show_no_mercy

Oh, I was referring to this part from AH:

Because there are four corners of the Earth, there should only be four gospels? That's a non-sequitur. Irenaeus probably picked these four to appeal to the majority of the proto-Christian churches, since these were the most popular... not necessarily because these were the only gospels thought to be authentically written by apostles.

aa5874

Your re-collection is extremely faulty. As I have written Justin Martyr referred to the writings as "Memoirs" over 14 times.

And he did mention many authors of the OT by name, but only John by name who wrote a "revelation" from the NT.

Justin Martyr mentioned the book called Isaiah by name over 100 times, the book Jeremiah by name over 10 times, the book Zechariah by name over ten times, the book Ezekiel by name several times, the book Hezekiah by name over ten times, the book Joshua by name over ten times, and mentioned by name Zephaniah, Micah, Amos, Daniel, Malachi, Jonah, Solomon and Job.

Justin Martyr seems not to know the specific names of the authors of of the "Memoirs" since he mentioned many passages from the 'Memoirs" and never did mention Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, yet, he made one single reference to "revelation" and immediately attributed "revelation" to an apostle of Jesus called John.

The point is that if both genealogies are missing from the Diatessaron, then this may be an indication that information may have been added to the Gospels as we have them today, which may include authorship.

You seem to be implying that if there is no corroborative evidence that there was any known authorship before Irenaeus, that the lack of corroboration has no wieght at all.

Internal inconsistencies are extremely relevant when trying to determine veracity.

Kapyong

Gday,

Of course, Roger ignores the many early references to the Gospels as un-named written works.


Kapyong

angelo

Irenaeus's [born 130 died 202 ce] teacher knew the apostle John?
What a load of balony! That would make this teacher well over a century old.
Quite an achivement for those days, don't you think?
That's if this John even had a historical reality, which I doubt. :banghead:

Roger Pearse

Well, ancient writers make arguments of this kind, and I suspect are following some rules of argument other than those used today (one day I must read Quintillian). What we learn from it is that Irenaeus, at least, is so confident of the long-standing authority of the four that he feels able to compare them to the four corners of the world, without the comparison being silly as it would be if the four had only just been written. (He then makes the point that the Valentinian texts *have* just been written).

I find no trace of this in the historical record, and what he actually says is the reverse of this.

One further point, which I make, somewhat reluctantly. May I ask you to stop using the word "proto-Christian" in this highly misleading way?

Wouldn't your previous post have misled most of your co-religionists to suppose that Irenaeus said that early Christians had no fixed set of gospels, whereas he says the contrary?

Now I know that your use of this terminology is in order to pretend that the early Christians were no more connected to Christ and his teachings than heretical semi-pagan groups who took their teachings from Zeno and Heracleitus, and used little more of Christ than the name, despite the lack of evidence for this and the obvious evidence to the contrary. That is of course untrue, but then there is no likelihood that anyone else will be misled by this. It's clear enough what is being said, and everyone can judge for themselves.

But we should not write in a manner calculated to deceive those who are not aware that one is playing games with the categories of terms used. That is wrong, and in this case, liable to start off a few more atheists going around telling stories which then get smacked down.

I don't see how anyone is served by misinformation going into circulation. This use of language is very likely to originate myths in the minds of those who share your views this way. Can I ask you to write less ambiguously?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

LogicandReason

Here is the problem Roger, on the 'Freethought' website all the boys and girls are allowed to think and reason for themselves. While you may believe us inferior to you, we will go ahead and examine the 'evidence' or lack of it and come to our own conclusions. Nobody here is going to determine what will or will not be said and how it is said. Like Irenaeus of Lyons, you seek to silence those who refuse to clap for your vestige of the old rabbit in the hat trick.

Some of the exegesis above is as stretched and unattractive as the nether region of a seasoned prostitute. You may ask yourself why you come her to defend the 'truth' if that is in fact what you are defending. Before you ask people here to stop comparing your beliefs to other ancient myths, remember that Justin Martyr did it first. This may come as a shock, but talking animals and snakes and reanimating dead people all come from myth and are based on 'a priori' epistemology. Your condescending concern for misrepresentation seems only to apply to those who read the tea leaves otherwise.

Roger Pearse

Nothing in this seems to address my point; that saying "Irenaeus says that proto-Christians had various numbers of gospels" will inevitably cause people to suppose that the early Christians held this view, when in fact he says the opposite. Language that confuses is a bad idea.

May I advise you, by the way, when you post a series of stale old jeers, not to introduce them with a (second-hand!) demand to be allowed to think for yourself. It provokes laughter, which may not always be kind. No-one is preventing you from thinking for yourself, except yourself.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

The apostle John survived to the time of Trajan and died ca. 100 AD. His disciple Polycarp was alive and preaching in Rome in 150 AD (although very old), and was therefore known to quite a number of people. It is probably for this reason that we have rather more information about John's later life than for any other apostle. Irenaeus' dates are not nearly so certain as given above; we do know that he was writing in 180 AD.

This was exceptional, of course, but no means unique. In effect it means that John the apostle was a young man when he knew Jesus, and lived to be 90+.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

dog-on

Really?

Doesn't he actually distinguish between early (proto) Christian groups such as the Marcionites, Valentiians, et. al.

Roger Pearse

If you want to ignore what Irenaeus says about Marcionites and Valentinians and pretend that he refers to them as early Christians, that is your right. But any tendency to falsify sources rather suggests that the atheism of those who do it isn't founded on facts, but on wishful thinking. If that's your position, of course, it's not for me to object.

All the best,

Roger Pearse