Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 02-28-2012, 09:52 AM

I saw another translation that has it as an exclamation rather than a question although it doesn't really make sense in context as a statement rather than an inquiry of skepticism:
57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

But it does seem that they were not commenting on his age but about something to do with greatness that he claimed well before the great age of 50. If "Irenaeus" relied on this for his literalist observation without looking at the rest of his 4 gospels, then it draws into question his abilities as a philosopher.

Bernard Muller · 02-28-2012, 09:55 AM

to aa,

Quote:

So, Irenaeus was a Heretic and could NOT have been a Bishop of the Church.
In "Against Heresies" 2.22, incredibly, the Heretics were arguing that Jesus suffered at 30 years of age which is EXACTLY the same statement made by Clement of Alexandria.

I do not see your point. Why Irenaeus would consider himself as a heretic if he was opposing heretics' view? And, I repeat, Irenaeus could not have known about Stromata.

Quote:

And now in the same chapter the writer CONTRADICTS himself and claims Jesus was indeed 30 years old at Baptism.

So, 30 years at baptism does not mean he was also 30 years when he died.

aa5874 · 02-28-2012, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

to aa,

Quote:

So, Irenaeus was a Heretic and could NOT have been a Bishop of the Church.
In "Against Heresies" 2.22, incredibly, the Heretics were arguing that Jesus suffered at 30 years of age which is EXACTLY the same statement made by Clement of Alexandria.

I do not see your point. Why Irenaeus would consider himself as a heretic if he was opposing heretics' view? And, I repeat, Irenaeus could not have known about Stromata.

If you don't understand what forgeries are then I cannot help.

It is quite illogical that Irenaeus could have argued that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old under the reign of Claudius if the Heretics, the Skeptics and Historians did have or was aware of gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings which should have supposedly been in circulation for at least 100 years throughout the Roman Empire.

ALL 2 nd and 3rd century Church writers and apologetic sources that mentioned the age of Jesus at crucifixion claimed he was about 30 years old EXCEPT Irenaeus.

Irenaeus MUST have been an Heretic.

If you don't understand what Heretic means then I cannot help you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And now in the same chapter the writer CONTRADICTS himself and claims Jesus was indeed 30 years old at Baptism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mullerb

So, 30 years at baptism does not mean he was also 30 years when he died.

It only means that the writings were MANIPULATED and had Multiple authors.

The original author of Against Heresies 2.22 and the Heretics did NOT know of gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

la70119 · 02-28-2012, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Playing with all the numbers is a wonderful thing!!

And yes, it's very interesting where the TF is placed in Josephus. (setting aside the arguments for and against it...). And to add to that interest - Slavonic Josephus places it's wonder-doer story between the protests over the Roman standards and the water affair.

A 19 c.e. JC crucifixion story has more to do with the Slavonic Josephus story than the story in gLuke. However, keep in mind that gLuke is a late gospel and prior to that gospel the JC crucifixion story could not be dated to the 15th year of Tiberius. Consequently, other stories, other dating, would be possible. The Acts of Pilate has the 7th year of Tiberius. One can take that running to 21 c.e. and have a JC crucifixion in that year. Or, one can try running the numbers from the "co-princeps" of Tiberius in 12 c.e. Just a few years difference but perhaps adds more fuel the fire....

Tiberius

Quote:

Thus according to Suetonius, these ceremonies and the declaration of his "co-princeps" took place in the year 12 AD, after Tiberius return from Germania.

A JC crucifixion story in the 7th year of Tiberius, from his 'Co-princeps" in 12 c.e. gives one the 19 c.e. date (more in line with the placing of the TF in Antiquities). Using gJohn and his not yet 50 years - and one has a date of around 30 b.c. for the birth narrative.

Slavonic Josephus places it's birth narrative prior to the 15th year of Herod the Great. This can be either from 40 b.c. or from 37 b.c. No specific date - only prior to the 15th year of Herod the Great. So, one can run with the 30 b.c. nativity dating - which is - the interesting part - just 7 years from the siege of Jerusalem by Herod the Great. And, going back again to the story in Slavonic Josephus, that was the time, during the siege of Jerusalem in 37 b.c. when the priests were taking stock of their situation - and looking to Daniel........

