I came across your webpage and listened to your overview of Against Heresies and realized how knowledgable you are. Thanks for sharing your love and passion for truth and the pursuit of biblical truth
Cool video. To better understand this proto-orthodox posturing of Irenaeus, I really enjoyed also reading “The Gnostic Gospels” by Dr Elaine Pagels, Princeton Theology Professor of Early Christianities. The early “gnostic” teacher Valentinius was nearly made the bishop of Rome. Reading both sides of the debate, especially with fresh findings and scholarship from Nag Hammadi brings the doctrinal arguments of Irenaeus to greater light.
@@RaisedtoWalkTV I really enjoyed it. The book does a great job of highlighting what is really at stake between these differing points of view. Such was really helpful for me in better understanding that early time period in the formation of Christianity.
Valentinus was considered for bishop but after he disappeared and only when he reappeared he came back with gnostic teaching, He did Not show this when he was considered for bishop otherwise I promise you he would not have been considered
@@victorcritelli5790 That’s fascinating. I didn’t know that. Though in my reading of Pagel’s book, I realized that I don’t agree with a lot of proto-orthodox positions, including its creation of church hierarchy, which puts me at odds with Polycarp as well.
@@transfiguredword7892 Polycarp was a disciple of John the beloved Apostle. As close to Jesus as you can get in writing outside of the New Testament. I would be inclined to believe they knew their stuff.
HEY. I just finished Recording all 5 Books on my channel. I am a poor learner so reading the books out loud helped me absorb them. I also did Apostolic Preaching. Irenaeus is my new favorite Church Father…. And YES!! It’s because if politics and sectarian strife that many Christians simply AVOID these early writers.. it’s a shame. Irenaeus is quite amazing in his teaching. I have learned a great deal…. I literally feel like I sat under him as a student. Anyway. NEW SUB❤️🙏🏼. The Lord Bless and Keep You. Jesus Is LORD 🙌🏼❤️ amen
I am seeing a lot of Saint Irenaeus in Saint Frances of De Sales. He uses the same method toward the reformers of the 16th century to disprove their claims. Also Augustine’s Confessions is another good book to read. I have read both and I am now starting on Irennaeus.
Irenaeus of Lyons is definitely interesting to read. I read book one of Against Heresies years ago, but then got sidetracked. One of the more fascinating details he gives is a fairly in-depth explanation of the Valentinians' cosmology in chapters 1 - 8.
Lol. Well, I think a lot of people would describe Irenaeus as "proto-Catholic." I learn a lot from Catholic writers about the incarnation and the intentional physicality of Christianity, which I think we often miss in the Protestant church. But there are some things in current Catholic doctrine that I just don't think are Biblical, like the belief that Mary herself had a virgin birth, was sinless, and never married, not acknowledging justification ... Those are the big things. I think if you talked to most traditional leaning Protestants, I think you would find that how Catholics handle Mary is the biggest issue.
@@RaisedtoWalkTV Mary is an interesting topic, agreed. So I assume you believe Mary had other children, correct? We believe she was married to Joseph so that is not a teaching of the church.
@@halleylujah247 yes, I believe that Joseph and Mary were married, had a normal marriage, and that Jesus's siblings were his half siblings, not step-siblings as taught by the RCC. If they were step siblings with no blood relation, Jesus's neighbors would not have been puzzled at his miracles and authority in Matthew 13:55. And the word used in the Greek indicates actual siblings, not cousins or some other more distant relation
@@halleylujah247 Some Protestant denominations have Bishops, it is a role as overseer that is not unique to the RCC. I think what they mean by "proto-Catholic" is that Irenaeus predated the development of what is considered the RCC church today. This was before the church in Rome had any sort of primacy in the church. This fight for primacy is part of what led to the Great Schism in 1054
It’s pronounced ‘lee-own’ (but as though with a line through the ‘n’) as it’s the name of a city in France. You pronounce Irenaeus perfectly well though.
