Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 10-08-2011, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Melito is NOT in synch with "Against Heresies" at all.

He and Melito are in synch in that both [appear to] disagree with the orthodox time scale.

Please, stop your nonsense. Melito and "Against Heresies" are OUT of SYNCH.

According to you, Melito is 20 years early but "Against Heresies" is 20 years LATER.

You MUST agree that 20 BCE is NOT in Synch 1 BCE-1 CE for the birth of Jesus.

And you MUST also agree that 29 CE is NOT in Synch with 45-50 CE for the crucifixion of Jesus.

Please, please, please. You are out of Synch with reality.

In "Against Heresies" 2.22 it is claimed that JOHN the disciple, the Other Apostles and the ELDERS TESTIFIED that Jesus was crucified when he was about to be FIFTY years old which is in the reign of Claudius.

MELITO, the Church or "Against Heresies" 2.22 are NOT in Synch at all.

yalla · 10-08-2011, 08:50 PM

aa
Please change your agressive tone.

mountainman · 10-08-2011, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Melito appears to be placing the development of christianity as a philosophy during the reign of Augustus.

He specifically, as a second century christian himself, refers in the passage to 'our doctrines' which he identifies as a 'religion' that is currently being persecuted by Rome.
The last sentence specifically refers to Christians [remember this is, allegedly, written in the late second century circa the time of Irenaeus].
In short it appears that Melito is under the impression that Christianity developed some 20 years earlier or more than the orthodox histoy claims and thus is in synch with the claim of Irenaeus that alleged JC was older than orthodoxy claims.
Not that either has specific informed knowledge but it suggests that alternative traditions to the gospel orthodoxy were circulating in Asia regarding the origins and dating of christianity and there was a disparity between orthodoxy as we know it and that the gospel traditions and dating had not yet been set in stone, the battle against alternative views within the christian movement was not yet over, hence, among other examples, Irenaeus' "AH".
The extract above is further example that, as mountainman puts it above, there is 'monumental mistakes with the chronology' [which later got pretty much erased out by the church] and supports, possibly, your contention above, in #58, that conventional time frames had not yet achieved their later dominance.
Chritianity is still being formed.

Thank you yalla.
These 'alternative traditions' were what the emerging 'orthodox' normally came to identify as being 'heretical' teachings.
In this case the crucifixion tradition which Irenaeus evidently held, would be expected to be accounted as highly heretical by latter orthodox ideas and standards.

To wit; the orthodox claimed a 1st century CE origin for the Gospels, Acts, and Paulines.
And that these texts were the standard and universal informants of all who were of the Christian religion.
IF these 'inspired' NT traditions and writings had existed from as early in Christianity as the orthodox claimed, there would have been no Christians who would not have been aware of their content.
Irenaeus's arguments, circa 180 CE, in quite obviously representing a different tradition, one seriously lacking conformity to these ostensibly well known writings, demonstrate the falsity of orthodox claims.

It would be expected that such non-conformity to the orthodox 'versions' of these 'sacred' texts would have resulted in 'Adversus Heresies' being proclaimed heretical, and Irenaeus himself declared a 'heretic'.
That this never happened is all the more the amazing, when one considers the history of the Church in readily identifying even past Popes as being 'heretics' post-humously
Irenaeus, in spite of this glaring departure from standard Orthodox tradition and teaching, became, and remained as a 'Saint'.

Something very significant must have transpired post-180, that served to save Irenaeus's bacon from the frying pan.
I tend to believe it was his required -[i]penance[i]- to take up the task of putting into a completed written from, for the first time ever, the orthodox variation of Gospels, with a fabricated 'Acts of the Apostles', so conceding to the reactionary orthodox demands, and so appeasing, supporting, and establishing the legitimacy of orthodox claims to a Roman Apostolic succession, and full doctrinal authority through Peter, as opposed to his former claims of following a TRADITION given from John.

