The Jesus Wars Go Thermonuclear

[Secret Alias]

Eusebius is in no doubt whatsoever about “the holy tetrad of the gospels.” (HE 3.25.1)

[Secret Alias]

Do you start to see a problem with your stupidhead approach? It might work at an evangelical revival but the weight of evidence from antiquity was that the four gospels AS A SET were the 'holy mystical tetrad' first venerated by the heresies. In other words, the orthodox had to borrow from the heretics. Do you see a pattern here between this and what I said before about Irenaeus saying that there had to be four heresies each with one corrupt gospel which - when polished, corrected (by Irenaeus of course) - can be reconstituted TOGETHER as Eusebius's 'holy tetrad.' Get the picture now? Irenaeus established both THE CONCEPT of the tetrad of the gospels and the four gospels themselves FROM THE HERETICS. They came first, he (and his corruptions) came later.

[outhouse]

Pythagoras maintains the power of the number ten lies in the number four, the tetrad. That's why there's a connection between Yahweh and the ten commandments. You understand that right?

I'm not arguing it.


My argument for the 4 is simply the importance your placing on the concept in context to his rhetorical use.

No one is saying it was not important, he makes it quite clear it was. But its not evidence in any way the gospels were not already popular.


The fact they were written down and widely circulated even in heretical circles dictates, factual popularity. Were debating how much.


Were also debating Irenaeus role you claim made Acts popular.

[outhouse]

first venerated by the heresies.


.

That is rhetorical imagination.


He is complaining of their perversion of the text, but more important, their addition and subtraction from 4, for their total number of valuable text.

[outhouse]

Get the picture now? .

You mean do I see into your imaginative claims? Somewhat. I see how you misinterpret what you read and lack comprehension while being ADD bouncing all over the place forcing metal hurdles that really don't exist.

but the weight of evidence from antiquity was that the four gospels AS A SET were the 'holy mystical tetrad' first venerated by the heresies.

Only if you misinterpret his work with the same methodology as YEC investigating biology.


He IS NOT talking about the gospels status as of today in his time. He is speaking of their long held popularity in all circles while focusing on the Heretics in context.


He is in context dealing with past events that shaped his world, and he is addressing these past events.


This weight you attribute, why have not REAL professors addressed this in full?

[outhouse]

your silly claim of it all being a 'rhetorical' device

This is hilarious.

Its evidence you don't understand rhetorical prose.


Rhetorical prose is not a devise, I never stated devise either. It is in context the literary means of persuasion all authors were trained to write in.

[outhouse]

In other words, the orthodox had to borrow from the heretics

.

Imaginative horse crap.

its nonsensical. Orthodox indicates some level of traditions were popular.



So what traditions were popular in this orthodoxy that existed in 180 CE ?????????????

[Secret Alias]

So according to John outhouse neither Irenaeus nor Eusebius or any other Father believed that 4 was a sacred number. It just so happened that there were 4 "popular gospels" at the time. If there were 10 popular gospels the number of gospels in our canon would be 10. Irenaeus just speaks in "flowery language." So too Clement and Origen and Eusebius. But not the heretics they really believed in numerology ... so did most or many educated people in antiquity ... but not Irenaeus and the Christians. We know this because ... John outhouse doesn't believe in numerology.

[Secret Alias]

So we have a choice - follow John outhouse's PROJECTION of modern sensibility (i.e. 'Irenaeus CAN'T believe in numerology') onto a text which explicitly confirms that he did or we can follow the thread starting with Irenaeus's expressed belief in numerology and see where it leads us. In this case the answer is clear - i.e. as Wheeless notes the four principle schools - Ebionites, Marcionites, an unnamed group and the Valentinians - 'mirror' the correct number of gospels because not only did God develop the universe according to the Pythagorean interest in the number 4 but more importantly because the heretics came first. How do we know this? We go back to the statement which I've cited a number of times now.

"Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us," Irenaeus says introducing his 'gospel in four' formula - "and make use of these, our proof derived from them is firm and true." This is a most puzzling statement and Wheeless provides a rough paraphrase "the heretical use of the Four confirms their like acceptance and use by the True Churches ... the 'canonical Four' were manufactured precisely for the purpose of meeting and confuting the heretics." So either God and the Holy Spirit 'knew' there would be four heretics using corrupt gospels in advance or Irenaeus writing after the heretics established chose four gospels to combat them. There is only one rational choice here DESPITE what is says about the lateness of our beloved Church.

[Secret Alias]

Here are Wheless's actual words in his book Forgery in Christianity:

Each of the four principal sects of heretics, he [Irenaeus] says, makes use in their Churches of one or the other of these Four for its own uses, for instance : Matthew by the Ebionites ; Mark by "those who separate Jesus from Christ" ; Luke by the Marcionites ; and John by the Valentinians ; and this heretical use of the Four, argues the Bishop, confirms their like acceptance and use by the True Churches : "So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics bear witness to them, and starting from these documents, each of them endeavors to establish his own peculiar doctrine — [citing the use by each sect of a different Gospel as above named]. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these documents, our proof derived from them is firm and true." (Iren., op. cit. sec. 7.) The "canonical Four," verily, as CE. confesses, were manufactured precisely for the purpose of meeting and confuting the heretics, as were the gradually developed and defined sacred dogmas of the Orthodox Church, even that of the Trinity. The fabrication of the Four can be seen working out under our very eyes, in the light of the foregoing statement of Irenteus, and of that of CE. to be quoted. [p. 189]

So getting back to how John outhouse 'knows' that the four gospels were 'really' the most popular (even though Irenaeus never mentions it and gives a totally screwy explanation in its place) the correct strategy again when reading any author is according to John outhouse:

1. distinguish between whether you 'like' what the say or 'don't like' what they say
2. in the case of the former you have to assume they thought like you and approached the world like you do (otherwise you wouldn't like them)
3. since you like that Irenaeus confirms the right number of gospels as 4 Irenaeus couldn't possibly believe in the sacredness of the number 4 (otherwise he'd be 'weird' and you wouldn't like him nor find his testimony reliable)
4. since you 'like' Irenaeus you have to believe that he didn't really mean any of the other stupid things he says about the pre-existence of the number 4 in Christianity (i.e. that God arranged for four heretical schools associated with the four gospels before Irenaeus to chart his way etc).
5. you assume that Irenaeus forgot to mention the 'popularity' of the four canonical gospels because he was really busy or pressed for time (maybe he forgot!)
6. basically any source you cite agrees with you 100% because after all you John outhouse are 100% right about everything and everything agrees with you 'totally' dude!