusebius tenders the data fed to us in relation to Irenaeus.
I do not make that premise.

On the contrary, IMO the Jesus of any author prior to
the fourth century is a Eusebian profile, and is fictional:
the same status as the Jesus of the NT. Thus the
Jesus of Irenaeus is equally fictitious, and so forth
back to the horses mouth, sp to speak, and the times
of the Arian controversy in the fourth century:
when the highways were covered with galloping bishops.

It was in the 4th century that the fictitous Jesus and reality
were turbulently conjoined in a boundary event known as
the Council of Nicaea. Hence the importance of the words
of the Alexandrian (neopythagorean priest) Arius

mountainman

Sometimes I think in a random fashion.
A thousand apologies for the excursion.