If you think the Gnostics were heretics, try reading the Gnostic gospel of Mary Magdelene - then go read the Gospel of John again. Same gospel, pretty much. If I remember right, it was Iranaeus who turned Mary Magdelene into "John". Misogyny, I suppose? Plus every serious biblical exegete says that Paul did not write Timothy 1 & 2 and probably not Ephesians or Corinthians either - which would indeed explain a great many flagrant contradictions, re slavery, among other things. And (the original) Paul was also considered a great Gnostic teacher. He started the most popular Gnostic school, and the most widespread. You do know his gospels are the oldest in the New Testament, I hope? It's also curious that none of the church fathers before Iranaeus mentions our 4 gospels. He was the first. They discuss some 50 other gospels....most long gone. So did he author those too?
Have you read Against Heresies? If you had, you wouldn't ask that question. Irenaeus spends a significant amount of time explaining what the Gnostics believed, and some of it was just loony .Jesus is THE way, he doesnt show us the way. No amount of knowledge in the world will make us right with God, which is what the Gnostics believed. I did an entire Bible study series on the I AM statements in John. The Gospel is completely opposite of gnosticism ruclips.net/p/PLW_qFG15fBk3EcUljCZdrOx5HCLMbzj6a No, "not every serious exegete" doubts Paul wrote those letters. I'm really not sure where you would have gotten that information, it is exactly the opposite. Hebrews is in debate. One of John's letters is argued that it may be written by a different John, there were two at Ephesus around the same time. Those letters were not in doubt because they were quoted by other first century writers, people who knew and were taught by the apostles. The works you are referring to are second century,
@@RaisedtoWalkTV And have you read the things that I suggested? I gave a list of reasons to mistrust Iranaeus, and anyway, it's NEVER a good idea to take any one man's (or woman's) ASSERTIONS - as the gospel truth (no pun intended). There were FAR too many gospels before Iranaeus for one reason, as I said.
@gamkal7231 How to tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video. Yes, I actually HAVE read what I've recommended to you. I actually discuss the Gospel of Thomas in a number of my Bible study videos on the parables of Jesus. (ETA: When I replied, I was thinking that you were replying to a different video. RUclips has figured out that my video on "5 Times Irenaeus refutes Calvinism" really triggers Calvinists and has been suggesting it to a bunch of them. I've been getting a lot of comments from people that it's pretty obvious that didn't even watch the video. It's been awhile since I recorded this video, if I don't quote much from this one, I do in others that I made on this book. Yes, I read it. The whole thing ... but I think my tabbing alone in the book would have made that obvious) And no, it is never a good idea to take any one person's opinion, and if you had read Against Heresies, the patristic writings, or any of the documents of the early church, you would know that Irenaeus is in harmony with all of them. Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp, who was discipled directly by John the Beloved. Almost the entirety of the New Testament could be reconstructed from quotations in the patristic writings, which testifies to early dating of the canon. There were many writings in the early church, they were only considered Scripture if 1) they were written by an apostle (this does not exclude the work of scribes recording the work like Mark did for Peter, but the testimony is of the apostles), someone who had been taught by Jesus directly and 2) if the writings had relevance to the greater church. All of those works are freely available online at ccel.org. You have provided a list of "evidence" of nothing other than the fact that you are relying on either very poor teaching or very poor "scholarship." No, Ireneaus did not "replace Mary Magdalene with John." Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" is FICTION (and not even good fiction.) It is not scholarship.
@@RaisedtoWalkTV I don't think The Da Vinci Code mentioned Iranaeus. It's based on a completely different theory, in any case, in which "The Holy Grail" is Mary Magdalene. But every biblical scholar I have ever read (and there've been dozens) agrees that NONE of the gospels were written by the apostles. They were written long after by anonymous scribes who signed them with the names of 4 apostles. I've also read the Gospel of Thomas and see absolutely nothing 'crazier' in it than plenty of things in the canon. In fact, I appreciated the fact that it completely skips the sillier stuff, like Jesus seeing "all the kingdoms of the world" from a mountain top or driving thousands of "demon-infested pigs" off a cliff in a country that doesn't eat pigs, among dozens of other goofy tales. It's also NOT misogynist at all - like most church 'fathers'. What you're basically saying, over and over, is "what Iranaeus says is true because Iranaeus says it." That's called circular reasoning. And as I said above, there are a great many reasons to be suspicious of him. Do you find his assertion that there must be 4 gospels (out of the more than 50 that used to exist) because there are 4 elements (air, fire, wind and earth) 'logical' for instance? He and his confreres were the major thrust in vilifying women and all the horrors women lived for the next 16 centuries - and in wiping out all traces of all the goddess worship you can still see in the Gospel of Thomas. Give that a moment's thought.
