Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Nope. He says in the passage about Jesus' age that he got his information about Jesus' age from the Gospels.

Exactly a gospel or a passage unknown to his opponents. Incidentally, and wholly outside the present discussion (which is itself wholly outside the OP) but Irenaeus's opponents likely only used one gospel.

Secret Alias wrote:

Nope. He says in the passage about Jesus' age that he got his information about Jesus' age from the Gospels.

Exactly a gospel or a passage unknown to his opponents. Incidentally, and wholly outside the present discussion (which is itself wholly outside the OP) but Irenaeus's opponents likely only used one gospel.

Quote where he says a gospel unknown to his opponents.

Secret Alias wrote:

Or like a Muslim attacking Christianity in youtube comments who at one point will argue Jesus wasn't crucifed but at another point Jesus was a pansy for letting himself be crucified.

I am not sure that I can follow you here either. I don't think you have read any Patristic literature. This is a problem when formulating opinions about ... Patristic literature. I find this to be true with many here at the forum who say that they've read this or that from this or that Patristic source (I doubt you've even opened up the original sources so you are at an even greater disadvantage).

But let's start with those who have bothered to open up a particular page on the internet that has a convenient passage from a Church Father. In order to get the true sense of an author you have to start from the beginning of his book and get a feel for his writing style. As such in this case - again assuming I was debating someone who even bothered to open up a page in Irenaeus rather than a nitwit - Irenaeus is WHOLLY UNLIKE some modern idiot on Youtube railing against another modern idiot.

Modern youtube trolls often get their dumb contradictory arguments from a list put together by a clergyman and published somewhere which they read and half remembered. Having read Tertullian from cover to cover, about half of Epiphanius, and at least the first two books of Irenaeus from cover to cover (maybe I skimmed a bit in the other 3 because he's just so boring and long-winded), my impression is he is compiling such a list of possible lame arguments, as all the heresiologists are. They just put together a list of OT twistings and the like, crazy assertions, a list good enough to cow down the opponents, but not to convince them. Its obvious the goal is not to convince opponents but to keep coreligionists convinced, otherwise so much belittling and name calling would not be used. So its just like some modern clergyman putting together a list and publishing it online and his army of trolls deploying the arguments. Only difference, Ireneaus loved to hear himself talk too much to simplify it down to bullet points.

But let's get back to the main point ... you haven't read Irenaeus. I mean ACTUALLY READ 'Against Heresies.' Don't you think that might be a SLIGHT CHALLENGE to your ability to ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IRENAEUS MEANS, THINKS or SAYS. Maybe? Just maybe a little ...

Secret Alias wrote:

Yes, due to the resurrection and continued living in heaven when he appeared as an old man to John.

You realize that I have cited Irenaeus in order to make my case for my understanding of his writings and you haven't.

Yes I did, on the other thread.
I thought the whole purpose of you making the other thread was for clarity?

Secret Alias wrote:But let's get back to the main point ... you haven't read Irenaeus. I mean ACTUALLY READ 'Against Heresies.' Don't you think that might be a SLIGHT CHALLENGE to your ability to ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IRENAEUS MEANS, THINKS or SAYS. Maybe? Just maybe a little ...

Yes, I read the relevant text carefully. I also quoted it carefully on the other thread.
It was only the careful reading with insightful commentaries that changed my mind.
I highly recommend it.

Secret Alias wrote:But let's get back to the main point ... you haven't read Irenaeus. I mean ACTUALLY READ 'Against Heresies.' Don't you think that might be a SLIGHT CHALLENGE to your ability to ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IRENAEUS MEANS, THINKS or SAYS. Maybe? Just maybe a little ...

So you're saying reading the first two longwinded books is not enough to understand his modus operandi in those first two longwinded books? If somehow something in the next 3 books is necessary to prove that Irenaeus knew some secret gospel that taught Jesus was 50, the please quote it. Otherwise, grow up.

Yes, I read the relevant text carefully.

Well reading ONLY the relevant text (i.e. Adv Haer 2.21) DOES NOT QUALIFY you to go beyond the text and reach into Irenaeus's mind and 'know what he really meant' when none of what you suggest is actually 'in' the relevant text.

Secret Alias wrote:

Yes, I read the relevant text carefully.

Well reading ONLY the relevant text (i.e. Adv Haer 2.21) DOES NOT QUALIFY you to go beyond the text and reach into Irenaeus's mind and 'know what he really meant' when none of what you suggest is actually 'in' the relevant text.

When what I suggest is actually 'in' the relevant text as a matter of plain logic, then reading ONLY the relevant text (i.e. Adv Haer 2.21) DOES NOT REQUIRE me to go beyond the text.

But anyway I went beyond the text and looked at the commentaries, learned about the relevancy of "50 years" of age in terms of social content, etc. as I posted on the other thread.

"But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, 'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,' they answered Him, 'Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?' Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to ****one who is only thirty years old**** it would unquestionably be said, 'Thou art not yet forty years old.' "
~Irenaeus.

In other words, "to ****one who is only thirty years old**** it would unquestionably be said, 'Thou art not yet forty years old.' " But it was not said to Jesus "Thou art not yet forty years old", but "Thou art not yet fifty years old". Irenaeus explains that he concludes from this statement, based on what was said, that Jesus is more than 30, not "only thirty years old".

Based on Ireneaus' logic, if Jesus was over 40 as you think Ireneaus means, then the crowd would have said, "Thou are not yet Sixty".

Like I said, this whole thing sounded weird to me, it was only after a very careful reading of the logic in the above that I was forced to conclude this. I got special Postgraduate training in logical reading of passages. You sometimes have to be very careful. Ireneaus is not teaching that Jesus was killed after the time of Pilate & Herod or past 40 years old. He is going by the Gospels' account of Jesus' age and he only mentions THREE years' Passovers for Jesus' preaching.

I also quoted it carefully on the other thread.

Yes you quoted things from the passage and cited a Catholic article. But there is nothing in any of the things you said or cited that have any relevance to the topic. The issue comes down to Greek terminology and the natural use of οὔπω. It is hard to believe that anyone would have written you are not fully 50 years of age. Look at John 6:17 for example:

where they got into a boat and set off across the lake for Capernaum. By now it was dark, and Jesus had not yet (οὔπω) joined them.

Clearly the idea here is that Jesus was just about to join the group but hadn't yet. It can't be used to refer to something that might have been far off in the event horizon. The same with οὔπω in John 8:57.