Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Seriously dude, what's with the resurrection obsession?

davidbrainerd wrote:Rather Ireneaus denies that Jesus lived only to the age of a magister and claims he lived to old age, to declining years. His argument, explicitely stated, is that Jesus went through every period of life, gestation in the womb, birth, youth, middle age, old age. His concern is more to defend the birth of Jesus against the Gnostics than anything else, but also he is probably trying to make that passage in Hebrews work which says "he was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Your theory that he's denying Jesus is the youth deity figure to make him the old deity figure (or whatever you are saying) is off. He is simply trying to harmonize the Catholic NT with itself and swat the Gnostics away at the same time.

True.

I have to admit that for a long time I read the passage in Irenaeus the same way that Secret Alias did.
It was only after reading several commentaries and read it very closely that I realized that Irenaeus was talking about Jesus continuing to experience human aging after the resurrection and Ascension in order to debunk the gnostics in the way you well described.

Well then it only demonstrates that you have no ability to comprehend what you are reading and choose self-serving commentaries to develop your opinions from. The facts are that Irenaeus elsewhere says that the crucifixion occurred under Claudius which surely goes hand in hand.

Anyway back to the OP. Here is something interesting. The obvious and consistent identification of 'the Son of Man' with Christ on the one hand in Christian circles from Daniel 7:13 and the only the other half of Daniel 7:13 with the Father (i.e. the ancient of days) in rabbinic sources is puzzling. Christian sources say 'hey, look Christ is the Son of Man from Daniel' rabbinic sources say 'hey those two powers heretics say the ancient of days is one of two gods' but no one - NEITHER CHRISTIANS NOR JEWS - says 'hey Daniel says there are two powers.' THAT is interesting my friends. It shows you someone is controlling the information we get. On the Christian side AND the Jewish side, we aren't allowed to FULLY hear that two powers are consistently exhibited in the Jewish scriptures.

Someone divided up the Book of Exodus (the Qumran/Samaritan/Exodus-text-of-the-community-of-R-Ishmael) so we can't understand why the two powers tradition thought there were two powers. Daniel is kept intact (perhaps who knows if there was an ur-Daniel) but is oddly cited ONLY IN DIRECTION by each community (i.e. to say that 'the Son' or what would be 'the Father' but not both). Clearly the way evidence was presented was tightly controlled. I think this works in favor of Segal and Boyarin's hypothesis that Tertullian and the Mekhilta are somehow related.

Secret Alias wrote:Well then it only demonstrates that you have no ability to comprehend what you are reading and choose self-serving commentaries to develop your opinions from. The facts are that Irenaeus elsewhere says that the crucifixion occurred under Claudius which surely goes hand in hand.

Wikipedia says:
"Claudius was Roman emperor from 41 to 54. "

Irenaus says Christ died under Pilate, who reigned until 36 AD under "Tiberius Claudius". Names can be confusing.

Part of the process of recapitulation is for Christ to go through every stage of human life, from infancy to old age, and simply by living it, sanctify it with his divinity. Although it is sometimes claimed that Irenaeus believed Christ did not die until he was older than is conventionally portrayed, the bishop of Lyons simply pointed out that because Jesus turned the permissible age for becoming a rabbi (30 years old and above), he recapitulated and sanctified the period between 30 and 50 years old, as per the Jewish custom of periodization on life, and so touches the beginning of old age when one becomes 50 years old. (see Adversus Haereses, book II, chapter 22).

...
In Demonstration (74) Irenaeus notes "For Pontius Pilate was governor of Judæa, and he had at that time resentful enmity against Herod the king of the Jews. But then, when Christ was brought to him bound, Pilate sent Him to Herod, giving command to enquire of him, that he might know of a certainty what he should desire concerning Him; making Christ a convenient occasion of reconciliation with the king."[57] Pilate was the prefect of the Roman province of Judaea from AD 26–36.[58][59] He served under Emperor Tiberius Claudius Nero. Herod Antipas was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, a client state of the Roman Empire. He ruled from 4 BC to 39 AD.[60] In refuting Gnostic claims that Jesus preached for only one year after his baptism, Irenaeus used the "recapitulation" approach to demonstrate that by living beyond the age of thirty Christ sanctified even old age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus#Christ.27s_Life

I don't know what to do with stupid people. Why, if you are interested (allegedly) in the truth, didn't you cite the passage from the Defense?