@@gamkal7231 If you've read "dozens" and they all say none of the Gospels were written by the apostles, then you have done very selective reading. Read the Patristic fathers. There is no way the Gospels could be second century. Available for free online: ccel.org Just reading the gospels in parallel and how the writer's address certain issues, what they include and and what they don't, you can get a sense of when they were written. Synopsis of the Four Gospels: amzn.to/3VFVNlU I took a class from the late Nabeel Qureshi shortly before he passed. The class was on Islam and Christianity, but he was in the process of finishing his dissertation on the Gospel of Mark, he believed it was written in 38 AD. A fellow alumni from HBU/HCU, Josh Pelletier, wrote his masters thesis on the Gospel of Mark. He researched the work of 207 critical scholars from 1965 to 2020 (in English). The links below are interviews that he did with Mike Licona on his thesis. On the Dating of Mark: ruclips.net/video/6z_xSmispcY/видео.html Who wrote the Gospel of Mark?: ruclips.net/video/9TMY3VI-K9U/видео.html Was Peter's Mark's source for the Gospel of Mark? ruclips.net/video/EbBcwb8wtVk/видео.html In Josh's research, the earliest date held to by the scholars was AD 33-62. The latest was the third century. Qureshi's work wouldn't have been included in this as he died before he finished it, but I did mention what Qureshi believed to Josh while he was researching. The class in which Qureshi mentioned this was recorded. I don't know if Josh contacted Qureshi's widow about his research or not. Regardless, as Josh mentions in this interview, 98 of the 160 critical scholars that gave an opinion on date believe Mark was dated before AD 70. That is a far cry from "no scholars." Those who date it late ignore the Patristric Fathers, because you can't read their work and come away with believing the Gospels were written late. The majority of scholars Josh researched believe John Mark wrote the Gospel and the majority of critical scholars believe Mark's source was Peter the apostle. The Patristic Fathers are what is known as "primary sources." Mythicists and late daters disregard primary sources because the evidence doesn't support what they want to believe. Craig Blomberg, Daniel Wallace, Craig Evans .. all are NT scholars that hold to early dating. Wallace is heading the effort to digitize NT manuscripts. www.csntm.org/leadership/ Larry Hurtado, who spent a lifetime researching early Christianity and who was good friends with Alan Segal, the author of "The Two Powers in Heaven" ... raisedtowalk.org/reviews/justice-and-mercy-meet-in-grace-a-review-of-the-two-power-in-heaven/ ... Believed Mark was written in the first century. larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2019/04/25/the-gospel-according-to-mark-a-noteworthy-text/ www.christianitytoday.com/news/2019/november/died-larry-hurtado-new-testament-early-christian-worship.html www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/early-high-christology-legacy-larry-hurtado/ larryhurtado.wordpress.com/ As Hurtado points out in this article, Mark was highly regarded in the first century based on the references, died out in influence in the second, and sees a revival in the third. larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/why-did-the-gospel-of-mark-survive/ I don't believe this just because "Irenaeus said." I have mentioned a number of reasons why, linked to Bible studies I have done explaining it, and linked to other resources you can read. Https://ccel.org If you don't understand the difference between what is said in the New Testament and the Gospel of Thomas, I've done a number of Bible studies on this: Parable of the Hidden Treasure: ruclips.net/video/sG8kUBGUut0/видео.html Parable of the Net: ruclips.net/video/QUiKIYwl814/видео.html Parable of the Leaven: ruclips.net/video/Syd0lOJZY4k/видео.html Parable of the mustard seed: ruclips.net/video/EjvHw-FyYRw/видео.html Power of the Sower: ruclips.net/video/40I8Vrq_dKU/видео.html Parable of the Rich fool: ruclips.net/video/YPo2ycQOvh4/видео.html As for Irenaeus's mention of the four elements and the four gospels ... I'm not sure why you think that is a "gotcha." He is finding parallels and synchronicities, which is what all teachers do. Paul did that, Matthew included Jewish midrash