Tumgik
#irenaeus
grandpasessions · 2 months
Text
According to Irenaeus, when Paul says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, he does not mean that the flesh cannot be saved but that it is incapable of saving itself. The flesh, then, does not inherit but is inherited by the Spirit.
"If we speak in truth, we must say that the flesh does not inherit but is inherited...The members of man, which decompose in the earth...are inherited by the Spirit and translated to the kingdom of the heavens."
Ancestral Sin John Romanides
33 notes · View notes
theexodvs · 3 months
Text
Claim: The New Testament canon as it currently exists is in a substantially reduced form from widely-accepted Christians writings from the first generation of the church, in particular neglecting gnostic writings. The Council of Nicaea established the canon because either the bishops whose views won out therein or Constantine did not prefer gnostic works.
Reality: The Council of Nicaea did not discuss the canon of the New Testament. The Athanasian and Arian sides were seemingly in agreement over the canon. Nicaea was convened principally to discuss matters of Christology, with the dating of Easter as a secondary issue.
The New Testament canon as it currently exists is largely in agreement with the set of works quoted by Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, and Irenaeus (all of whom died decades if not over full century before Constantine was born), along with the Muratorian fragment, written perhaps a full century before Constantine was born.
Ignatius quoted or alluded to most of the current New Testament canon (including many of Paul’s letters and perhaps all four canonical gospels), and, except Revelation, those books he did not were very short. He was martyred at the latest in the 140s, about 130 years before the birth of Constantine.
Polycarp quoted or alluded to most of the current New Testament canon as well, only neglecting John among the gospels. For what it is worth, he quotes two of John’s epistles. Again, most of the books he did not cite were very short in length, and there is only one known surviving work of his, an epistle to the Philippians. He was martyred in the middle of the second century, about 120 years before the birth of Constantine.
Unlike Ignatius and Polycarp, who contended with the proto-gnostics, Iraeneus had to contend with a more developed expression of gnosticism, along with Marcion and his followers, who promoted a very reduced form of the New Testament. Iraeneus wrote an idiosyncratic reasoning for why no fewer and no more gospels were to be considered canon than the now-accepted set of four, but given the quotations from earlier church fathers, it seems he was rationalizing a set of gospels that was already in wide use. He quoted or alluded to every book presently in the New Testament, with the exception of a few short, non-Pauline epistles. Note that he also considered 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas to be Scripture. He died at an unknown date, under unknown circumstances, but likely sometime in the early third century, well before the birth of Constantine.
The Muratorian fragment is a name used to refer to the collation of two obscure manuscripts found in Italy containing a list of the books accepted at the time its original text was written as being in the New Testament. The manuscripts themselves are of medieval origin, but were copied from a text that refered to the Shepherd of Hermas as being a recent work, and attributing it to the brother of Pius, bishop of Rome AD 140-154. This suggests the work was originally written around AD 170, a century before the birth of Constantine. As the name suggests, the whole of the text which has survived to our day is in a fragmentary condition, but it mentions Luke and John being a third and fourth gospel, in addition to recognizing thirteen of Paul’s epistles, two epistles of John (which of them was included is unknown, but the Muratorian fragment quotes 1 John, suggesting either 2 or 3 John was excluded), the epistle of Jude, and Revelation. The only two books considered in the fragment not included in the canon are the Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon. The former was described by the author as being rejected by some churches. The latter is included in the Old Testament by some groups. Hebrews, James, and the epistles of Peter were not discussed in the fragment. While the inclusion of Matthew and Mark as the first and second gospels is speculative, it is ludicrous to suggest the Gospel of John, which begins with describing Jesus as a fleshly being, Colossians, which describes the fullness of God dwelling in Jesus bodily, or the epistles of John, any two of which would have collectively described the protognostics as antichrist at least once, would coexist in the same canon as any gnostic gospel.
The only writings for which there seems to be some continuing disputes into the late second century were Philemon, Hebrews, some of the general epistles, and Revelation. However, besides these and the rest of the accepted New Testament, the closest to a somewhat accepted book in the New Testament canon was the Shepherd of Hermas, a decidedly non-gnostic work that was rejected due to its obvious post-apostolic origin and disconnection in concepts from the rest of Scripture. The overall trend, then, was for the canon of the New Testament to expand to its current form.
1 note · View note
Text
Spotting the Liars: St Irenaeus
Note on the text: I used Against Heresies by St Irenaeus at published in 2015 by Beloved Press
Thou wilt not expect from me. . .  [who is] a resident among the Keltae and am accustomed for the most part to use a barbarous dialect, any display of rhetoric, which I have not learned, nor any excellence of composition, which I have never practiced, nor any beauty of persuasiveness of style, to which I make no pretensions (2).
