Arguing Against the Church Fathers

[neilgodfrey]

So again. I am saying that the Church Fathers:

1. are 'early Christianity' (because they received a tradition and faithfully preserved it from those that founded Christianity)
2. know or report on the earliest Christian tradition(s) (in their reports on the heresies).
3. know those who know the earliest Christian tradition(s) (in other words Marcion or any of the others are a step removed from 'earliest Christianity'

Without regurgitating distractive nonsense please comment on this. Not some straw man you might create for me to demonstrate your erudition.

And I thought I saw a comment of yours somewhere once praising someone for not being insulting over an idea he did not agree with. You clearly have no tolerance for anyone who might dare try to argue some of your presumptions about your sources are open to question.

[MrMacSon]

... I am saying that the Church Fathers:

1. are 'early Christianity' (because they received a tradition and faithfully preserved it from those that founded Christianity)
2. know or report on the earliest Christian tradition(s) (in their reports on the heresies)
3. know [that] those who know the earliest Christian tradition(s) (in other words Marcion or any of the others[)] are a step removed from 'earliest Christianity'

... please comment on this ...

• I think #2 is correct and that #3 probably is, too. I don't think #1 is.

[Secret Alias]

I agree

[Leucius Charinus]

Carrier hypocritically calls them shameless liars but then believes most of their lies, such as "authentic" "epistles" of "Paul".

Carrier has wrapped the thesis of Earl Doherty in Bayesian bubble-wrap - a process that stretches and blurs the borders between the study of history and the study of statistical analysis. He maintains a mid 2nd century cut-off point for the admittance of his "Background" evidence even though other researchers (such as Nongbri) reject the proposition that we have in our possession NT manuscript fragments that MUST BE as old as the 2nd century. Carrier and Doherty both use the standard form of mainstream special "earliest date" pleading to date the "Ascension of Isaiah" to the 1st century even though it is Jerome in the later 4th century who is first to attest to this text.

Yes his treatment of "Paul" is decidedly hypocritical. In a nutshell he ASSUMES the historical Paul. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have long lost their kudos as EYEWITNESSES and many now question their historicity. Peter is in the same boat. The historicity of a 1st century Christian origins is currently dependent upon the historicity of Paul. This has been the case ever since the Nicene church industry packaged up the writings of the Roman philosopher and stateman Seneca, and prefaced the publication - for more than a thousand years - with the letter exchange between Paul and Seneca.

[Leucius Charinus]

Even for your netball theory the writings of the Church Fathers attest to the literary purpose of the gospel and the identity of early Christianity. According to your theory Irenaeus and company ARE the only Church KNOW the only meaning of the gospel.

According to the proposition the forgery of Irenaeus and Co commenced in the 4th century but continued for way more than a thousand years. For example after Pfaff published (1713) the Turin manuscript of Irenaeus in Greek, Harnack declared it a forgery. Why was the church industry so focused on "discovering" a Greek manuscript for the Greek writer Irenaeus? Earlier in 1526 Erasmus published Irenaeus via the printing press and thought that he was a Latin author. The Church was a monopoly business best described as an industry with its own tertiary education sector. At its inception it was backed by the Christian emperors in order to usurp power, authority and massive wealth from the Graeco-Roman religious sector.

Unless you hold that the gospel and the writings of the Church Fathers WERE CONCEIVED as meaningless gobbledygook by the fourth century forgers.

Meaningless gobbledygook. A monstrous tale. A fabrication. A fiction of men composed by wickedness. A vehicle of imperial Roman propaganda. The inheritors of the Nicene Church industry in the later 4th and subsequent centuries implemented a business model to ensure that their newly found authority would prevail.

In the words of Blaise Pascal:

• "We must not see the fact of usurpation;
  law was once introduced without reason, and has become reasonable.
  We must make it regarded as authoritative, eternal, and conceal its origin,
  if we do not wish that it should soon come to an end."
  
  ~ Blaise Pascal, "Pensees"

[Leucius Charinus]

After the first few Ecumenical Councils everything was settled and the truth was resolved, so there is no need to look beyond these plus the Canonical texts. Reading non-Canonical tests, and/or questioning the decisions of these councils will result in burning in hell. There can be no arguing against the Church Fathers.

Until the 5th century (Cyril of Alexandria) the references to the authority of the Church Fathers consistently referred not to the Ante Nicene Fathers but to the authority of the (318) Fathers of the Nicene Church. The history of the first few Ecumenical Councils is only found in the Ecclesiastical Histories written in the 5th century. These are the "histories" of Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret - the continuators of Eusebius. These sources wrote their history of the Christian revolution of the 4th century AFTER the Edicts of Theodosius.

