Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 08-06-2009, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

...Ezekial...Ezekial...Ezekial...Ezekial...

Vinnie, for christsake stop spelling Ezekiel with an "a". You know: "El"? Ezeki-el? (We don't have an egg-on-face smilie for you.)

spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by T.C. Skeat

“The foregoing investigation indicates, without a shadow of doubt, that the celebrated exposition of Irenaeus, or at any rate that part of it which related to the "Living Creatures" of the Apocalypse, was taken by him from an earlier source which, starting from the vision of Ezekiel, went on to discuss the Apocalypse, with verbal quotations, and perhaps offering some explanation for the differing order there. Irenaeus, one must conclude, took the quotations from this source and never looked at the Apocalypse himself. He even copied the word ϕησιν from his source, not realising that he himself had not mentioned the Apocalypse. All the inconsistencies and contradictions in his account are thus explained. This defence of the Four-Gospel Canon must have originated at a date early enough to be used as a source by Irenaeus-say, perhaps, not later that 170 or thereabouts.

But there is more than the defence of the Canon involved. As Zahn pointed out a century ago, any question of the order of the Gospels only makes sense when all four have been brought together in a single volume, which must be a codex, since no roll, however economically written, could contain all four Gospels. The source used by Irenaeus must therefore have possessed such a codex, and the Four-Gospel codex can now be traced back to about the year 170. “ (Skeat, ibid pg 198-9)

aa5874 · 08-06-2009, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

However, the writer of Against Heresies explodes our possible scenario even more certainly, when he writes (3.3.4), "But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna,"

We were assuming that one apostle had survived till age 80, but the statement here is clearly "apostles". So at least two apostles had to survive till 80. If believing that one apostle, born in the year 10 C.E. could survive to age 80, the idea that two of them could, certainly makes the scenario more than highly improbable.

Irenaeus knows the letters of Paul, and refers to Paul (whom never met Jesus in person) as the "Apostle Paul". Paul refers to other apostles in his letters. For example:

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

There were more apostles than just the Twelve. Were there any apostles appointed after Paul that we know about?

There is no indication in the passage that there were more than twelve apostles.

And further the words of the Pauline writer cannot be used to corroborate the very same writer. All the claims of Paul are unsubstantiated externally.

show_no_mercy · 08-06-2009, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

However, the writer of Against Heresies explodes our possible scenario even more certainly, when he writes (3.3.4), "But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna,"

We were assuming that one apostle had survived till age 80, but the statement here is clearly "apostles". So at least two apostles had to survive till 80. If believing that one apostle, born in the year 10 C.E. could survive to age 80, the idea that two of them could, certainly makes the scenario more than highly improbable.

Irenaeus knows the letters of Paul, and refers to Paul (whom never met Jesus in person) as the "Apostle Paul". Paul refers to other apostles in his letters. For example:

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

There were more apostles than just the Twelve. Were there any apostles appointed after Paul that we know about?

I'm not sure Paul's use of "apostles" is how later Christians used the term "apostles" (meaning the 12). Paul's apostles are probably just ambassadors of Christianity. He never mentions any "disciples".

Toto · 08-06-2009, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...
Irenaeus knows the letters of Paul, and refers to Paul (whom never met Jesus in person) as the "Apostle Paul". Paul refers to other apostles in his letters. For example:

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

There were more apostles than just the Twelve. Were there any apostles appointed after Paul that we know about?

We don't know of any later apostles, any more than we know who would have appointed them. The gospels use the term "apostles" to refer to those appointed by Jesus himself as his inner circle. Paul uses the term in a less well defined sense. He refers to apostles appointed by God, or "in Christ," and often speaks of "false apostles," not to mention "super-apostles."

Examples:

1 Corinthians 12:28
And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.

or

Galatians 1:19
I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.

But the gospels make it clear that the James who was Jesus' brother was not one of the twelve.

jakejonesiv · 08-07-2009, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...
Irenaeus knows the letters of Paul, and refers to Paul (whom never met Jesus in person) as the "Apostle Paul". Paul refers to other apostles in his letters. For example:

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

There were more apostles than just the Twelve. Were there any apostles appointed after Paul that we know about?

We don't know of any later apostles, any more than we know who would have appointed them. The gospels use the term "apostles" to refer to those appointed by Jesus himself as his inner circle. Paul uses the term in a less well defined sense. He refers to apostles appointed by God, or "in Christ," and often speaks of "false apostles," not to mention "super-apostles."

Examples:

1 Corinthians 12:28
And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.

or

Galatians 1:19
I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.

But the gospels make it clear that the James who was Jesus' brother was not one of the twelve.

Just a note; the author of Acts defines "Apostle" in a manner to exclude Paul.

Quote:

Acts Chapter 1 NAB
²⁰ ...And: 'May another take his office.'
²¹ Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us,
²² beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection."
²³ So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.
²⁴ Then they prayed, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
²⁵ to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place."
²⁶ Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.

Jake Jones IV

Roger Pearse · 08-07-2009, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Asking what an 80 year old Apostle would be doing with a 15 year old is a very good question. It makes the tale even more unlikely.

I think perhaps a little research into the age of various rulers when they came to the throne and fought in battle might correct some misapprehensions here. There is no issue.

Quote:

If believing that one apostle, born in the year 10 C.E. could survive to age 80, the idea that two of them could, certainly makes the scenario more than highly improbable.

I'm not really following this thread, so low is the standard of comment. As I remarked earlier, there is no reason to suppose half a dozen of them did not reach that age.

All these "calculations" seem rather silly to me. The events are certainly possible, and not particularly unlikely. The rest seems to be no more than wishful thinking and clutching at straws, to try to show something did not happen which could hardly be a matter of interest to atheists either way.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 08-07-2009, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...
Irenaeus knows the letters of Paul, and refers to Paul (whom never met Jesus in person) as the "Apostle Paul". Paul refers to other apostles in his letters. For example:

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

There were more apostles than just the Twelve. Were there any apostles appointed after Paul that we know about?

We don't know of any later apostles, any more than we know who would have appointed them. The gospels use the term "apostles" to refer to those appointed by Jesus himself as his inner circle. Paul uses the term in a less well defined sense. He refers to apostles appointed by God, or "in Christ," and often speaks of "false apostles," not to mention "super-apostles."

A look at the didache would seem appropriate at this point, since it mentions apostles.

As far as I am aware the NT does NOT use the term apostle solely in the way Toto suggests.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spamandham · 08-07-2009, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The rest seems to be no more than wishful thinking and clutching at straws, to try to show something did not happen which could hardly be a matter of interest to atheists either way.

Roger, it's hard to understand your expectation that atheists have no interest in history. Who else is even capable of objectively sorting out apologetics from real history?

show_no_mercy · 08-07-2009, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Asking what an 80 year old Apostle would be doing with a 15 year old is a very good question. It makes the tale even more unlikely.

I think perhaps a little research into the age of various rulers when they came to the throne and fought in battle might correct some misapprehensions here. There is no issue.

So Polycarp can be considered having an analogous life with that of a ruler of an empire? Two completely different segments of an empire can't have the same exact life experiences and mortality rate. You might as well try to do a study on a POTUS's life, health, and mortality rates to determine what an uneducated farmer in Kentucky will be like.

Clivedurdle · 08-07-2009, 11:17 AM

Quote:

How could a man writing in 170 cite an idea first presented in a work from 206?

We have a rabbit in the cretaceous, a camel caravan before they were invented as in Bible Unearthed.

This huge house of cards collapses at this point.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.