In his book, Against Heresies, Irenaeus warns us to be careful around people who give overly complicated answers to questions. Anyone who was not willing to answer a question plainly and simply is probably lying: “Error indeed is never set forth in its marked deformity, lest, being exposed, it should be at once detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress [so that it might appear to be] more true than the truth” (1). This is not only true when it comes to matters of religion, but when it comes to life in general: how many of us have people in our lives who are so unable to give us a straight answer that we often leave the conversation more confused than when we started them? You ask someone if they love you, for example, and instead of saying yes or no they give some complicated non-answer. Saint Irenaeus’ warning is that people who intentionally give overcomplicated answers that appear to fly in the face of reason are probably lying because what they’re trying to do is distract you from seeing the truth of what they believe. 
That is why Irenaeus starts his book by claiming to be an “everyman”, and the ways that he argues against the credibility of the Gnostics can still serve as a blueprint for us today on how to identify the liars in our own lives. Although Irenaeus does use Scripture to make many of his points against the Gnostics, I was interested in the way that he appeals to common sense. In short he says that his theology is connected “to the things which actually have been” (133). Which is to say that it matches it up with reality, as opposed to the made up reality that one would have to believe in order to make the Gnostics’ beliefs palatable. In this way, Irenaeus continues to speak to us in to this very day. So when, for example, he talks about the Gnostics’ dual God theology, where God created the perfect spiritual world and a lesser God (who was created by the former God) created the sinful material world, he starts off by saying that it just doesn’t make sense. Because if that supreme God created the lesser God (or angelic being) who then created this world, doesn’t make more sense to say that he is responsible for this world too? When a king plans a siege we don’t say his armies won or lost, we say that he did. Because he was the one who put everything in motion. We don’t say the axe cut down the tree, we say the axe cutter did. Because he was the one who put everything in motion. So wouldn’t it make sense to say the same about God? Irenaeus says that it would, and the fact that the Gnostics have to come up with a very complicated belief system in order to make you believe that that is not true is indicative of the fact that they know its not true. They know that if anyone actually looked at what they believed, stripped away of all the rhetorical bells and whistles, and they would know that the Gnostics were lying. Irenaeus gives a similar example later when talking about the parables. The parables have a logic to them that is obvious to anyone who reads them: if you read the story of the lost sheep for example its obvious what the message of the story is and that it has nothing to do with the numerological value of the number 100, and that anyone who tries to tell you different is probably just trying to pull the wool over your eyes. 
Similarly when someone in your own life says something that flies in the face of common sense, or has to give an extremely convoluted answer in order for it to make sense, they are probably lying. If someone hits you when they say they love you, they’re probably lying. Or when you ask someone if they want to marry you and they give you an answer that is more complicated than just “yes” or “no” they are probably lying. 
Truth is simple, lies are complicated. The truth is, more often then not, tied to the reality of the world in ways that lies are not. Lies have to be accounted for. Truth just is. I don’t have to explain why the car is red or why there is no woman in my bed. But I do have to explain why the car is blue even though it seems to be red, and why there actually is no woman in my bed even when you can see that there is. It’s not to say that the truth is necessarily easier to deal with than a lie, but generally if “something seems to good to be true, it probably isn’t” as the saying goes. Because if it is too good to be true that means that something about what is being said just doesn’t line up with reality, which means it is more likely to be a lie. Greys exist to be sure, but be careful around those who insist on living in it. You may find them to be not as trustworthy as you would like them to be.
2 notes · View notes
thesynaxarium · 2 years
Photo
Tumblr media
Today we celebrate the Holy Hieromartyr Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon. Saint Irenaeus was a direct descendent of the Lord's grace, being a student of Saint Polycarp of Smyrna, who in turn was a student of Saint John the Evangelist, one of the 12 disciples of Christ. He wrote many works against heresies and won the glorious crown of martyrdom in his advanced age. Because of his many theological and anti-heretical works, he is considered to be one of the greatest Christian apologists and a Church Father. May he intercede for us all + #saint #irenaeus #lyon #france #bishop #hieromartyr #martyr #polycarp #smyrna #polycarpofsmyrna #johntheevangelist #johnthetheologian #johnthedivine #john #evangelist #theologian #againstheresies #heresy #churchfather #father #church #martyrdom #orthodox #saintoftheday (at Lyon, France) https://www.instagram.com/p/Chk3FSVP5E_/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=
16 notes · View notes
wisdomfish · 1 year
Quote
According to Irenaeus, Bishop Polycarp was one of the few living disciples of the apostle John, who was the “beloved disciple” of Jesus himself. Polycarp preached what he had learned directly from eyewitnesses of Jesus. His connection with Christ’s first apostles served as a bridge between the first generation of believers and those who followed, including influential thinkers and theologians such as Irenaeus, who would live to be a prominent church father in his own right.
