Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 09-04-2010, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You cannot accuse me of making inferences that are not found in the written statements and then go straight ahead and blatantly INTERPOLATE a passage.

You know that the words "HERE IN CONSTANTINOPLE" is NOT at all in Homily 1 of ACTS.

A literary "interpolation" is not clearly marked by square brackets and marked with my initials. It was a scholia. The reader is free to take them or leave them.

So, how is it you are free to add words that are clearly NOT found in the passage at all?

I am NOT free to ADD words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

This was the inference of the translators or editor of this particular N&PNF volume (series 1, volume 11). I sincerely doubt you will find any other interpretation of the passage in question (Commentaries on Acts, Homily 1) in academic literature, but go ahead and prove me wrong if you can. I would not be horrified to discover I am wrong, but even if you found one, maybe two, examples ypu will find that all the rest agree with the conclusion of the N&PNF series translators/editors, and it will be on the basis of a comparison with what is said about Acts in the Homily he gave in Antioch 13 years earlier...

Did you not admit that you ADDED the words "here in Constantinople"? Those are your words. You are the one NEED to prove that your ADDITION was warranted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

...Without context and contrast, what is "written" is insufficient to discover what the author meant. That's fundie talk, man! "Are you now, or have you ever been, a card carrying member of the fundamentalist mindset?"..

You know that I do my research before I come to come to a conclusion. I do research I do not just repeat what others write.

You know that in my research that I have discovered that Irenaeus was a FAKE BISHOP.

You don't know fundie talk at all.

No fundie will say that Acts of the Apostles is a work of Fiction and was NOT written by Luke as claimed by the Church.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

....Oh, that is not true. As I have stated several times in this and other threads, I think you are good at research but I do not agree with what you are posting as interpretations of the passages you reproduce. In fact, I do not think you are bad or misguided at all.

But, did not you imply I have an EVIL mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

...What gears, I wonder, are turning in that evil mind of yours?

You may be suffering from amnesia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

...I think you are trying to make a farce of the thinking processes of many, characterized by far fetched interpretations of evidence, especially evidence which on the face of things seems to cast doubt on commonly held beliefs, intended to confirm those existing beliefs, to make fun of them. While here most members associate this with Christians, it is also identical to the process of many athiests and mythers who populate this board.

You are simply trying to demonize because you disagree with my observations about the writings of Irenaeus.

You want me to repeat what others write just like you.

I have a mind and can think for myself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

It's not like folks could go out and buy a bible at the store for under $10, or get one for free from some church. The bulk of Christians got exposed to approved books from sermons at church. That is the function of liturgical readings. Depending on the area and their traditions, as well as the bishop, some books get emphasized more than others. Big churches are like big ships, they don't turn on a dime. It took Chrysostom over two years to come up with a series of homilies to rectify the local disinterest in the book.

But, Acts of the Apostles contains the post-ascension activities, the post-ascension history of the Apostles and SAUL/PAUL.

If you want to find out about the Day of Pentecost you MUST read Acts. There is no other book. If you want to find out about the activities of the EARLY CHURCH you MUST READ ACTS. There is NO other book.

If you want a chronology and itinery of the Pauline and Lucan travels you MUST read Acts. There is no other book.

Acts was supposed to be Canonised over 200 hundreds earlier and should have been UNIVERSALLY accepted as the authentic post ascension history of the Church.

When John Chrysostom claimed that many did NOT even know that there was such a book in existence and that it would no longer remain hidden, this implies that Acts of the Apostles was NOT in the Canon when he wrote Homily 1.

Quote:

I can INFER without making any ADDITION to the passage that Acts of the Apostles was NOT Canonised when John Chrysostom wrote Homily 1 and was written very late.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

..Sure you can.

DCH

But, you can't? I am not sure!

mountainman · 09-05-2010, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Irenaeus was a Fake Bishop. It would appear that the writings of Irenaeus were NOT seen by Heretics in the 2nd century and do not reflect history.

Arnaldo Momigliano writes that ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by AM

The greatest names involved in the spade-work in Christian chronology ...

...... established criteria of orthodoxy by the simple device
of introducing lists of bishops who represented the apostolic succession.

SOURCE

Spade-work?
What does AM mean?
What language is this?

Toto · 09-05-2010, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

..
Spade-work?
What does AM mean?
What language is this?

Is this not a common figure of speech in Australia?

http://www.yourdictionary.com/spadework

mountainman · 09-05-2010, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

..
Spade-work?
What does AM mean?
What language is this?

