mountainman

If you wish to base the postulates of your conceptions upon the
testament of Irenaeus, please feel free to do so. You are of course
aware that we do not know of Irenaeus other than via what Eusebius
informs us in the fourth century?


Here is a Register of Pre-Nicene citations to the existence of "christianity".

You will observe these are all the external references to the
existence of "christianities". The list includes those citations of the
first century which, I think we agree, are spurious.

If you are given the impression that there exists some form of evidence
in the second century, then it should be listed on this register. If it
is not listed, what is it? And if it is listed, which of these citations do
you have reason to believe is historically accurate?

youngalexander

The word that you used was possibility!
Not 'best explanation' nor even 'plausible'. I was endeavouring to draw your attention to the fact that your statement was patently absurd. Theft or relocation are obviously possible.

Thanx for the link incidently, altho I note that RC says

Both conclusions in my mind, in conjunction with what I concluded above, now raise the probability of theft higher than that of relocation.

... I now doubt the historical veracity of anything in the Gospels, even in Mark

The last is very interesting, but does not negate my point.

Oh, and for what it is worth, I do not think that there was either a tomb or a body.

aa5874

I am of the view that 'ACTS' was written for historical and theological reasons, or should I say historical and theological propaganda.

It appears to me that Acts was fabricated to legitimise the historicity of Saul/Paul. Acts is basically a concise biography of Saul/Paul that was intended to appear historically factual as a prelude to the Pauline epistles. Without Acts, the Epistles would lack an element of veracity.

Even the name of the book, 'ACTS', denotes it's historical significance. The book tries to chronological tie Jesus the Christ to the eventual fabricator of the Christian doctrine, Saul/Paul, whoever that may be.

aa5874

It should be clear to you that those who accept that Jesus was historical are refered to as HJers. An HJer may or may not accept the book called Acts.

However, in order to establish historicity of Jesus the Christ, one must be able to confirm some level of credibilty in the written stories about him. It is my observation that the stories presented are not credible, nonetheless my view does not inhibit that of an HJer.

aa5874

It is my view that Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, inadvertently brings out the fact that the words, 'Jesus the Christ', does not inherently refer to a real person. Secondly, using Against Heresies, the word, 'Christian' may mean followers of one of the many versions of Jesus the Christ, whether real or unreal, and may or may not include Jesus of Nazareth.

Now, for example, if we look at the interpolations or questionable passages of Antiquities of the Jews, the letters between Pliny the younger and Trajan and those of passages by Tacitus, there is a common theme, these all try to place one version of Jesus the Christ, a real person, in the first century.

It is my view that if Jesus the Christ was indeed a real person, living and preaching in synagogues, constantly at odds with the chief priests, there would have been no need for these interpolations.

Now, if one was to ignore or set aside these interpolations or questionable passages, it may be reveal that Jesus the Christ was orginally a 'phantom' and the 'trible of Christians' were originally the followers of the 'phantom', or perhaps he was just whatever anyone believed him to be.

spamandham

Considering this is the Biblical criticism forum, and not the philosophy forum, I guess I wasn't expecting my usage of the word "possible" to be interpreted as "logically consistent".

youngalexander

Oh, we are very particular here.

mountainman

Firstly, what makes Irenaeus an historical author with vibrant things
to write that may be considered factual? Not only just that,
but according to your assertion the very first to legitimately
write historical data on "the tribe of christians" in antiquity?

Secondly, your assertion that the first century appears to be quite
literally devoid of "legitimate historical references" to the tribe of
christians" logically implies that some of the evidence which we have
before us must have been fabricated. Yet you do not follow through
this logic to explicate how, and who, and specifically when the
fraudulent misrepresentations were enacted.

This second consideration IMO is the responsibility of an historian.
You are clearly using the modus operandi and theoretical considerations
of an historian when you state your case against the existence of
anything "christian" in the historical record of the first century. But
you are at the same time (IMO) failing to be consistent, and follow
through with the task at hand (as an historian IMO is obliged to do).

What makes you draw a line in the sands of the history of antiquity
with the Eusebian derived author, and "christian saint", and "bishop"
being the first author whom, it appears to me anyway, that you
are saying ... "I am not going to start to believe some history
commenced with this LITERARY TRADITION PROFILE".

