jakejonesiv

We have posts on FDRB from just the last few days that show no influence at all from your teachings.

jakejonesiv

In "Refutation of the Sects" (441-449 CE), Book IV, Eznik of Kolb, the fifth century Armenian philosopher describes a forgotten Marcionite myth.
Roger Pearse very kindly supplies it for us here.
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/sc...refutation.htm
You will have to scroll way down to BOOK IV Refutation of the Heretic Marcion.



The significance of the arménien myth was discussed by Mead and Ory, among others.

Here is a summary (paraphrased) of the myth which according to Eznik was the earliest form of Marcionism.
_____________________________________
The God of the Law (masculine principle) and Hyle
(feminine principle) cooperated to create man. Hyle
(matter) supplied the body of Adam from loam, and The
God of the Law insufflated the spirit. However, God
and Matter soon fell into a dispute over Adam, with
dire consequences for all humans.

When the God of the Law saw that Adam was noble and
with dignity for the service, he came and said to him,
"Adam, I am God and there is otherwise none. And
except me you are not to have another God. If you have
another God except me, then know that you will die
death.“

So Adam became afraid, and withdrew service from Hyle,
refusing to obey. Therefore Hyle created many new
gods, that led mankind away from the Creator. As a
result, the Creator began to cast the souls of men
into hell as they died.

After 29 centuries, the highest God, the "Good God,"
looked down from the third heaven and took pity on the
misery of men tortured by the hot fire. He sent his
Son (i.e. Jesus) down to deliver them. Jesus descended
incognito (hiding his divinity), and docetically in
the likeness of a servant, and in the likeness of men.
He performed miracles for the benifit of mankind. The
God of the law became jealous and in ignorance
instigated his servants to crucify Jesus. Jesus
therefore died and was admitted to hell.

But Jesus emptied hell and carried all the spirits up
to the third heaven of his Father. At this the Lord of
Creation became enraged, tore his cloths, tore the
veil of the temple, and veiled his world in darkness.
Then Jesus descended a second time, in full divinity
as the Lord of Glory, to the court of the Creator and
his minions. This put the creator in the presence of
realities. When the Creator saw this, he for the first
time realized he was wrong in thinking there was no
other god than himself, that he was indeed an inferior
god.

Then Jesus convicted the Creator from the words of his
own Law. Whoever shed innocent blood shall have his
own blood shed. (cf. Deut 19:10-14). The Creator had
killed innocent Jesus. Therefore, Jesus by justice of
the Law could kill the Creator. But the Creator pled
ignorance. He had not know that Jesus was divine, but
thought he was a human. (As Creator of man, he had the
rights to kill humans as he pleased. Call it a
mitigating circumstance).

The Creator proposed a bargain (think of it as a plea
bargain). In return for his crime, the Creator would
allow the souls of those who believed in Jesus to be
whisked up to heaven. Thus the deal was reached; the
death of Jesus was the Ransom for the souls of those
who will believe.

But this was not the end of the story. As soon as the
bargain was reached, Jesus immediately betook himself
to Paul and revealed to him and only him the way of
salvation.

Jake Jones IV

aa5874

Acts of the Apostles mentions Paul so I have not changed the subject. In Acts of the Apostles Paul was a Persecutor of those who preached Christ Crucified about 50 days AFTER the Passover on the Day of Pentecost.

When was the the day of Pentecost in Acts?

Examine Acts 2[/u] It is virtually impossible that the Church of Lyons, the Heretics and the Christians of the Jesus cult knew that Peter preached Christ Crucified on the Day of Pentecost when Irenaeus publicly argued that Jesus was crucified about 50 years old 20 years AFTER the Day of Pentecost under Claudius.

If the Day of Pentecost which supposedly happened long before the reign of Claudius in Acts of the Apostles was already established and circulated in the Churches of the Roman Empire for about 100 years then Irenaeus' 1500 word argument would be idiotic and completely stupid before he even began to write.

Irenaeus' argument only makes sense if he, the Church and those whom he argued against were not aware of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters.


Did you not claim Acts of the Apostles was composed sometime in the 1st century?

Does not Acts of the Apostles mention Paul as a Persecutor and documented his evangelical activities where he preached Christ Crucified up to c 62 CE in Rome??

It is claimed that Irenaeus was a presbyter of the Church and then later became bishop so he should have known when the author of Acts claimed Jesus was crucified.
It is completely illogical that an author who supposedly wrote 5 books "Against Heresies" which should have taken a considerably long time to write did not have the time to find out or remembered if the Day of Pentecost happened Before Claudius was Emperor according to Acts.

Before "Against Heresies" was composed Justin Martyr supposedly wrote c 150 CE that Jesus was Crucified under Pilate in the Reign of Tiberius.

Justin's First Apology Please, tell us what benefit it would have been to Irenaeus to publicly lie to the Church and Heretics who already knew of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters and that Jesus preached Only one year and was crucified at about 30 years??

Clement of Alexandria argued that Jesus preached ONLY one year and was crucified at about 30 years of age.

Clement's Stromata 1 Jesus was crucified at 30 years of in the Stromata according to Clement.

It was Irenaeus who was the Heretic.

Irenaeus was NOT a presbyter of the Church.

Irenaeus did NOT know of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters c 180 CE.

"Against Heresies" is a massive forgery under the attribution of Irenaeus giving the false impression that Irenaeus was aware of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters c 180 CE.

aa5874

What you claim is not my argument at all. My argument is that Against Heresies is a massive forgery. Irenaeus was an Heretic and his writings were Manipulated.

My argument is that our present "Against Heresies" was fabricated or manipulated sometime after the time of Augustine of Hippo after c 400 CE.