in his gospel, and Jesus used Aesop's fables and Homer's Illiad in his parables. ruclips.net/video/VzuCUqVHHmI/видео.html anunexpectedjournal.com/the-power-of-the-storyteller-jesus-and-aesop/ It's called being a good teacher. Because that is what good teachers do, they take a familiar thing and connect it imaginatively to another thing to aid understanding. anunexpectedjournal.com/from-the-green-book-to-the-river-lewis-relativism-and-constructivism-in-education/ Yes, there were a lot of misogynists in the early church. (I think that is where the Catholic ideas of Mary as something other than a normal woman cmae about ... they had such a low idea of women that they couldn't handle the idea of God bringing something about that men had nothing to do with.) Virgin Birth: 3 Prophecies of the Virgin Conception of Jesus ruclips.net/video/EjCK9_wr0eE/видео.html There are a lot of misogynists in the church today. What's your point? C.S. Lewis also had some issues before he met the love of his life, Joy. (Dorothy Sayers said he was a "rather frightened bachelor.") Just because Lewis had what Sayers called "a blank in his mind" when it came to women ... it doesn't mean I don't like his work. digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1055&context=eng_fac Do you know what else is against goddess worship? The entire Old Testament. That alone should be evidence of the spuriousness of the Gospel of Thomas.
All irenaeus of Lyons did was cement marcionism in are world. He said Jesus was over 50 years old when crucified and had over 15 year ministry 🤔 and we get the date of the book of Revelation date from him at 95ad when it was completed by 68ad
Irenaeus gave a defense against the gnostic cosmology. He his belief about the length of Jesus's ministry was a little odd, but Revelation, and the Gospel of John, were post 70 AD. Irenaeus wasn't the only one who arrested to the dating of John's writing close to the end of the first century
If you are referring to Eusebius, the tradition of the church is not based on the writings of Irenaeus alone. The final split between Christianity and Judaism didn't occur until after the destruction of the Temple. John definitely references this.
What "conspiracies" specifically do you refute? Perhaps cosmology? Ephesians tells us who it is we wrestle against and of the high places they reside. Scripture and simple math reveal the truth of this lie. It is not men who conspire but those under the sway of the wicked one 1John 5:19. Those who are ignorant and taken captive by the serpent 2 Timothy 2:26. Do not fear the truth it will make you free. Joshua 10 "sun stand still" Samuel Rowbothm "Earth Not a Globe" Many more witnesses around
If you're referring to gematria when you're referring to "math," it's a bunch of nonsense. And yes, there are spiritual forced and the Qanon conspiracies are demonically inspired ... Fueled by the manipulations of a porn site operator and a person who is literally channeling a demon. Truth corresponds to reality. When Jesus said he would rise again in three days ... Be literally rose again in three days. It wasn't pushed off for months and years with false prophets and grifters stringing people along
More Irenaeus! 5 Surprising interpretations by Irenaeus ruclips.net/video/X6oa1PLxszs/видео.html
I came across your webpage and listened to your overview of Against Heresies and realized how knowledgable you are. Thanks for sharing your love and passion for truth and the pursuit of biblical truth
Thank you! ❤️❤️ Glad the webpage was up, hackers have been hitting it hard lately
Cool video. To better understand this proto-orthodox posturing of Irenaeus, I really enjoyed also reading “The Gnostic Gospels” by Dr Elaine Pagels, Princeton Theology Professor of Early Christianities. The early “gnostic” teacher Valentinius was nearly made the bishop of Rome. Reading both sides of the debate, especially with fresh findings and scholarship from Nag Hammadi brings the doctrinal arguments of Irenaeus to greater light.
I think I actually have that book but I haven't read it yet
@@RaisedtoWalkTV I really enjoyed it. The book does a great job of highlighting what is really at stake between these differing points of view. Such was really helpful for me in better understanding that early time period in the formation of Christianity.
