Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 08-03-2009, 01:47 AM

Quote:

The Irenaeus declaration that Jesus was over fifty years old when he suffered destroys the credibilty of the writer. This writer seems to have no knowledge of historical figures and appear not to be able to count.

That vastly overstates things and is incorrect. Irenaeus might not have had a text sitting next to him with exact names and dates (e.g. Pilate, Herod, etc.) and though conflicting with Mt and Lk he may not have been far off though certainly on the length of the ministry he was if he puts it at plus 20.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 08-03-2009, 01:58 AM

Just to clarify I am reading this correctly:

Irenaeus says that “from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.” [ibid]

Ireneaus is claiming the the Apostle John relayed this information in person?

Vinnie

aa5874 · 08-04-2009, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Quote:

The Irenaeus declaration that Jesus was over fifty years old when he suffered destroys the credibilty of the writer. This writer seems to have no knowledge of historical figures and appear not to be able to count.

That vastly overstates things and is incorrect. Irenaeus might not have had a text sitting next to him with exact names and dates (e.g. Pilate, Herod, etc.) and though conflicting with Mt and Lk he may not have been far off though certainly on the length of the ministry he was if he puts it at plus 20.

Vinnie

Perhaps you have not read Against Heresies by some writer called Irenaeus.

The writer some called Irenaeus quotes Luke by name.

Against Heresies 2. 22.5

Quote:

For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,"(13) when He came to receive baptism...

The writer called Irenaeus claimed that the Gospel of Luke should not be rejected but be regarded as truth.

Against Heresies 3.14.3

Quote:

3. Now if any man set Luke aside, as one who did not know the truth, he will, [by so acting,] manifestly reject that Gospel of which he claims to be a disciple.

For through him we have become acquainted with very many and important parts of the Gospel; for instance......... the baptism of John, the number of the Lord's years when He was baptized, and that this occurred in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar.

The writer some called Irenaeus appears to be in sync with gLuke. Jesus was approaching 30 years of age in the 15th year of Tiberius according to gLuke.

And the writer called Irenaeus will also claim Jesus was crucified under Pilate.

Against Heresies 3.4.2

Quote:

... believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to
be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God,
and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having
been received up in splendour....

So, based on the writer of Against Heresies, Jesus was approaching 30 years at the 15th year of Tiberius and in less than 8 years Jesus was over fifty years old.

Irenaeus could not count.

Against Heresies is bogus. No heretic ever read the book. No church writer before Eusebius read Against Heresies and it is found today.

The History of the Church has been busted.

As one poster would say Against Heresies has been rubbished.

aa5874 · 08-05-2009, 06:08 PM

The information put forward by the writer called Irenaeus to support his argument that Jesus was over fifty years old when he suffered was a complete disaster.

Irenaeus claimed:

1. Jesus was baptised when he was about to be thirty years of age at the 15th year of Tiberius.

2. There were 3 Passovers after Jesus was baptised up to the time he was crucified.

3. Jesus sufered under Pontius Pilate.

Ireneus has destroyed himself. The information presented by Irenaeus utterly contradicts him.

It is now almost certain that no heretic or church writer ever saw or read Against Heresies, the passage would have been immediately discarded.

Against Heresies is a bogus document.

But why did the writer called Irenaeus claim Jesus was over fifty years old? Once the Gospels implied Jesus was about 33 years, then it is most likely that the original writer called Irenaeus was not using the Gospels. Perhaps there was a document that supported the idea that "Jesus passed through every age".

Against Heresies

Quote:

...For He came to save all through means of
Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to
God(8)--infants,(9) and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.
He therefore passed through every age.......

Where did Irenaeus get the idea from? It would appear the real Irenaeus believed in the words of the LOGOS not the Gospels.

This is Hippolytus in "Refutation against all Heresies" 10.29

Quote:

..... And we believe the Logos to have passed through every period in this life, in order that He Himself might serve as a law for every age, and that, by being present (among) us, He might exhibit His own manhood as an aim for all men. .....

Based on Hippolytus the LOGOS paased through every age.

It would appear that the words of the LOGOS were corrupted and called gJohn.

Against Heresies must be a book of fiction fabricated for the Roman Church to propagate the fraudulent history of the Church.

Vinnie · 08-05-2009, 06:41 PM

Quote:

It is now almost certain that no heretic or church writer ever saw or read Against Heresies, the passage would have been immediately discarded.

:notworthy::notworthy::notworthy:

jakejonesiv · 08-06-2009, 02:24 PM

According to John 8:57-58 Jesus claimed to be over 1500 years old! Fifty doesn't sound that bad, so let's give Irenaeus a break.

aa5874 · 08-07-2009, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

According to John 8:57-58 Jesus claimed to be over 1500 years old! Fifty doesn't sound that bad, so let's give Irenaeus a break.

If you give Irenaeus a break, then you give up the biggest break.

The argument by Irenaeus that Jesus was over fifty years old before he suffered defies logic and common sense based on the information that Irenaeus himself produced.

Irenaeus locked, as it were, the age of Jesus, beginning to be 30 years, at the 15th year of Tiberius, as found in Luke 3.

And then Irenaeus locked the time when Jesus suffered. He wrote that Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate.

And then padlocked himself when he used gJohn and claimed Jesus suffered immediately after three feast of Passovers.

By the way three Passover actually cover 2 years minimum, Jesus, based on gJohn, could be about 32 years when he was crucified.

Irenaeus presented information to show that Jesus around 32 years of age at crucifixion, yet at the same time claimed Jesus was over fifty years when he crucified.

Now, when was this totally absurd argument by Irenaeus circulated? Did any so-called heretic ever see Against Heresies 2.22? When did Jesus believers of antiquity see Against Heresies 2.22?