The forum has been taken over by idiots:

And again David (says) thus concerning the sufferings of Christ: Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people imagine vain things? Kings rose up on the earth, and princes were gathered together, against the Lord and his Anointed.205 For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar,206 came together and condemned Him to be crucified.207 For Herod feared, as though He were to be an earthly king, lest he should be expelled by Him from the kingdom. But Pilate was constrained by Herod and the Jews that were with him against his will to deliver Him to death: (for they threatened him) if he should not rather do this208 than act contrary to Caesar, by letting go a man who was called a king.

206. 1 Pilate was procurator of Judaea for ten years (27-37). Claudius did not become emperor until A.D. 42. The statement here made is therefore inconsistent with the chronology of history: but it agrees with the view, expressed in II, xxxiii. 2ff., that our Lord reached aetatem seniorem, that is, an age between 40 and 50: a view which is largely based on John viii. 57: "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? " For these words seemed to Irenaeus to show that He could not have been much less than fifty at the time when they were spoken. See C. H. Turner's art. "Chronology" in Hastings' Dict. of the Bible.

There is another thread for these discussions now. Please shut up (or at least stop posting this sort of marginalia here).

Secret Alias wrote:The forum has been taken over by idiots:

And again David (says) thus concerning the sufferings of Christ: Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people imagine vain things? Kings rose up on the earth, and princes were gathered together, against the Lord and his Anointed.205 For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar,206 came together and condemned Him to be crucified.207 For Herod feared, as though He were to be an earthly king, lest he should be expelled by Him from the kingdom. But Pilate was constrained by Herod and the Jews that were with him against his will to deliver Him to death: (for they threatened him) if he should not rather do this208 than act contrary to Caesar, by letting go a man who was called a king.

206. 1 Pilate was procurator of Judaea for ten years (27-37). Claudius did not become emperor until A.D. 42. The statement here made is therefore inconsistent with the chronology of history:

Yes, unless we think about " Tiberius Claudius Nero" being the emperor during Pilate's time.

but it agrees with the view, expressed in II, xxxiii. 2ff., that our Lord reached aetatem seniorem, that is, an age between 40 and 50: a view which is largely based on John viii. 57: "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? " For these words seemed to Irenaeus to show that He could not have been much less than fifty at the time when they were spoken. See C. H. Turner's art. "Chronology" in Hastings' Dict. of the Bible.

[/quote]
1. Ireneaus does say that Jesus reached old age, and he says this is based on John. "Not yet 50" is not old age, so it's not talking about John 8:57. John in Revelation says that Jesus was an old man when he visited John from heaven. Jesus lived to become an old man after the resurrection and ascension - when he was up in heaven.

2. Irenaus says Jesus was killed in the time of Pilate and Herod and Claudius. The first two are before Claudius' time, and TIberias was known as Tiberius Claudius, so there can be confusion. And so the underlined statement is no clear indication that Jesus was killed after 40 AD in Claudius' time.

3. A careful review on Ireneaus' explanation of Jesus not yet being forty in commentaries and reflected in Wikipedia made me change my mind. Saying "not yet 50" if he is 30 years old sounded silly to me, but that's how it works. I was persuaded against my own expectations. I recommend that you open and read WIkipedia where I linked to, and the commentaries closely and repeatedly in depth.

But this is not a serious suggestion. It is one of your typical attempts to make the facts fit your preconceptions.

Secret Alias wrote:But this is not a serious suggestion. It is one of your typical attempts to make the facts fit your preconceptions.

It is a serious suggestion as I explained on the new thread you opened.

Irenaeus did not have secret information radically contradicting the gospels................ at least as far as Jesus' age was concerned.

rakovsky wrote:Saying "not yet 50" if he is 30 years old sounded silly to me, but that's how it works.

To me it seems perfectly natural. The "You're not yet X so what do you know, whippersnapper?" argument puts your own latest mile marker in X. When I was in my 20s teenagers knew nothing because they hadn't reached 20. In my 30s, 20somethings know nothing because they haven't reached 30. Jesus' opponents were therefore the ones in their 50s.