Valentinus was considered for bishop but after he disappeared and only when he reappeared he came back with gnostic teaching, He did Not show this when he was considered for bishop otherwise I promise you he would not have been considered
@@victorcritelli5790 That’s fascinating. I didn’t know that. Though in my reading of Pagel’s book, I realized that I don’t agree with a lot of proto-orthodox positions, including its creation of church hierarchy, which puts me at odds with Polycarp as well.
@@transfiguredword7892 Polycarp was a disciple of John the beloved Apostle. As close to Jesus as you can get in writing outside of the New Testament. I would be inclined to believe they knew their stuff.
HEY. I just finished Recording all 5 Books on my channel. I am a poor learner so reading the books out loud helped me absorb them.
I also did Apostolic Preaching. Irenaeus is my new favorite Church Father….
And YES!! It’s because if politics and sectarian strife that many Christians simply AVOID these early writers.. it’s a shame.
Irenaeus is quite amazing in his teaching. I have learned a great deal…. I literally feel like I sat under him as a student.
Anyway. NEW SUB❤️🙏🏼. The Lord Bless and Keep You.
Jesus Is LORD 🙌🏼❤️ amen
Yes, Irenaeus is amazing!
That’s fascinating! I look forward to further videos! I just heard a little bit about Irenaeus’ approach to the Old Testament which was interesting.
Thanks Faith. Yes, Irenaeus's interpretation of passages was really interesting
My copy is on it's way. Thank you for the recommendation.
Let me know how you like it!
I am seeing a lot of Saint Irenaeus in Saint Frances of De Sales. He uses the same method toward the reformers of the 16th century to disprove their claims. Also Augustine’s Confessions is another good book to read. I have read both and I am now starting on Irennaeus.
I hadn't of Francis, I'll have to put him on my list!
A defense of the Faith by Saint Frances De Sales, The Catholic Controversy. Very good reading for defending the Faith.
Fantastic! Great presentation 😊
Thanks Richard!
Thank you for the overview about this wonderful book, definitely am gonna buy it.
Awesome! let me know what you think after you read it!
I was pleased to finally hear someone pronounce it right! :)
Irenaeus of Lyons is definitely interesting to read. I read book one of Against Heresies years ago, but then got sidetracked. One of the more fascinating details he gives is a fairly in-depth explanation of the Valentinians' cosmology in chapters 1 - 8.
Yes, book 1 was definitely the brain bender with the cosmology description. I almost wanted to diagram it all out to keep it straight
Each book is very different.
I found Book 1 the hardest to get through…
Wow beautiful sharing 👍👍
Thank you!
Excellent
Thank you!
Praise God!
How do you read him and stay protestant?
Lol. Well, I think a lot of people would describe Irenaeus as "proto-Catholic." I learn a lot from Catholic writers about the incarnation and the intentional physicality of Christianity, which I think we often miss in the Protestant church.
But there are some things in current Catholic doctrine that I just don't think are Biblical, like the belief that Mary herself had a virgin birth, was sinless, and never married, not acknowledging justification ... Those are the big things.
I think if you talked to most traditional leaning Protestants, I think you would find that how Catholics handle Mary is the biggest issue.
@@RaisedtoWalkTV But what would he describe himself as? He was a Bishop after all.
@@RaisedtoWalkTV Mary is an interesting topic, agreed. So I assume you believe Mary had other children, correct? We believe she was married to Joseph so that is not a teaching of the church.
@@halleylujah247 yes, I believe that Joseph and Mary were married, had a normal marriage, and that Jesus's siblings were his half siblings, not step-siblings as taught by the RCC. If they were step siblings with no blood relation, Jesus's neighbors would not have been puzzled at his miracles and authority in Matthew 13:55. And the word used in the Greek indicates actual siblings, not cousins or some other more distant relation
@@halleylujah247 Some Protestant denominations have Bishops, it is a role as overseer that is not unique to the RCC. I think what they mean by "proto-Catholic" is that Irenaeus predated the development of what is considered the RCC church today. This was before the church in Rome had any sort of primacy in the church. This fight for primacy is part of what led to the Great Schism in 1054
It must be an interesting book.
