Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
05-20-2011, 05:29 PM | #21 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
|
Well, I was hoping that this wouldn't become another mythicism thread. I really am interested in this topic, so any input on this would be appreciated.
|
05-20-2011, 05:29 PM | #22 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
|
Thanks Toto. I've started looking through Irenaeus. I don't remember anything along those lines -- can you recall which book, or anything about the context? Was it a particular heresy that he was addressing, do you recall?
|
05-20-2011, 05:39 PM | #23 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Iceland
Posts: 761
|
Quote:
Aber du musst Deutsch lesen können! And I would like to apologize to people here that know german well :Cheeky: |
||
05-20-2011, 05:59 PM | #24 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
|
Looking through Irenaeus: One point he makes is that Christians can be confident that the Gospels are true, since even the heretics use them:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...eus-book3.html So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true.Irenaeus goes on to describe each of the four Gospels in terms of the cherubim in the OT: For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."146 Also, "all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of all confidence, for such is His person.147He goes on to describe how the heretics misuse the Gospels and even have their own ones: These things being so, all who destroy the form of the Gospel are vain, unlearned, and also audacious; those, [I mean, ] who represent the aspects of the Gospel as being either more in number than as aforesaid, or, on the other hand, fewer. The former class [do so], that they may seem to have discovered more than is of the truth; the latter, that they may set the dispensations of God aside. For Marcion, rejecting the entire Gospel, yea rather, cutting himself off from the Gospel, boasts that he has part in the [blessings of] the Gospel.154 Others, again (the Montanists), that they may set at nought the gift of the Spirit, which in the latter times has been, by the good pleasure of the Father, poured out upon the human race, do not admit that aspect [of the evangelical dispensation] presented by John's Gospel, in which the Lord promised that He would send the Paraclete;155 but set aside at once both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit. Wretched men indeed! who wish to be pseudo-prophets, forsooth, but who set aside the gift of prophecy from the Church; acting like those (the Encratitae)156 who, on account of such as come in hypocrisy, hold themselves aloof from the communion of the brethren. We must conclude, moreover, that these men (the Montanists) can not admit the Apostle Paul either. For, in his Epistle to the Corinthians,157 he speaks expressly of prophetical gifts, and recognises men and women prophesying in the Church. Sinning, therefore, in all these particulars, against the Spirit of God,158 they fall into the irremissible sin. But those who are from Valentinus, being, on the other hand, altogether reckless, while they put forth their own compositions, boast that they possess more Gospels than there really are. Indeed, they have arrived at such a pitch of audacity, as to entitle their comparatively recent writing "the Gospel of Truth," though it agrees in nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles, so that they have really no Gospel which is not full of blasphemy. For if what they have published is the Gospel of truth, and yet is totally unlike those which have been handed down to us from the apostles, any who please may learn, as is shown from the Scriptures themselves, that that which has been handed down from the apostles can no longer be reckoned the Gospel of truth. |
05-20-2011, 06:55 PM | #25 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
The Pauline writers, based on their words, out-performed Jesus Christ in every aspect both in missionary work and suffering and then was EXECUTED according to the Church. Examine 2 Cor. 11.23-28 2 Cor. 11.23-28 Quote:
|
||
05-20-2011, 07:17 PM | #26 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
|
It's interesting that Irenaeus, in the link I gave above, talks about the 'tradition of the apostles', as handed down via apostolic succession, down to Polycarp, who met some of the apostles. His reference below to 'the preaching of the apostles' rather than 'words of the Gospels' suggest another source of teaching outside the Gospels:
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves... |
05-20-2011, 07:26 PM | #27 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
Whoever or whatever "Paul" believed in was NOT the "historical Jesus". The Pauline Jesus was CHRIST, the Creator, God Incarnate and had a NAME above every name on earth, in heaven and under the earth. And further, the Pauline Jesus was in the form of God and was God's own Son based on "Paul". You need to understand what the "historical Jesus" means in the HJ/MJ argument. For the HJ/MJ argument the term "historical Jesus" means Jesus Christ of the NT was an ordinary man with a human father and mother who was embellished and mythologised decades later. You MUST know that BELIEVERS assume that their God is a TRUE God and does ACTUALLY exist at all times but such BELIEF has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the HJ/MJ argument. The Jesus stories most likely would have been BELIEVED to be true once there was NO documented evidence that Jesus was just a man who could NOT REMIT the Sins of Mankind. The abundance of evidence from antiquity support the theory that the Jesus story was developed sometime in the 2nd century which would have vastly IMPROVED its believeability. The Pauline Gospel at around 37-40 CE would have had a serious NEGATIVE effect on the veracity of the Jesus story. |
|
05-21-2011, 07:00 AM | #28 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
|
Quote:
1 Corinthians is not claiming that Paul was paid by his converts, but that his converts should be grateful to Paul for his not accepting renumeration from them. Andrew Criddle |
|
05-22-2011, 07:04 PM | #29 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Pua, in northern Thailand
Posts: 2,823
|
Since the Nicene Creed (325 AD) makes no reference to scripture, I find it hard to believe that the proto-orthodox church believed in the Gospels as the literal truth before that time.
This is what Bart Ehrman had to say about scripture when I e-mailed him about why this is so. Quote:
|
|
05-22-2011, 07:25 PM | #30 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
|
Quote:
|
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|