Is this not a common figure of speech in Australia?

http://www.yourdictionary.com/spadework

[IRONY]spade work[/IRONY]

Yes it is, but it is very often used colloquially with reference to the activities of undertakers, gravediggers, gangsters and politicians. When the ancient historian Momigliano uses the term "spade work" as a subtitute for "ancient historical research" we might suspect he is being ironic. Why does he not simply use the direct term "historical research" for example? It may be therefore that he is alluding instead to an extremely low calibre form of "research".

Toto · 09-06-2010, 12:37 AM

Spade work is foundational, as in compiling a chronology, or establishing the basic facts, as opposed to creating a theory or a novel interpretation. I find this quite clear. If "spade work" is associated in your mind with "undertakers, gravediggers, gangsters and politicians" I can see why it might be puzzling.

mountainman · 09-06-2010, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Spade work is foundational, as in compiling a chronology, or establishing the basic facts, as opposed to creating a theory or a novel interpretation. I find this quite clear.

Spade work is traditionally useful for digging holes and ditches.
Its the dirty side of the manual labour. I find this quite clear.
We can see that the chronologer Eusebius gets his hands dirty.
And we can see that Momigliano sullies Eusebius reputation as a chronographer.

Spade work is just another deprecating word selected by Momigliano.
Christian chronographers were doing some dirty work.
That's the impression I receive reading Momigliano (in that extract).
Eusebius's reputation as a chronographer could not be saved.
You are quite entitled your own opinion btw ...

Quote:

If "spade work" is associated in your mind with "undertakers, gravediggers, gangsters and politicians" I can see why it might be puzzling.

Oh, and I forgot to mention latrine diggers in the army.
Australians have quite a broad sense of humor.
Just what was Eusebius shovelling?

Toto · 09-06-2010, 06:30 AM

I've gone through pages of online dictionaries, and I find nothing to support your speculation.

Perhaps this is the source of your difficulties.

In English as spoken by Americans and Europeans (and, presumably Momigliano), "spadework" has no connotations of dirt or impropriety. It is dull, uninteresting, but vital to lay the foundation for later work.

I can't find any indication that Australians have some special meaning or different connotation.

Are you letting your imagination run away with you?

aa5874 · 09-06-2010, 09:22 AM

It would appear to me that ALL or PARTS of "Against Heresies" was INVENTED for the compilation of "Church History" by Eusebius.

It has been found that up to the start of the 5th century the list of bishops of Rome was NOT in conformity with the one provided by Irenaeus.

This is found in Letter 53 by "St. Augustine" dated to the start of the 5th century.

Quote:

2. For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: "Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!" The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:— Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus.....

So based on St. Augustine writing AFTER Eusebius, the successions of bishops of Rome was Peter, Linus, then Clement.

This is found in "Prescription Against the Heretics" by Tertullian supposedly written in the start 3rd century.

Quote:

... For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.

Tertullian is claiming that Peter ordained Clement NOT Linus.

But, Eusebius would produce a list that shows Clement was Bishop of Rome about 24 years AFTER Peter was DEAD.

Church History 3.2

Quote:

..1. After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome....

Church History 3. 13

Quote:

After Vespasian had reigned ten years Titus, his son, succeeded him. In the second year of his reign, Linus, who had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years, delivered his office to Anencletus....

Church History 3. 15

Quote:

...In the twelfth year of the same reign Clement succeeded Anencletus after the latter had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years.

We have a most confusing list of bishops of Rome.

Tertullian, writing BEFORE Eusenius claimed he used the records of the Church and that it was Peter who ordained Clement.

St. Augustine writing AFTER Eusebius claimed Clement was bishop immediately AFTER Linus.

Eusebius claimed Clement was bishop 24 years AFTER Peter was DEAD, and was the AFTER Anencletus.

It would appear that Tertullian did NOT have the same list as Eusebius and that St. Augustine was NOT aware of the list of Eusebius or that the list provided by Eusbius was in error.

But upon examination, Eusebius used the list of bishops supposedly provided by Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" 3.3.3

Quote:

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the
Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the
episcopate.

Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to
Timothy.

To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place
from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.

Neither Tertullian nor St. Augustine used the list in "Against Heresies" by "Irenaeus".

It would appear that ALL or parts of the writings of Irenaeus were INVENTED for "Church History" by Eusebius.

aa5874 · 09-06-2010, 07:58 PM

In "Against Heresies" Irenaeus claimed that the teachings of the Church was UNIVERSAL or CATHOLIC. It was the so-called Heretics that had NO universally held beliefs about Jesus.