It is ... very 😁
It’s pronounced ‘lee-own’ (but as though with a line through the ‘n’) as it’s the name of a city in France. You pronounce Irenaeus perfectly well though.
Thanks for that. I was so concerned about the pronunciation of Irenaeus that I didn't even think about Lyon. lol
@@RaisedtoWalkTV you should hear how some call him ‘Eire Anus’!
I’m in Houston and we have a street named Lyons and we pronounce it as lions. That’s a Texan for you🤗
@@livefromtexas9371 🤓👍🏽
If you think the Gnostics were heretics, try reading the Gnostic gospel of Mary Magdelene - then go read the Gospel of John again. Same gospel, pretty much. If I remember right, it was Iranaeus who turned Mary Magdelene into "John". Misogyny, I suppose?
Plus every serious biblical exegete says that Paul did not write Timothy 1 & 2 and probably not Ephesians or Corinthians either - which would indeed explain a great many flagrant contradictions, re slavery, among other things. And (the original) Paul was also considered a great Gnostic teacher. He started the most popular Gnostic school, and the most widespread. You do know his gospels are the oldest in the New Testament, I hope?
It's also curious that none of the church fathers before Iranaeus mentions our 4 gospels. He was the first. They discuss some 50 other gospels....most long gone. So did he author those too?
Have you read Against Heresies? If you had, you wouldn't ask that question. Irenaeus spends a significant amount of time explaining what the Gnostics believed, and some of it was just loony
.Jesus is THE way, he doesnt show us the way. No amount of knowledge in the world will make us right with God, which is what the Gnostics believed.
I did an entire Bible study series on the I AM statements in John. The Gospel is completely opposite of gnosticism
ruclips.net/p/PLW_qFG15fBk3EcUljCZdrOx5HCLMbzj6a
No, "not every serious exegete" doubts Paul wrote those letters. I'm really not sure where you would have gotten that information, it is exactly the opposite. Hebrews is in debate. One of John's letters is argued that it may be written by a different John, there were two at Ephesus around the same time.
Those letters were not in doubt because they were quoted by other first century writers, people who knew and were taught by the apostles.
The works you are referring to are second century,
@@RaisedtoWalkTV And have you read the things that I suggested? I gave a list of reasons to mistrust Iranaeus, and anyway, it's NEVER a good idea to take any one man's (or woman's) ASSERTIONS - as the gospel truth (no pun intended). There were FAR too many gospels before Iranaeus for one reason, as I said.
@gamkal7231 How to tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video. Yes, I actually HAVE read what I've recommended to you. I actually discuss the Gospel of Thomas in a number of my Bible study videos on the parables of Jesus.
(ETA: When I replied, I was thinking that you were replying to a different video. RUclips has figured out that my video on "5 Times Irenaeus refutes Calvinism" really triggers Calvinists and has been suggesting it to a bunch of them. I've been getting a lot of comments from people that it's pretty obvious that didn't even watch the video. It's been awhile since I recorded this video, if I don't quote much from this one, I do in others that I made on this book. Yes, I read it. The whole thing ... but I think my tabbing alone in the book would have made that obvious)
And no, it is never a good idea to take any one person's opinion, and if you had read Against Heresies, the patristic writings, or any of the documents of the early church, you would know that Irenaeus is in harmony with all of them. Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp, who was discipled directly by John the Beloved.
Almost the entirety of the New Testament could be reconstructed from quotations in the patristic writings, which testifies to early dating of the canon. There were many writings in the early church, they were only considered Scripture if 1) they were written by an apostle (this does not exclude the work of scribes recording the work like Mark did for Peter, but the testimony is of the apostles), someone who had been taught by Jesus directly and 2) if the writings had relevance to the greater church.
All of those works are freely available online at ccel.org.
You have provided a list of "evidence" of nothing other than the fact that you are relying on either very poor teaching or very poor "scholarship."
No, Ireneaus did not "replace Mary Magdalene with John." Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" is FICTION (and not even good fiction.) It is not scholarship.