Effectively, this Christian Father from Lyons, Gaul (Lyons France) in the midst of his production of AH, 'converted' to the then current Roman 'catholocisim' which held to a significantly different TRADITION ('Petrine') than the one he had formerly been familiar with.
Looks to me like the Church of Rome pulled the strings and Irenaeus danced.

It was only in the age of the "Pontifex Maximus Pope" Damasius, after the death of Julian and at the time of "Canonization" that the "PETER WAS HERE IN ROME" tourist industry commenced. After fighting in the streets of Rome with those who would be the bishop, Damasius's army was victorious and he became the rightful "Bishop of Rome". During Damasius's tenure the catacombs were renovated and the trade in the bones and relics of the holy apostles, and the Saints and the Martyrs was conceived. Damasius supported the "PETER WAS HERE" in Rome business and business has not looked back to this day.

aa5874 · 10-08-2011, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

aa
Please change your agressive tone.

I am EXTREMELY aggressive. There is "NO CRYING" on BCH.

Melito and "Against Heresies" 2.22 are NOT in Synch.

yalla · 10-08-2011, 09:09 PM

Now, in reply to Shezbazzar.

I'm more than a bit suss about the writings of the "Early Christian Fathers" such as Irenaeus, Melito and Polycarp.
Of the latter I read, in a book of the title "Early Christian Fathers", that the sources for his life are 'meager', that there is an anonymous "Vita" of the 10th century considered by many to be ficticious, attributed possibly to one Pionius who 'signed his name in the colophon of 'The Matrydom of Polycarp'".
Jumping to that work we find that Pionius alleges that he found the copy of the matrydom from Gaius who copied it from the papers of Irenaeus after Pionius had a revelation of the blessed Polycarp!. It was, according to Pionius "almost worn out with age".
That is a very tenuous provenance.
This group of 'fathers' [adding Ignatius to the list], about whom little is known, are the subjects of works whose provenance is questionable, late manuscripts, suspected and even known forgeries [eg most, if not all of the Ignatiana] and appear to have a shadowy literary relationship.
Suss.

Adam · 10-08-2011, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

aa
Please change your agressive tone.

Iskander got it right back in Post #6 and aa should have listened:
"It may surprise you but Christians do not read Irenaeus and none of them gives a fig for his opinion.

Irenaeus is read only by rationalist gladiators that like dressing up and talk funny."

Sheshbazzar · 10-08-2011, 09:53 PM

In the meantime I've been reading dozens of apologetics on AH 2.22
Interestingly they vary all over the place on how they interpret the text, and in what conclusions they draw. Much of it is a kind of 'Oh well, it is what it is.....but I'm not about to let it affect me' attitude.

I went through something similar last summer, when I explained to one of my Christian relatives who suggested that 'the 'creation days' in Genesis might have really been 'epochs' each millions of years in length.
When I pointed out that according to the text, the grass and trees were created on 'the Third Day', before the sun, moon, and stars, on the Fourth Day,-
Was it millions of years before?
They became quite upset, and at first refused to even believe that their Bible said any such thing. When I assured them that it did, and to check it out, they became so upset that the subject had to be dropped (the individual was in their late 60s and a lifelong friend, and I was a guest))
The next day, it was 'Oh well, that is what it says.....' and back to business as usual.
Like 'I don't care what it says, I'm going to believe whatever I want to believe.'

yalla · 10-08-2011, 10:00 PM

Actually many christians do read Irenaeus and the other 'fathers'.
Scholars in particular.
Because despite all the problems, and others, I listed above, they are a major source of information for the era [loosely defined].
Some christians may not like to read or consider them because much that can be determined from their works when analysed is disturbing to the orthodox and literalist dogma and doctine of the later church and its 'traditions.
We have examples in this thread where knowledge of the 'fathers' sits uncomfortably with church doctrine and so-called history.

Sheshbazzar · 10-08-2011, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Now, in reply to Shezbazzar.