Plough [dotcom] via Bearing Witness: Stories of Martyrdom and Costly Discipleship. Resources: “The Martyrdom of Polycarp” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Philip Schaff, et al., translated by Marcus Dods (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996) is the most complete account. History of the Church in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2: Eusebius, edited by Philip Schaff, et al. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1984) includes valuable commentary by Eusebius. Finally, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, translated by Philip Schaff; edited by Alexander Roberts, et al. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2001) contains details on Polycarp’s earlier life and character.
4 notes · View notes
apocalypsegay · 1 year
Photo
Tumblr media Tumblr media
i dont know how to set a post as mature from desktop so i have to protect his modesty <3 irenaeus time
4 notes · View notes
exlibrisarchive · 1 year
Photo
Tumblr media
From “Adversus Valentini, & similium gnosticorum haereses, libri quinque” c. 1596
2 notes · View notes
Text
Nicolatians
Tumblr media
View On WordPress
0 notes
liberty1776 · 17 days
Text
Gnostics
youtube
0 notes
minnesotafollower · 6 months
Text
“The Benediction of Life Together” at Westminster Presbyterian Church 
On September 10, 2023, Rev. Tim Hart-Andersen. Senior Pastor at Minneapolis Westminster Presbyterian Church, delivered the sermon, “The Benediction of Life Together,” which was the first of his last seven sermons before his retirement at the end of October. Scripture Psalm 1: 1-3: “Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the…
View On WordPress
0 notes
friarmusings · 10 months
Text
St. Irenaeus of Lyon
Today is the feast day of St. Irenaeus of Lyon, a 2nd century bishop and theologians in France. He is noted for his role in guiding and expanding Christian communities in the southern regions of present-day France and, more widely, for the development of Christian theology by combating Gnostic interpretations of Scripture as heresy. Included with this post are two videos. The first is an overview…
youtube
View On WordPress
1 note · View note
exquisitelyeco · 1 year
Text
He is with me
God is with me. He is with me in my darkness. He is with me in my aloneness. He is with me in my suicidal thoughts. He is with me in my frustrations. He is with me in my anger. He is with me in my OCD. He is with me in my struggles. He is with me in my sadness. He is with me in my pain. He is with me in my crying. God is with me. God sees me. God hears me. He is with me in my…
View On WordPress
0 notes
atfnews · 2 years
Text
Dating The Book of Revelation Part 4
0 notes
melvingaines · 2 years
Text
Live Stream Sunday School - May 15, 2022
Live Stream Sunday School – May 15, 2022
https://www.facebook.com/gaines.melvin/videos/884826645619099 Sunday school session for Akron Alliance Fellowship Church, Akron OH Biblical Inerrancy – Session 15 – The Church Fathers (Part 2)
Tumblr media
View On WordPress
0 notes
apenitentialprayer · 3 months
Text
Not going to touch the post that prompted this, but yes, you were made to worship God. God created you, and you specifically, because He wanted someone to receive His benefits (Irenaeus), because God wanted to create a space where a someone could respond to and reciprocate His love (Benedict XVI), because He wanted an Other to be able to experience and enjoy the Goodness that is Himself. God created us to be in relationship with Him. That is the essence and end goal of worship; to not only see God, but to experience, participate in, and enjoy God. And this is true of the person with the most dramatic mental deficiency you can imagine, of the person who suffers the most intense chronic pain you can imagine, of any other person that you or anyone else might deem better off dead than alive. Because God loves them, and their lives are infinitely valued.
184 notes · View notes
wisdomfish · 1 year
Text
Albright's A.D. 80 date might be questioned
We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today" [ William F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, New York, Funk and Wagnalls, 1955, p. 136}
Albright's A.D. 80 date might be questioned when it comes to the Gospel of John. There is a strong possibility the apostle John's banishment to Patmos under Domitian was as late as A.D. 95-96 in Revelation 1. There is strong tradition that John wrote Revelation there at that time. This is testified to by Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Irenaeus (cf. New Testament Survey, p. 391, by Robert Gromacki).
 ~ Josh McDowell 
2 notes · View notes