@@RaisedtoWalkTV I don't think The Da Vinci Code mentioned Iranaeus. It's based on a completely different theory, in any case, in which "The Holy Grail" is Mary Magdalene.
But every biblical scholar I have ever read (and there've been dozens) agrees that NONE of the gospels were written by the apostles. They were written long after by anonymous scribes who signed them with the names of 4 apostles.
I've also read the Gospel of Thomas and see absolutely nothing 'crazier' in it than plenty of things in the canon. In fact, I appreciated the fact that it completely skips the sillier stuff, like Jesus seeing "all the kingdoms of the world" from a mountain top or driving thousands of "demon-infested pigs" off a cliff in a country that doesn't eat pigs, among dozens of other goofy tales. It's also NOT misogynist at all - like most church 'fathers'.
What you're basically saying, over and over, is "what Iranaeus says is true because Iranaeus says it." That's called circular reasoning. And as I said above, there are a great many reasons to be suspicious of him. Do you find his assertion that there must be 4 gospels (out of the more than 50 that used to exist) because there are 4 elements (air, fire, wind and earth) 'logical' for instance?
He and his confreres were the major thrust in vilifying women and all the horrors women lived for the next 16 centuries - and in wiping out all traces of all the goddess worship you can still see in the Gospel of Thomas. Give that a moment's thought.
@@gamkal7231 If you've read "dozens" and they all say none of the Gospels were written by the apostles, then you have done very selective reading.
Read the Patristic fathers. There is no way the Gospels could be second century.
Available for free online: ccel.org
Just reading the gospels in parallel and how the writer's address certain issues, what they include and and what they don't, you can get a sense of when they were written.
Synopsis of the Four Gospels: amzn.to/3VFVNlU
I took a class from the late Nabeel Qureshi shortly before he passed. The class was on Islam and Christianity, but he was in the process of finishing his dissertation on the Gospel of Mark, he believed it was written in 38 AD.
A fellow alumni from HBU/HCU, Josh Pelletier, wrote his masters thesis on the Gospel of Mark. He researched the work of 207 critical scholars from 1965 to 2020 (in English). The links below are interviews that he did with Mike Licona on his thesis.
On the Dating of Mark: ruclips.net/video/6z_xSmispcY/видео.html
Who wrote the Gospel of Mark?: ruclips.net/video/9TMY3VI-K9U/видео.html
Was Peter's Mark's source for the Gospel of Mark? ruclips.net/video/EbBcwb8wtVk/видео.html
In Josh's research, the earliest date held to by the scholars was AD 33-62. The latest was the third century. Qureshi's work wouldn't have been included in this as he died before he finished it, but I did mention what Qureshi believed to Josh while he was researching. The class in which Qureshi mentioned this was recorded. I don't know if Josh contacted Qureshi's widow about his research or not.
Regardless, as Josh mentions in this interview, 98 of the 160 critical scholars that gave an opinion on date believe Mark was dated before AD 70. That is a far cry from "no scholars." Those who date it late ignore the Patristric Fathers, because you can't read their work and come away with believing the Gospels were written late.
The majority of scholars Josh researched believe John Mark wrote the Gospel and the majority of critical scholars believe Mark's source was Peter the apostle.
The Patristic Fathers are what is known as "primary sources." Mythicists and late daters disregard primary sources because the evidence doesn't support what they want to believe.
Craig Blomberg, Daniel Wallace, Craig Evans .. all are NT scholars that hold to early dating. Wallace is heading the effort to digitize NT manuscripts.
www.csntm.org/leadership/
Larry Hurtado, who spent a lifetime researching early Christianity and who was good friends with Alan Segal, the author of "The Two Powers in Heaven" ...
raisedtowalk.org/reviews/justice-and-mercy-meet-in-grace-a-review-of-the-two-power-in-heaven/
...
Believed Mark was written in the first century.
larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2019/04/25/the-gospel-according-to-mark-a-noteworthy-text/
www.christianitytoday.com/news/2019/november/died-larry-hurtado-new-testament-early-christian-worship.html
www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/early-high-christology-legacy-larry-hurtado/
larryhurtado.wordpress.com/
As Hurtado points out in this article, Mark was highly regarded in the first century based on the references, died out in influence in the second, and sees a revival in the third.
larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/why-did-the-gospel-of-mark-survive/
I don't believe this just because "Irenaeus said." I have mentioned a number of reasons why, linked to Bible studies I have done explaining it, and linked to other resources you can read.