I'm more than a bit suss about the writings of the "Early Christian Fathers" such as Irenaeus, Melito and Polycarp.
Of the latter I read, in a book of the title "Early Christian Fathers", that the sources for his life are 'meager', that there is an anonymous "Vita" of the 10th century considered by many to be ficticious, attributed possibly to one Pionius who 'signed his name in the colophon of 'The Matrydom of Polycarp'".
Jumping to that work we find that Pionius alleges that he found the copy of the matrydom from Gaius who copied it from the papers of Irenaeus after Pionius had a revelation of the blessed Polycarp!. It was, according to Pionius "almost worn out with age".
That is a very tenuous provenance.
This group of 'fathers' [adding Ignatius to the list], about whom little is known, are the subjects of works whose provenance is questionable, late manuscripts, suspected and even known forgeries [eg most, if not all of the Ignatiana] and appear to have a shadowy literary relationship.
Suss.

Amen. Reading through AH, I could not help but wonder how many times and in how places Irenaeus revised it, and who else knows, revised his revisions.
I doubt we'll ever know, just like the NT texts. There isn't ever going to be any miracle that will make us 'all understand it bye and bye'

Sheshbazzar · 10-08-2011, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Actually many christians do read Irenaeus and the other 'fathers'.

Enough to generate more articles and opinions than I have time left in this life to ever be able to plow through.

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

10-08-2011, 08:50 PM	#72
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	aa Please change your agressive tone.

10-08-2011, 09:09 PM	#75
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	Now, in reply to Shezbazzar. I'm more than a bit suss about the writings of the "Early Christian Fathers" such as Irenaeus, Melito and Polycarp. Of the latter I read, in a book of the title "Early Christian Fathers", that the sources for his life are 'meager', that there is an anonymous "Vita" of the 10th century considered by many to be ficticious, attributed possibly to one Pionius who 'signed his name in the colophon of 'The Matrydom of Polycarp'". Jumping to that work we find that Pionius alleges that he found the copy of the matrydom from Gaius who copied it from the papers of Irenaeus after Pionius had a revelation of the blessed Polycarp!. It was, according to Pionius "almost worn out with age". That is a very tenuous provenance. This group of 'fathers' [adding Ignatius to the list], about whom little is known, are the subjects of works whose provenance is questionable, late manuscripts, suspected and even known forgeries [eg most, if not all of the Ignatiana] and appear to have a shadowy literary relationship. Suss.

10-08-2011, 09:53 PM	#77
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	In the meantime I've been reading dozens of apologetics on AH 2.22 Interestingly they vary all over the place on how they interpret the text, and in what conclusions they draw. Much of it is a kind of 'Oh well, it is what it is.....but I'm not about to let it affect me' attitude. I went through something similar last summer, when I explained to one of my Christian relatives who suggested that 'the 'creation days' in Genesis might have really been 'epochs' each millions of years in length. When I pointed out that according to the text, the grass and trees were created on 'the Third Day', before the sun, moon, and stars, on the Fourth Day,- Was it millions of years before? They became quite upset, and at first refused to even believe that their Bible said any such thing. When I assured them that it did, and to check it out, they became so upset that the subject had to be dropped (the individual was in their late 60s and a lifelong friend, and I was a guest)) The next day, it was 'Oh well, that is what it says.....' and back to business as usual. Like 'I don't care what it says, I'm going to believe whatever I want to believe.'

10-08-2011, 10:00 PM	#78
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	Actually many christians do read Irenaeus and the other 'fathers'. Scholars in particular. Because despite all the problems, and others, I listed above, they are a major source of information for the era [loosely defined]. Some christians may not like to read or consider them because much that can be determined from their works when analysed is disturbing to the orthodox and literalist dogma and doctine of the later church and its 'traditions. We have examples in this thread where knowledge of the 'fathers' sits uncomfortably with church doctrine and so-called history.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.