Jesus as an Old Man

[rakovsky]

.....

[Peter Kirby]

I remember contributing more than One message to this thread. They were relevant to the thread and didn't violate any rules. Were they moved or erased?

Nope.

Apparently your so-called "disappeared message" was just one that you originally posted here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3026&start=90

something like an 18 year ministry of Jesus

Here's how Grant puts the puzzle together - https://books.google.com/books?id=01BKA ... us&f=false

Grant writes: "Since Jesus must have passed through all the stages of human development from infancy to old age, he was forty nine years old at the time, and later reached fifty."
No, Since Jesus must have passed through all the sategs of human development from infancy to old age, he was forty nine years old at SOME time WHEN HE WAS ALIVE, and he reached this age after the resurrection according to the New Testament. All the Gospels agree on this: Jesus got born in c.1 BC, he went through three passovers, then he got killed in c.33, then he reenlivened, ascended and lived forever in the heaven.

John and Irenaeus are not saying that Jesus had a 18 year ministry for some reason that scholars can never guess, AND got killed after Pilate and Herod's and Tiberius Claudius Nero's time, AND ritually celebrated through more than 3 Hebrew Passovers, NOR did Irenaeus reject the text in Luke, " AND edit the Gospel of John", AND have secret gospel(s) that other Christians didn't know about, AND all other nonsensical premises that supporters of the "49 year old Jesus" theory would be forced to believe in.

The simplest explanation in this case is the correct one. John and Irenaeus are saying Jesus had a 3+ year ministry like the other gospels do, they just have this out of context verse in John 8 and then Irenaeus uses convoluted logic - one that practically nobody ever would use in real life - to make "not yet 50" mean "30-40 years old only".

Then educated scholars like Grant, and in fact most people think that one of those two writers was saying Jesus was 47-49, just like I thought. It's just a big fat stupid misreading of convoluted commentary of a hardly self-evident Bible verse, Secret Alias

My brain is going to go to sludge if I just keep repeating this over and over.

[rakovsky]

Apparently your so-called "disappeared message" was just one that you originally posted here:

Thanks Peter.
I guess with a new similarly named thread I thought the old one vanished.
Peace.

[Secret Alias]

So if you take the Patripassian concept seriously you can start to see that certain things about the tradition must have been true or likely to be true.

1. they couldn't have believed in the Virgin Birth:

He is the champion of the one Lord, the Almighty, the creator of the world, so that he may make a heresy out of the unity. He
says that the Father himself came down into the virgin, himself was born of her, himself suffered, in short himself is Jesus Christ. (Adv Prax 1)

2. no temptation narrative:

The serpent has forgotten himself: for when he tempted Jesus Christ after the baptism of John it was as Son of God that he
attacked him, being assured that God has a son at least from those very scriptures out of which he was then constructing the
temptation : If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread 1: again, If thou art the Son of God cast thyself down from hence, for it is written that he - the Father, of course - hath given his angels charge concerning thee, that in their hands they should bear thee up, lest in any place thou dash thy foot against a stone. Or will he accuse the gospels of lying, and say, "Let
Matthew and Luke see to it: I for my part approached God himself, I tempted the Almighty hand to hand: that was the reason for my approach, that was the reason for the temptation: otherwise, if it had been <only> God's son, perhaps I should not have demeaned myself < to tempt> him"? (Adv Prax 1)

3. that the Son was the Paraclete?

And so, after all this time, a Father who was born, a Father who suffered, God himself the Lord Almighty, is preached as Jesus Christ. We however as always, the more so now as better equipped through the Paraclete, that leader into all truth,3 believe (as these do) in one only God, yet subject to this dispensation (which is our word for "economy") that the one only God has also a Son, his Word who has proceeded from himself, by whom all things were made; and without whom nothing has been made : 4 that this <Son> was sent by the Father into the virgin and was born of her both man and God, Son of man and Son of God, and was named Jesus Christ: that he suffered, died, and was buried, according to the scriptures,5 and, having been raised up by the Father and taken back into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father 6 and will come to judge the quick and the dead 7 : and that thereafter he, according to his promise,8 sent from the Father the Holy Spirit the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. That this Rule has come down from the beginning of the Gospel, even before all former heretics, not to speak of Praxeas of yesterday, will be proved as well by the comparative lateness of all heretics as by the very novelty of Praxeas of yesterday. (Adv Prax 2)

4. the understood that 'kingdom' (of heaven/God) implied that it belonged to the Father because he was king:

"We hold", they say, "to the monarchy": and even Latins so expressively frame the sound, and in so masterly a fashion, that you would think they understood monarchy as well as they pronounce it: but while Latins are intent to shout out " monarchy ", even Greeks refuse to understand the economy. But if I have gathered any small knowledge of both languages, I know that monarchy indicates neither more nor less than a single and sole empire, yet that monarchy because it belongs to one man does not for that reason make a standing rule that he whose it is may not have a son or must have made himself his own son or may not administer his monarchy by the agency of whom he will. (Adv Prax 3)

I think this also implies - to me at least - that the original language this report was written in used 'economy' in a way synonymous with 'kingdom.' But what language was that? I also see that the author hint that he did not originally speak Greek or Latin. For who says "I have gathered a small knowledge of both languages" unless it was acknowledged that the original text or originally he spoke another language? The same thing emerges at the beginning of Adversus Haereses where Irenaeus says that he spoke Greek 'barbarous(ly).' Does malkut have the sense of 'economy'?

[Secret Alias]

Is the Greek οἰκονόμος (i.e. "household management" = οἶκος "house;household;home" and νέμω "manage") related to מלכות?

[Secret Alias]

In some original language the idea was expressed:

"We hold", they say, "to the kingdom" ... a single and sole empire, yet that kingdom because it belongs to one man does not for that reason make a standing rule that he whose it is may not have a son or must have made himself his own son or may not administer his kingdom by the agency of whom he will.

At the very least, we can say that the heretics who believed Jesus was the Father (if they existed) understood him to be the king and not the prince of the kingdom.