Bottom-line in all of this - one has to put gLuke on the shelve for a while and consider the other gospels that are prior to it. gLuke has recast the JC story into a new time frame. One can wonder and debate what gLuke was endeavoring to accomplish - and one can give those early christian writers a bit of a break. With gLuke adding so many contradictions to an earlier JC story it is little wonder that we, today, have trouble figuring it all out - hence have no rational reason to bring the axe down on those earlier attempts to make some sense of it all.

(obviously, those who uphold the assumption of a historical JC will want to ditch Slavonic Josephus - for the ahistoricist/mythicists - that source is pure gold....)

Exactly. Even those who believe in an HJ who is dissimilar from the NTJ should find Slavonic Josephus as pure gold. I'm beginning to get an idea that maybe there might have been TWO historical Jesus's: one crucified in 18 or 19 CE by Pontius Pilate under Tiberius, and the other crucifed by Cumanus in 49 or 50 CE under Claudius. A separate proto-Christianity might have devolved from each. Somewhere along the line the two were fused into one and the rest is history.

OR there was just one HJ and they couldn't remember what he did right, not even the date he was nailed up and suspended.

OR there was NO HJ, and the Christians, in their attempts to historicise a mythical Christ, were making it up as they went along. Beginning with "Paul" AFTER 70 CE.

aa5874 · 02-28-2012, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

...OR there was NO HJ, and the Christians, in their attempts to historicise a mythical Christ, were making it up as they went along. Beginning with "Paul" AFTER 70 CE.

One does NOT historicise a Myth by claiming the Myth's Mother was WITH CHILD of the Holy Ghost.

The authors of the Gospels CONFIRMED that THEIR Jesus was MYTHOLOGICAL by making sure that they NEVER claimed he had a human father and made sure that he ACTED Non-human.

gMark's Jesus:

1. No known human father.

2. Walked on sea-water.

3. Transfigured.

4. Resurrected on the THIRD day.

gMatthew's Jesus:

1. Son of a Ghost.

gLuke's Jesus:

1. Son of a Ghost.

gJohn's Jesus:

1. God the Creator.

It is absolutely clear that the Gospel authors did NOT historicise their Jesus---they documented and Publicly circulated that their Jesus was BLATANTLY Mythological.

maryhelena · 02-28-2012, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Playing with all the numbers is a wonderful thing!!

And yes, it's very interesting where the TF is placed in Josephus. (setting aside the arguments for and against it...). And to add to that interest - Slavonic Josephus places it's wonder-doer story between the protests over the Roman standards and the water affair.

A 19 c.e. JC crucifixion story has more to do with the Slavonic Josephus story than the story in gLuke. However, keep in mind that gLuke is a late gospel and prior to that gospel the JC crucifixion story could not be dated to the 15th year of Tiberius. Consequently, other stories, other dating, would be possible. The Acts of Pilate has the 7th year of Tiberius. One can take that running to 21 c.e. and have a JC crucifixion in that year. Or, one can try running the numbers from the "co-princeps" of Tiberius in 12 c.e. Just a few years difference but perhaps adds more fuel the fire....

Tiberius

Quote:

Thus according to Suetonius, these ceremonies and the declaration of his "co-princeps" took place in the year 12 AD, after Tiberius return from Germania.

A JC crucifixion story in the 7th year of Tiberius, from his 'Co-princeps" in 12 c.e. gives one the 19 c.e. date (more in line with the placing of the TF in Antiquities). Using gJohn and his not yet 50 years - and one has a date of around 30 b.c. for the birth narrative.

Slavonic Josephus places it's birth narrative prior to the 15th year of Herod the Great. This can be either from 40 b.c. or from 37 b.c. No specific date - only prior to the 15th year of Herod the Great. So, one can run with the 30 b.c. nativity dating - which is - the interesting part - just 7 years from the siege of Jerusalem by Herod the Great. And, going back again to the story in Slavonic Josephus, that was the time, during the siege of Jerusalem in 37 b.c. when the priests were taking stock of their situation - and looking to Daniel........