• 'We authorise followers of this law to assume the title of orthodox Christians; but as for the others since, in our judgement, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious names of heretics.' - Emperor Theodosius 381 CE

In AD 381, Theodosius, emperor of the eastern Roman empire, issued a decree in which all his subjects were required to subscribe to a belief in the Trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This edict defined Christian orthodoxy and brought to an end a lively and wide-ranging debate about the nature of the Godhead; all other interpretations were now declared heretical.

Moreover, for the first time in a thousand years of Greco-Roman civilization free thought was unambiguously suppressed. Not since the attempt of the pharaoh Akhenaten to impose his god Aten on his Egyptian subjects in the fourteenth century BC had there been such a wide-sweeping program of religious coercion. Yet surprisingly this political revolution, intended to bring inner cohesion to an empire under threat from the outside, has been airbrushed from the historical record. Instead, it has been claimed that the Christian Church had reached a consensus on the Trinity which was promulgated at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381. In this groundbreaking new book, acclaimed historian Charles Freeman shows that the council was in fact a shambolic affair, which only took place after Theodosius' decree had become law. In short, the Church was acquiescing in the overwhelming power of the emperor. Freeman argues that Theodosius' edict and the subsequent suppression of paganism not only brought an end to the diversity of religious and philosophical beliefs throughout the empire but created numerous theological problems for the Church, which have remained unsolved. The year AD 381, Freeman concludes, marked 'a turning point which time forgot'.

AD 381: Heretics, Pagans and the Christian State (2008)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/AD-381-Heretic ... 1845950062

[Leucius Charinus]

As I said virtually the only light that is received from antiquity is that which comes from the Church Fathers.

And all that light, which is received from antiquity and which comes from the Church Fathers, has been passed through the lens of Eusebius. Later, fresh lights were observed by mean of the "discovery" of hitherto unknown manuscripts within the archives of the church industry.

"None ventured to go over the same ground again,
but left him sole possessor of the field
which he held by right of discovery and of conquest.
The most bitter of his theological adversaries
were forced to confess their obligations to him,
and to speak of his work with respect.

It is only necessary to reflect for a moment
what a blank would be left in our knowledge
of this most important chapter in all human history,
if the narrative of Eusebius were blotted out,
and we shall appreciate the enormous debt
of gratitude which we owe to him.

The little light which glimmered over the earliest
history of Christianity in medieval times
came ultimately from Eusebius alone,
coloured and distorted in its passage
through various media."


-- J.B. Lightfoot, Eusebius of Caesarea, (article. pp. 324-5),
Dictionary of Christian Biography: Literature, Sects and Doctrines,
ed. by William Smith and Henry Wace, Vol II.

[Secret Alias]

For example after Pfaff published (1713) the Turin manuscript of Irenaeus in Greek, Harnack declared it a forgery.

So Pfaff was 'in on it'????

[Leucius Charinus]

From at least 1513 CE with John de Medici (Pope Leo X) great increases in the price of rewards were offered to persons who procured new MS. copies of ancient Greek and Roman works.

[Leucius Charinus]

So again. I am saying that the Church Fathers:

1. are 'early Christianity' (because they received a tradition and faithfully preserved it from those that founded Christianity)
2. know or report on the earliest Christian tradition(s) (in their reports on the heresies).
3. know those who know the earliest Christian tradition(s) (in other words Marcion or any of the others are a step removed from 'earliest Christianity'

Without regurgitating distractive nonsense please comment on this. Not some straw man you might create for me to demonstrate your erudition.

This is not a strawman.
Logically it is valid to examine and split Christian history into two: 1) the heresies and the heretics and 2) the orthodoxy and the Church Fathers. Let us assume for the sake of the argument assume that 2) the orthodoxy and the Church Fathers told the truth about 2) the history of the orthodoxy and the Church Fathers.

Given this assumption I am prepared to argue that they lied in their reports on the heresies. The argument would be that although the orthodox Christians existed before the Nicene Initiative, the heresies and the heretics didn't exist.

The argument would be that the heresies and the heretics exploded with an avalanche of reactionary and highly controversial literature. Due to the obfuscation of the Nicene Church industry the literature is now known as the NT Apocryphal corpus, and the controversy is known (and waved away) as the Arian controversy.

The primary evidence in our possession for the NT apocryphal literature (including the Nag Hammadi Library)has been dated by cartonage, paleography and C14 to the mid 4th century.

If we assume orthodoxy has a legitimate history (even to the extent of an historical Jesus) is it possible that the heresiological portion of the church fathers is fabricated? You have the secondary evidence of Irenaeus and maybe a few early dates by paleography in isolation.

My argument relies on staying with the primary evidence. What evidence does your argument rely upon? The authority of the church?