However another writer of the Church, Clement of Alexander would use the VERY arguments of so-called Heretics to PROVE Jesus was 30 years old when he suffered.

Listen to Irenaeus "AH" 2

Quote:

There are not, therefore, thirty AEons, nor did the
Saviour come to be baptized when He was thirty years old...

Now, hear from Clement in "Stromata" 21

Quote:

And our Lord was born in the twenty-eighth year, when first the census was ordered to be taken in the reign of Augustus.

And to prove that this is true, it is written in the Gospel by Luke as follows: "And in the fifteenth year, in the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias." And again in the same book: "And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old," and so on....

So Clement of Alexandria claimed that Jesus was about thirty years old.

Irenaeus continues to argue AGAINST the Heretics.

Quote:

...
Moreover, they affirm that He suffered in the twelfth month, so that He continued to preach for one year after His baptism, and they endeavour to establish this point
out of the prophet (for it is written, "To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of retribution"(4)), being truly blind, inasmuch as they affirm they have found out the mysteries of Bythus, yet not understanding that which is called by Isaiah the acceptable year of the Lord, nor the day of retribution....

According to Irenaeus the Heretics are blind and have no understanding of the words "acceptable the year of the Lord".

But Clement of Alexandria had the same understanding as the VERY Heretics.

This is Clement.

Quote:

And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: "He has sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord ."

This both the prophet spoke, and the Gospel.

Clement of Alexandria, a writer for the Church, has completely contradicted Irenaeus the Bishop of the Church.

Clement in effect AGREED with the so-called Heretics.

But, Irenaeus still argues.

Quote:

...For the prophet neither speaks concerning a day which includes the space of twelve hours, nor of a year the length of which is twelve months....

But, here is Clement again. A year is 12 months and both the gospel and the prophet agreed.

Quote:

And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: "He has sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord ."

This both the prophet spoke, and the Gospel

.

Clement is Clear. Jesus was about 30 years old and PREACHED for a year. He AGREES with the so-called Heretics.

Irenaeus goes on.

Quote:

For even they themselves acknowledge that the prophets have very often expressed themselves in parables and allegories, and [are] not [to be understood] according to the mere sound of the words...

But, Clement are with the Heretics. Jesus was 30 years old when he suffered. It was no parable or allegory.

This is Clement.

Quote:

Accordingly, in fifteen years of Tiberius and fifteen years of Augustus; so were completed the thirty years till the time He suffered.

Based on the prophet and the Gospel, Jesus suffered at 30 years not 50.

No other Church writer claimed that Jesus was 50 years old at crucifixion.

Irenaeus was an Heretic.

When did Irenaeus claim Jesus was about 50 years when he suffered? When did he write "Against Heresies".

The claim by Irenaeus was certainly UNORTHODOX. No other Church writer made such a ridiculous claim.

It would appear that no Heretic saw "Against Heresies" or HEARD Irenaeus the Bishop Preach the most absurd, possibly for years, that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old, after being about 30 years in the 15th year of Tiberius, died when Pilate was a governor of Claudius Caesar and Caiaphas was the high priest in the time of Tiberius.

Irenaeus was a FAKE bishop.

It would appear that All or parts of "Against Heresies" were NOT written in the 2nd century but at some later date to be used in the INVENTION of the history of the Church.

mountainman · 09-07-2010, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It would appear that All or parts of "Against Heresies" were NOT written in the 2nd century but at some later date to be used in the INVENTION of the history of the Church.

Hi aa5874,

What is your opinion on the implication that Irenaeus's citation concerning the gJudas was "retrojected" ?

I admire your logic in dealing with the history of the orthodox church.
When you have time and resources I suggest you turn this same logic
upon the question and the appearance of the "Gnostic Acts and Gospels"
and the nature and the ancient history of the [gnostic] heretics.

Carry on.

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

09-06-2010, 12:37 AM	#25
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Spade work is foundational, as in compiling a chronology, or establishing the basic facts, as opposed to creating a theory or a novel interpretation. I find this quite clear. If "spade work" is associated in your mind with "undertakers, gravediggers, gangsters and politicians" I can see why it might be puzzling.

09-06-2010, 06:30 AM	#27
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I've gone through pages of online dictionaries, and I find nothing to support your speculation. Perhaps this is the source of your difficulties. In English as spoken by Americans and Europeans (and, presumably Momigliano), "spadework" has no connotations of dirt or impropriety. It is dull, uninteresting, but vital to lay the foundation for later work. I can't find any indication that Australians have some special meaning or different connotation. Are you letting your imagination run away with you?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.