Bottom-line in all of this - one has to put gLuke on the shelve for a while and consider the other gospels that are prior to it. gLuke has recast the JC story into a new time frame. One can wonder and debate what gLuke was endeavoring to accomplish - and one can give those early christian writers a bit of a break. With gLuke adding so many contradictions to an earlier JC story it is little wonder that we, today, have trouble figuring it all out - hence have no rational reason to bring the axe down on those earlier attempts to make some sense of it all.

(obviously, those who uphold the assumption of a historical JC will want to ditch Slavonic Josephus - for the ahistoricist/mythicists - that source is pure gold....)

Exactly. Even those who believe in an HJ who is dissimilar from the NTJ should find Slavonic Josephus as pure gold. I'm beginning to get an idea that maybe there might have been TWO historical Jesus's: one crucified in 18 or 19 CE by Pontius Pilate under Tiberius, and the other crucifed by Cumanus in 49 or 50 CE under Claudius. A separate proto-Christianity might have devolved from each. Somewhere along the line the two were fused into one and the rest is history.

OR there was just one HJ and they couldn't remember what he did right, not even the date he was nailed up and suspended.

OR there was NO HJ, and the Christians, in their attempts to historicise a mythical Christ, were making it up as they went along. Beginning with "Paul" AFTER 70 CE.

I like that word 'fused'

That's about where I'm at - two historical figures that the NT writers found to be, in some way, relevant for their JC storytelling. Keep in mind that when the life stories of two historical figures are fused into one symbolic or figurative figure, as in JC, that the characteristics of each figures becomes, in that fused, composite, figure, the characteristics of the new creation. For example; there only needs to have been one historical figures that was crucified, not two. One figure, the historically crucified figure, could have died while in his prime; the other historical figure could have died of old age - perhaps even in the time of Claudius. Within the fused JC figure, the lives and the time periods of the two historical figures, are condensed to fit the gospel JC storyboard. However, history and historical memories, would in time fade away. Before that happens, there could well be a period of confusion between the JC story and what historical memories remained of the two historical figures that the gospel writers have used in their JC creation. Did JC die around the 15th year of Tiberius, or the 7th year, or was the 12 year the start of his ministry - or the days of Claudius when he died etc. (apart, of course, from the gospel's own contradictory statements...)

la70119 · 02-29-2012, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

...OR there was NO HJ, and the Christians, in their attempts to historicise a mythical Christ, were making it up as they went along. Beginning with "Paul" AFTER 70 CE.

One does NOT historicise a Myth by claiming the Myth's Mother was WITH CHILD of the Holy Ghost.

The authors of the Gospels CONFIRMED that THEIR Jesus was MYTHOLOGICAL by making sure that they NEVER claimed he had a human father and made sure that he ACTED Non-human.

It is absolutely clear that the Gospel authors did NOT historicise their Jesus---they documented and Publicly circulated that their Jesus was BLATANTLY Mythological.

It is also absolutely clear that the early Christians INSISTED that this all happened for REAL, in the four-dimensional space-time continuum called the MATERIAL WORLD and HISTORY.

As opposed to the Sons of Jupiter, which the Christians, in agreement with the Greek Philospohers, asserted were mere mythical constructs and allegories (although Justin Martyr claimed the Devil forged the Panhellenic Myths in advance).

la70119 · 02-29-2012, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I like that word 'fused'

That's about where I'm at - two historical figures that the NT writers found to be, in some way, relevant for their JC storytelling. Keep in mind that when the life stories of two historical figures are fused into one symbolic or figurative figure, as in JC, that the characteristics of each figures becomes, in that fused, composite, figure, the characteristics of the new creation. For example; there only needs to have been one historical figures that was crucified, not two. One figure, the historically crucified figure, could have died while in his prime; the other historical figure could have died of old age - perhaps even in the time of Claudius. Within the fused JC figure, the lives and the time periods of the two historical figures, are condensed to fit the gospel JC storyboard. However, history and historical memories, would in time fade away. Before that happens, there could well be a period of confusion between the JC story and what historical memories remained of the two historical figures that the gospel writers have used in their JC creation. Did JC die around the 15th year of Tiberius, or the 7th year, or was the 12 year the start of his ministry - or the days of Claudius when he died etc. (apart, of course, from the gospel's own contradictory statements...)