IRENAEUS (120-c. 200) Saint, Martyr, Bishop of Lyons; ex-
Pagan of Smyrna, who emigrated to Gaul and became Bishop;
"information of his life is scarce, and [as usual] in some measure
inexact. ... Nothing is known of the date of his death, which may
have occurred at the end of the second or beginning of the third
century." (CE., vii, 130.) How then is it known that he was a
Martyr? Of him Photius, ablest early critic in the Church, warns
that in some of his works "the purity of truth, with respect to
ecclesiastical traditions, is adulterated by his false and spurious
readings" (Phot.; Bibl. ch. cxx); -- though why this invidious
distinction of Irenaeus among all the clerical corruptors of
"tradition" is not clear. The only surviving work of Irenaeus in
four prolific Books is his notable Adversus Haereses, or, as was
its full title, "A Refutation and Subversion of Knowledge falsely
so Called," -- though he succeeds in falsely subverting no little
real knowledge by his own idle fables. This work is called "one of
the most precious remains of early Christian antiquity." Bishop St.
Irenaeus quotes one apt sentiment from Homer, the precept of which
he seems to approve, but which he and his Church confreres did not
much put into practice:

"Hateful to me that man as Hades' gates,
Who one thing thinks, while he another states."
(Iliad, ix, 312, 313; Adv. Haer. III, xxxiii, 3.)

JESUS DIED OF OLD AGE!

Most remarkable of the "heresies" attacked and refuted by
Bishop Irenaeus, is one which had just gained currency in written
form in the newly published "Gospels of Jesus Christ," in the form
of the "tradition" that Jesus had been crucified to death early in
the thirties of his life, after a preaching career of only about
one year, according to three of the new Gospels, of about three
years, according to the fourth. This is rankly false and
fictitious, on the "tradition" of the real gospel and of all the
Apostles, avows Bishop Irenaeus, like Bishop Papias earlier in the
century; and he boldly combated it as "heresy." It is not true, he
asserts, that Jesus Christ died so early in life and after so brief
a career. "How is it possible," be demands, "that the Lord preached
for one year only?"; and on the quoted authority of John the
Apostle himself, of "the true Gospel," and of "all the elders," the
saintly Bishop urges the falsity and "heresy" of the Four Gospels
on this crucial point. Textually, and with quite fanciful
reasonments, he says that Jesus did not die so soon:

"For he came to save all through means of Himself -- all,
I say, who through Him are born again to God -- infants, and
children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore
passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus
sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying
those who are of this age; a youth for youths, and thus
sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man
for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not
merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as
regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and
becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came
on to death itself, that He might be 'the first-born from the
dead.'

"They, however, that they may establish their false
opinion regarding that which is written, 'to proclaim the
acceptable year of the Lord,' maintain that he preached for
one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In
speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage,
destroying His work and robbing Him of that age which is both
more necessary and more honorable than any other; that more
advanced age, I mean, during which also, as a teacher, He
excelled all others. ...

"Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty
years, and that this extends onward to the fortieth year,
every one will admit; but 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. AND
HE REMAINED AMONG THEM UP TO THE TIMES OF TRAJAN [Roman
Emperor, A.D. 98-117]. Some of them, moreover, saw not only
John, but the other Apostles also, and heard the very same
account from them, and bear testimony as to [the validity of
] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe?" (Iren.
Adv. Haer. Bk. II, ch. xxii, secs. 3, 4, 5; ANF. I, 891-2.)

The Bishop's closing question is pertinent, and we shall come
back to it in due course.

Irenaeus also vouches his belief in magic arts, repeating as
true the fabulous stories of Simon Magus and his statue in the
Tiber and the false recital of the inscription on it; and as a
professional heresy-hunter he falls upon Simon as the Father of
Heresy: "Now this Simon of Samaria, from whom all heresies derive
their origin. ... The successor of this man was Menander, also a
Samaritan by birth; and he, too, was a perfect adept in the
practice of magic." (Adv. Haer. I, xxiii; ANF. i, 348.)




-- extracted from Joseph Wheless,
"FORGERY IN CHRISTIANITY", 1930

J-D

Your position would be clear to me if you made it clear to me when I asked you to. Why won't you do that? If you say that 'an HJer may or may not accept the book called Acts', why do you purport to argue against 'the HJ position' as if it necessrily includes acceptance of the truth of the book called Acts?Again, your position is not clear.

Do you hold that none of the written stories about Jesus the Christ are credible? Or do you hold that some of the written stories about Jesus the Christ are not credible? These are two different positions. In my view, some of the written stories are things that could not possibly have happened, but others are things that could possibly have happened.

Again, what do you mean when you say that your view 'does not inhibit' that of an HJer? What do you think 'inhibit' means? Do you mean that your view is not logically incompatible with an HJ view? If so, why did you begin this thread by saying that an HJ view cannot be maintained?

J-D

Why not?