The Clement letter to the Church of Corinth in "Against Heresies" was completely unknown by at least 5 Apologetic sources up to the 5th century.

That is, the writer who argued that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age after he was 30 years at baptism did NOT write anything at all about the Pauline letters and Acts of the Apostles.

Do you understand what interpolations are??

Just like writings of Josephus and the short gMark were interpolated "Against Heresies" was also manipulated.

I am using the timeline provided by the Church writers for Irenaeus.

According to Apologetic sources, Irenaeus wrote in the time when Eleutherius was Bishop of Rome.

Please, I have been through this already.

Against HeresiesChurch History 5 Commodus was Co-Emperor from 177-180 CE and Emperor from 180-192 CE.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodus

The Eleutherius was bishop of Rome according to Apologetic around c 177 -190 CE which was supposedly the time when Irenaeus wrote "Against Heresies".

Whenever there is better evidence for Irenaeus time of writing I will review my position.

This precisely what is done for Marcion. We must rely on Church writers for the time of Marcion until there is a better source.

Irenaeus wrote c 180 CE based on Apologetic sources.

Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age after being 30 years in the 15th year of Tiberius when he was a presbyter of the Church of Lyons.

By reasonable deduction, the Church of Lyons could NOT have known of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings if Irenaeus was an elder of the Church when he wrote Against Heresies 2.22 and argued Jesus was an Old Man when he was crucified at about 50 years of age.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
The day of Pentecost happens every year at about the same time. Pentecost is not specific to the reign of Tiberius or Claudius.
Christians celebrate Pentecost and they do not agree on which year the initial Pentecost event happened.

'Acts' is not a timeline of Paul's ministry. Critical times and durations are missing.

"knowing" or reading these texts is not good enough to prevent claiming a long duration for Jesus' ministry. You have to go deeper than that, including inquiring about the duration of Pilate as prefect over Judea.
Irenaeus was mad about the Heretics and the one year ministry they claimed. Justin or no Justin, that clouded his judgment. He certainly looked obsessed about Jesus reaching 50 before crucifixion, a pet theory of his. And he thought he was doing well.

On that point, yes he was. But if you look in almost all other "fathers of the Church" and anonymous Christian texts, you will find many items which can be considered heretic also, or unhistorical, or historically proven false claims. I can think right now about examples from Eusebius and Tertullian and the Epistola.

Cordially, Bernard

aa5874

What kind of answer is that? When did the day of Pentecost occur in in Acts when there were three thousand converts after Peter preached Christ Crucified??

Irenaeus, the Church of Lyons and the Heretics should have known that the DaY of Pentecost in Acts happened about forty days after Jesus was crucified in the reign of Tiberius.

The time is stated-- about forty days.

Acts 1 The Day of Pentecost is NOT missing which was about 40 days after Jesus was Crucified in the reign of Tiberius.

The Persecution by Paul is NOT missing when he persecuted those who preached Christ Crucified sometime before or around 37 CE.

And please, you have already argued that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters were composed long before c 180 CE so both of them when used in tandem do NOT support the claim by Irenaeus that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age when he was about 30 years of age in the 15t year of Tiberius.

Again, you have not provide any reason at all. You must realise that the Church of Lyons, the Heretics and people of the Jesus cult should have read and heard what Irenaeus wrote and preached.

Irenaeus should have been going to Church on Sundays as an Elder and telling people that Jesus was crucified at 50 years of age while they all knew he was Lying based on Acts. Peter preached Christ Crucified about 40 days AFTER the Crucifixion of Jesus long before Claudius was Emperor.

Did Irenaeus read "Against Heresies 2.22 AFTER he became Bishop of Lyons??


Well, why are you arguing against me when you know that Apologetic writings are sources of forgeries, and fiction??

Once you admit Irenaeus was a Heretic then he likely was NOT a presbyter of the Church of Lyons and probably wrote Against the Church.

Surely, the 1500 word argument that Jesus was crucified at about the age of 50 years after being 30 years in the 15th year of Tiberius is completely Heretical and could not have been derived from Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters.

The writings of Irenaeus were manipulated by a second editor to make it appear that Irenaeus was aware of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters when he was NOT.

jakejonesiv

I can use the timeline provided by the Church writers also. It depends on the frame of reference.

aa5874

You can do whatever you want.

I did NOT invent my timeline for Irenaeus just like I did not invent the timeline for Marcion, Jesus of Nazareth, the visit by the angel Gabriel to Mary, the Temptation of Jesus by the devil, the transfiguration, resurrection and ascension.

I am under no obligation to accept the claims of Apologetics about any named character or event once credible evidence is found.


Again, my timeline for the Pauline letters is also linked to the recovered dated P 46 manuscripts and can be modified with any new data.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46#Date [/u] My argument that the Pauline letters were composed AFTER Marcion was dead or after c 180 CE is still well supported.

I can use the latest date as proposed by H A Sanders which is the 2nd half of the 3rd century.

At the present moment I am looking at writings attributed to Arnobius who shows no awareness of Paul and the Pauline letters.

Apologetics claimed Arnobius wrote "Against the Heathen" in the late 3rd century.

The abundance of evidence suggest that the Pauline letters were fabricated AFTER Marcion was dead.

jakejonesiv

Thank you. The Pauline epistles were extant in the time of Irenaeus, and Marcion had them prior to that.
Either that or everything is forgeries. Take your choice and build your case.

However, you can't just pluck Marcion out for special treatment. If Marcion goes, all of the twenty odd sources that mention him go too. All of the other heretics go, all of the church fathers go, starting with Justin. If that is the case, the Benedictine monks are the best culprits.

Jake Jones IV

aa5874

You have not presented any real case. Your all or nothing assertions do not require any research.