It would also best explain why Irenaeus insisted that Jesus lived to age 50 and died the time of Claudius Caesar, even though the gospels agree that Jesus was about 30 when he had a one-year (Synoptics) or 2-1/2 year (John) ministry and then was crucified by Pontiius Pilate, a Prefect of Tiberius Caesar.

The Irenaeus of Against Heresies 2:22 and Demonstration of Apolstolic Preaching had almost NO knowledge of the Synoptics, John, Acts, the Epistles of Paul, and the Early Church Fathers despite frequent quotes therefrom elsewhere in AH.

The Irenaeus of AH 2:22 and DAP was not the same Irenaeus who had an extensive knowledge of the Synoptics, etc., elsewhere in AH.

This fusion idea would explain the MASSIVE FORGERIES in Irenaeus' "Against Heresies."

Bernard Muller · 02-29-2012, 01:54 AM

to la70119,

Quote:

The Irenaeus of Against Heresies 2:22 and Demonstration of Apolstolic Preaching had almost NO knowledge of the Synoptics, John, Acts, the Epistles of Paul, and the Early Church Fathers

The Irenaeus of AH 2:22 had knowledge of gJohn and gLuke and named two alleged gospel authors, Luke and John. And why would you expect Irenaeus, in a small chapter, to display knowledge of everything?
BTW, neither Acts nor the Pauline epistles nor earlier fathers indicated the length of Jesus' ministry. The synoptics suggested one year (but that was rejected later, in favor of 3 years, proving the suggestion was not considered rock solid) and gJohn implies more than two years.
Irenaeus knew the two passages of gJohn which deal with the dating of Jesus' ministry. He also knew about the prophecy used by the heretics and gLuke, which, for the heretics, was the basis of an one year ministry (that Irenaeus opposed vigorously).

Irenaeus in Demonstration Apostolic knew & named Paul, quoted some of his letters. He also paraphrased gospel material, definitively gMatthew and gLuke. He named John and quoted gJohn.

aa5874 · 02-29-2012, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

to la70119,

Quote:

The Irenaeus of Against Heresies 2:22 and Demonstration of Apolstolic Preaching had almost NO knowledge of the Synoptics, John, Acts, the Epistles of Paul, and the Early Church Fathers

The Irenaeus of AH 2:22 had knowledge of gJohn and gLuke and named two alleged gospel authors, Luke and John. And why would you expect Irenaeus, in a small chapter, to display knowledge of everything?
BTW, neither Acts nor the Pauline epistles nor earlier fathers indicated the length of Jesus' ministry. The synoptics suggested one year (but that was rejected later, in favor of 3 years, proving the suggestion was not considered rock solid) and gJohn implies more than two years.
Irenaeus knew the two passages of gJohn which deal with the dating of Jesus' ministry. He also knew about the prophecy used by the heretics and gLuke, which, for the heretics, was the basis of an one year ministry (that Irenaeus opposed vigorously).

Irenaeus in Demonstration Apostolic knew & named Paul, quoted some of his letters. He also paraphrased gospel material, definitively gMatthew and gLuke. He named John and quoted gJohn.

Again, it is NOT possible to know of Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline writings, gLuke, gJohn, be a Bishop of the Church and still argue that Jesus was about 50 years old when crucified under Claudius.

Again, gJohn, gLuke, and the Pauline writings should have been known in the Churches for about 100 years in the Roman Empire BEFORE Irenaeus.

Irenaeus MUST have been an Heretic when he claimed Jesus was about 50 years old when crucified and under Claudius since NO apologetic source ever made such a claim.

The writings of the Heretic Irenaeus were massively interpolated or forged to give the False Impression that he was aware of the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters.

Clement of Alexandria showed that gLuke can PROVE that Jesus was crucified at 30 years of age under TIBERIUS.

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

02-28-2012, 09:52 AM	#271
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I saw another translation that has it as an exclamation rather than a question although it doesn't really make sense in context as a statement rather than an inquiry of skepticism: 57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” But it does seem that they were not commenting on his age but about something to do with greatness that he claimed well before the great age of 50. If "Irenaeus" relied on this for his literalist observation without looking at the rest of his 4 gospels, then it draws into question his abilities as a philosopher.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.