It almost certain that Against Heresies 2.22 would have been rejected if it was circulated when Irenaeus was alive. Irenaeus was most probably dead long before Against Heresies 2.22 was written, just like the TF was written long after Josephus was dead.

Against Heresies 2.22 is a massive break.

jakejonesiv · 08-07-2009, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

According to John 8:57-58 Jesus claimed to be over 1500 years old! Fifty doesn't sound that bad, so let's give Irenaeus a break.

If you give Irenaeus a break, then you give up the biggest break.

The argument by Irenaeus that Jesus was over fifty years old before he suffered defies logic and common sense based on the information that Irenaeus himself produced.

Irenaeus locked, as it were, the age of Jesus, beginning to be 30 years, at the 15th year of Tiberius, as found in Luke 3.

And then Irenaeus locked the time when Jesus suffered. He wrote that Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate.

And then padlocked himself when he used gJohn and claimed Jesus suffered immediately after three feast of Passovers.

By the way three Passover actually cover 2 years minimum, Jesus, based on gJohn, could be about 32 years when he was crucified.

Irenaeus presented information to show that Jesus around 32 years of age at crucifixion, yet at the same time claimed Jesus was over fifty years when he crucified.

Now, when was this totally absurd argument by Irenaeus circulated? Did any so-called heretic ever see Against Heresies 2.22? When did Jesus believers of antiquity see Against Heresies 2.22?

It almost certain that Against Heresies 2.22 would have been rejected if it was circulated when Irenaeus was alive. Irenaeus was most probably dead long before Against Heresies 2.22 was written, just like the TF was written long after Josephus was dead.

Against Heresies 2.22 is a massive break.

HI AA,

Thanks again for illustrating what a reasonable fellow I am!

The argument of Irenaeus is based in part on John 8:57, which reads

Quote:

So the Jews said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abraham?"

The author of AH 2.22.6 reasoned thusly,

Quote:

Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, "Thou art not yet forty years old." For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age.

Since you have padlocked yourself that Jesus was a mere 32 years old, It may seem odd that Jesus was nearly fifty years old, but it is a more reasonable age than over 1500 years, which John 8:57 had just asserted, i.e. that Jesus was alive before Abraham.

Now, the Valentinian heretics were teaching that since there were 30 Aeons, Jesus must have been 30 years old when he was baptised.

Quote:

I have shown that the number thirty fails them in every respect; too few AEons, as they represent them, being at one time found within the Pleroma, and then again too many [to correspond with that number]. There are not, therefore, thirty AEons, nor did the Saviour come to be baptized when He was thirty years old, for this reason, that He might show forth the thirty silent AEons of their system, otherwise they must first of all separate and eject [the Saviour] Himself from the Pleroma of all.
AH 2.22.1

It is more than a little challenging to understand some of the esoteric systems of the Gnostics. I am willing to give them a break because their understanding of Jesus was highly allegorical.

Jake

jakejonesiv · 08-07-2009, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Quote:

It is now almost certain that no heretic or church writer ever saw or read Against Heresies, the passage would have been immediately discarded.

:notworthy::notworthy::notworthy:

Tertullian, Against the valentinians 5.1.
Hippolotus, Refutation 6:37, 6;30.
Eusebius, Church History, 5.20.4-8.
Jerome, On Famous Men 35
From http://www.textexcavation.com/irenaeus.html

Of course, one can always so that no heretic or church writer ever saw or read these guys either, ad infinitum.

Jake

aa5874 · 08-07-2009, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

......... By the way three Passover actually cover 2 years minimum, Jesus, based on gJohn, could be about 32 years when he was crucified.

Since you have padlocked yourself that Jesus was a mere 32 years old...

I never wrote that Jesus was a mere 32 years old, I wrote that, based on gJohn, Jesus COULD BE ABOUT 32 years when he was crucified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

It may seem odd that Jesus was nearly fifty years old, but it is a more reasonable age than over 1500 years, which John 8:57 had just asserted, i.e. that Jesus was alive before Abraham.

Ther author of John claimed Jesus was God, the Word, the Creator of all things, without him nothing was made and was from the beginning.

John 1.1-2

Quote:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.

It must be apparent that Jesus, in John 8.37, was not claiming to be an old man but was from the beginning of time.

John 8.58

Quote:

Jesus said said unto them, Verily, Verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

On the other hand, the author of Against Heresies is claiming that Jesus was beginning to be thirty years old at the 15th year of Tiberius, suffered after 3 Passovers, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, yet was over fifty years old or became an old man for old men.

There was no allegory at all.

The author dispelled all allegory when he wrote the following: Against Heresies 2.22.6 ....

Quote:

For the period included between the thirtieth and
the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year......

The difference between 30 years and 50 years cannot be one year, it must be 20 years.

Against Heresies 2.22.6

Quote:

.....For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham.

No allegories at all. Jesus was an old man for the old men.

Now, the author of Against Heresies would claim that those who claimed Jesus was not yet fifty may have used the public register to ascertain the age of Jesus.

No allegories at all.

Against Heresies 2.22.6

Quote:

For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age...

Irenaeus was claiming that Jesus was really over fifty years old when he suffered. No allegories.

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

08-03-2009, 01:58 AM	#12
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Just to clarify I am reading this correctly: Irenaeus says that “from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.” [ibid] Ireneaus is claiming the the Apostle John relayed this information in person? Vinnie

08-06-2009, 02:24 PM	#16
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	According to John 8:57-58 Jesus claimed to be over 1500 years old! Fifty doesn't sound that bad, so let's give Irenaeus a break.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.