Posted: Oct 08, 2015 8:05 am
We’re going to have our work cut out for us, friend Stein!
But first, once more that useless Irenaeus age business!
How in the world could Irenaeus have introduced the Gospels into circulation and argue at the same time that Jesus was crucified as an old man about 20 years after the 15th (year?) of Tiberius, dejuror, when the gospels claim that he was crucified under Pilate, and not in 49 CE?
In lieu of innumerable disparities, why was it thought fit to distribute the synoptic gospels, all three that is, in the first place? - Discrepancies on such a scale as to render Irenaeus length-of-ministry argument but a minor hiccup.
And it seems to be only you who decided on crucifixion in 49 CE. As said before, in order to remain consistent with the gospels, and in light of Pilate’s removal in 36, one merely needs push back Jesus’ date of birth instead (assuming one bothers to insist pedantically on consistency with Irenaeus as well).
Where the actual crucifixion is concerned, the canonical gospels tend to follow the earlier Acts of Pilate in some particulars, in others it’s entirely ignored. The narratives were largely conjured with the aim of fulfilling diverse Jewish prophecies. The main objective was aimed at sustaining Jesus’ Messianic character, in accordance with the prophecies.
Irenaeus asserts that Jesus was baptized at thirty, with a subsequent ministry of twenty years. One may infer from the synoptic gospels that the ministry of Jesus only lasted one year but that’s all it is, an inference. The same for the Gospel of John: in that three or four Passovers are mentioned, the ministry must have lasted at least that many years, but there’s scant to indicate that it couldn't have been longer.
Writings of Tertullian are NOT in full agreement with those of Irenaeus?
I only asserted that Tertullian agreed with Irenaeus’ idea that every church ought to agree with that of Rome.
Tertullian writings do not agree that Jesus was crucified when he was about to be fifty years old?
Why should they! I doubt he even referred to it!
But first, once more that useless Irenaeus age business!
How in the world could Irenaeus have introduced the Gospels into circulation and argue at the same time that Jesus was crucified as an old man about 20 years after the 15th (year?) of Tiberius, dejuror, when the gospels claim that he was crucified under Pilate, and not in 49 CE?
In lieu of innumerable disparities, why was it thought fit to distribute the synoptic gospels, all three that is, in the first place? - Discrepancies on such a scale as to render Irenaeus length-of-ministry argument but a minor hiccup.
And it seems to be only you who decided on crucifixion in 49 CE. As said before, in order to remain consistent with the gospels, and in light of Pilate’s removal in 36, one merely needs push back Jesus’ date of birth instead (assuming one bothers to insist pedantically on consistency with Irenaeus as well).
Where the actual crucifixion is concerned, the canonical gospels tend to follow the earlier Acts of Pilate in some particulars, in others it’s entirely ignored. The narratives were largely conjured with the aim of fulfilling diverse Jewish prophecies. The main objective was aimed at sustaining Jesus’ Messianic character, in accordance with the prophecies.
Irenaeus asserts that Jesus was baptized at thirty, with a subsequent ministry of twenty years. One may infer from the synoptic gospels that the ministry of Jesus only lasted one year but that’s all it is, an inference. The same for the Gospel of John: in that three or four Passovers are mentioned, the ministry must have lasted at least that many years, but there’s scant to indicate that it couldn't have been longer.
Writings of Tertullian are NOT in full agreement with those of Irenaeus?
I only asserted that Tertullian agreed with Irenaeus’ idea that every church ought to agree with that of Rome.
Tertullian writings do not agree that Jesus was crucified when he was about to be fifty years old?
Why should they! I doubt he even referred to it!