| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Randy Carson |
Posted - 05/04/2009 : 1:35:52 PM
What are we to make of this claim and how does this damage Irenaeus' credibility with regard to the list of successors he provides?
Randy + † +
Tiber Swim Team - Class of '79
"What is very clear from the best scholarship available is that the Jewish Biblical Canon was a Post-Christian development and not part of our patrimony from Judaism." - Dr. Art Sippo
|
| 4 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Patti |
Posted - 06/08/2009 : 5:53:23 PM
quote:
I've always thought that Mark Bonocore's analysis of this question is the best out there.
I agree; on many questions, he offers very thorough answers. He may be one of the most overlooked apologists on the internet.
As for the point about the ECFs in anti-Catholic usage, that's also spot-on. The Catholic Church has historically drawn from their writings as an aid to defining doctrines, not gone back to anachronistically cherry-pick the ancient writers for support of pre-supposed points. This makes the anti-Catholic polemical accusation that "Rome misuses the Fathers" far less amusing than pathetic.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
| thepalmhq |
Posted - 06/08/2009 : 3:24:30 PM
I've always thought that Mark Bonocore's analysis of this question is the best out there.
It amuses me when various Protestant apologists do their utmost to undermine the credibility of the patristic witnesses when the Fathers support some Catholic doctrine. But then when it comes time to uphold their own views on the canon of the New Testament and the authorship of the various NT books, to whom do they turn as reliable historical witnesses? You guessed it, those very same witnesses whom they just finished trashing as hopelessly unreliable. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
The Reluctant Traditionalist: http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com |
| MarcoPolo |
Posted - 06/03/2009 : 09:42:35 AM
For one, Irenaeus' list of successors is corroborated by others, whereas the Jesus=50 is not. It would be like hearing 4 people claim they saw Joe Smith rob a bank, and you find out 1 of the 4 people claimed the wrong age on a job app, and dismissing that Joe Smith robbed the bank because of that.
Here is Mark Bonocore's article on this issue:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a38.htm
|
| artsippo |
Posted - 05/04/2009 : 9:53:55 PM
Jesus was likely 30 or so when he started his ministry. That is close to 50 since the life expectancy of most men at that time was ~45. That age represented a man in his so-called "declining years" since it was all down hill from 30 onwards.
St. Irenaeus was postulating that Jesus as the New Adam had lived out in his body all the ages of man from infancy to adolescence to young manhood to seniority. This recapitulation theory was never picked by other theologians and is of no real importance than as an historical curiosity. The only relevant thing about it is that it emphasizes that Jesus was truly human and not just a phantom.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