Https://ccel.org
If you don't understand the difference between what is said in the New Testament and the Gospel of Thomas, I've done a number of Bible studies on this:
Parable of the Hidden Treasure: ruclips.net/video/sG8kUBGUut0/видео.html
Parable of the Net: ruclips.net/video/QUiKIYwl814/видео.html
Parable of the Leaven: ruclips.net/video/Syd0lOJZY4k/видео.html
Parable of the mustard seed: ruclips.net/video/EjvHw-FyYRw/видео.html
Power of the Sower: ruclips.net/video/40I8Vrq_dKU/видео.html
Parable of the Rich fool: ruclips.net/video/YPo2ycQOvh4/видео.html
As for Irenaeus's mention of the four elements and the four gospels ... I'm not sure why you think that is a "gotcha." He is finding parallels and synchronicities, which is what all teachers do. Paul did that, Matthew included Jewish midrash in his gospel, and Jesus used Aesop's fables and Homer's Illiad in his parables.
ruclips.net/video/VzuCUqVHHmI/видео.html
anunexpectedjournal.com/the-power-of-the-storyteller-jesus-and-aesop/
It's called being a good teacher. Because that is what good teachers do, they take a familiar thing and connect it imaginatively to another thing to aid understanding.
anunexpectedjournal.com/from-the-green-book-to-the-river-lewis-relativism-and-constructivism-in-education/
Yes, there were a lot of misogynists in the early church. (I think that is where the Catholic ideas of Mary as something other than a normal woman cmae about ... they had such a low idea of women that they couldn't handle the idea of God bringing something about that men had nothing to do with.)
Virgin Birth: 3 Prophecies of the Virgin Conception of Jesus ruclips.net/video/EjCK9_wr0eE/видео.html
There are a lot of misogynists in the church today. What's your point? C.S. Lewis also had some issues before he met the love of his life, Joy. (Dorothy Sayers said he was a "rather frightened bachelor.") Just because Lewis had what Sayers called "a blank in his mind" when it came to women ... it doesn't mean I don't like his work.
digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1055&context=eng_fac
Do you know what else is against goddess worship? The entire Old Testament. That alone should be evidence of the spuriousness of the Gospel of Thomas.
All irenaeus of Lyons did was cement marcionism in are world. He said Jesus was over 50 years old when crucified and had over 15 year ministry 🤔 and we get the date of the book of Revelation date from him at 95ad when it was completed by 68ad
Irenaeus gave a defense against the gnostic cosmology. He his belief about the length of Jesus's ministry was a little odd, but Revelation, and the Gospel of John, were post 70 AD. Irenaeus wasn't the only one who arrested to the dating of John's writing close to the end of the first century
@@RaisedtoWalkTV three or four ancient writers spoke of it! but our boy is the first and they were quoting him lol 😆
If you are referring to Eusebius, the tradition of the church is not based on the writings of Irenaeus alone. The final split between Christianity and Judaism didn't occur until after the destruction of the Temple. John definitely references this.
What "conspiracies" specifically do you refute? Perhaps cosmology? Ephesians tells us who it is we wrestle against and of the high places they reside. Scripture and simple math reveal the truth of this lie. It is not men who conspire but those under the sway of the wicked one 1John 5:19. Those who are ignorant and taken captive by the serpent 2 Timothy 2:26. Do not fear the truth it will make you free.
Joshua 10 "sun stand still"
Samuel Rowbothm "Earth Not a Globe"
Many more witnesses around
If you're referring to gematria when you're referring to "math," it's a bunch of nonsense. And yes, there are spiritual forced and the Qanon conspiracies are demonically inspired ... Fueled by the manipulations of a porn site operator and a person who is literally channeling a demon.
Truth corresponds to reality. When Jesus said he would rise again in three days ... Be literally rose again in three days. It wasn't pushed off for months and years with false prophets and grifters stringing people along