Hello people! I am no atheist but nevertheless, I thought it would be interesting to get to hear the perspective of the antithesis position. I have for quite some time considered the naturalism/theism discussion and can no longer take atheism seriously whatsoever. Hopefully I can bring something interesting to the discussions.
I apologize for this sophomoric response but when I read your nick my mind said Uranus.....that is all.
oh welcome...this may be fun...or not
:popcorn:
Welcome to the forum
Welcome. So you can take belief in myth based on faith seriously but not rational thinking based on facts?
Quote from: "Irenaeus"....can no longer take atheism seriously whatsoever. Hopefully I can bring something interesting to the discussions.
I doubt it with an attitude like that, but welcome, anyway. I guess.
:-?
Welcome to the forum.
Not sure what you may think atheism entails, but all extras aside, we essentially lack a belief in any deity whatsoever. Most of us on this forum will tend to favor rational thinking and prefer science to spirituality (although we do have a few theists, deists, and spiritual atheists who lurk about here and there).
With that in mind, please note that many of the arguments you will bring have probably been heard a thousand times already, that many of the members here are former theists so are not strangers to the theist manner of thinking, and we are often pelted by visiting theists with preconceived notions of what an atheist is and occasionally harbor hostile intent toward us.
It would be nice to have a pleasant encounter with a visiting theist for a change.
Quote from: "Irenaeus"Hello people! I am no atheist but nevertheless, I thought it would be interesting to get to hear the perspective of the antithesis position. I have for quite some time considered the naturalism/theism discussion and can no longer take atheism seriously whatsoever. Hopefully I can bring something interesting to the discussions.
Nice to have you here. At the risk of everyone swarming you with questions, I'm kind of curious. What about atheism do you not take seriously?
Quote from: "Irenaeus"I have for quite some time considered the naturalism/theism discussion and can no longer take atheism seriously whatsoever.
You will be a slightly more entertaining chew-toy than usual.
Please remember these general guidelines while you're "bringing something interesting" to our discussions:
- Every argument you make about religion is one we have heard a thousand times.
- Most of what you say will be dismissed out of hand. (See above.)
- If we're in a good mood, we'll answer your arguments.
- If you answer our counterpoints by repeating your assertion, we'll make fun of you.
- If you're a good boy and we're feeling exceptionally generous, we might actually take the time to explain our beliefs and the reasoning behind them to you.
- Should you demonstrate the latter point to be a waste of our time, we usually start calling for the banhammer.
- Besides you, we have exactly one theist on the forum at the moment who has not either left or been banned.
Have fun, now. :-D
Quote from: "Irenaeus"Hello people! I am no atheist but nevertheless, I thought it would be interesting to get to hear the perspective of the antithesis position.
Simple. My perspective is that I hate theses. :P
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Irenaeus"I have for quite some time considered the naturalism/theism discussion and can no longer take atheism seriously whatsoever.
You will be a slightly more entertaining chew-toy than usual.
Please remember these general guidelines while you're "bringing something interesting" to our discussions:
- Every argument you make about religion is one we have heard a thousand times.
- Most of what you say will be dismissed out of hand. (See above.)
- If we're in a good mood, we'll answer your arguments.
- If you answer our counterpoints by repeating your assertion, we'll make fun of you.
- If you're a good boy and we're feeling exceptionally generous, we might actually take the time to explain our beliefs and the reasoning behind them to you.
- Should you demonstrate the latter point to be a waste of our time, we usually start calling for the banhammer.
- Besides you, we have exactly one theist on the forum at the moment who has not either left or been banned.
Have fun, now. :-D
This is pretty accurate. We've heard it, thought about it, don't buy it, and don't care. You would honestly be better off picking up a book like
The God Delusion than dealing with a bunch of people like us who are bored with believers.
Quote from: "Irenaeus"Hello people! I am no atheist but nevertheless, I thought it would be interesting to get to hear the perspective of the antithesis position. I have for quite some time considered the naturalism/theism discussion and can no longer take atheism seriously whatsoever. Hopefully I can bring something interesting to the discussions.
Why do you take a belief in God serious? The atheist position is simple: no reliable evidence, no gods or god. Ancient Scriptures by sheep herders and delusional people that see spiritual beings and hear voices doesn't cut it. And atheist know for sure it's really an invisible pink unicorn that is master of the universe. :roll: :lol: See! We don't take our beliefs serious, and we eat babies like Lilith did in the Old Testament and mentioned in the New Testament among other mythical creatures, the first woman created by God. :twisted: Solitary (//http://i.imgur.com/quyFesT.jpg)
What do you have to offer as the mother of God? (//http://i.imgur.com/fhlpBDr.jpg)
Meh.. most of my friends and others I know are theists and I make fun of them to their faces and we somehow get along for the most part. I just don't buy into their wacky ideas.. 99.99% bullshit, but whatever.. :roll:
Welcome aboard. And good luck. You'll need it.
QuoteI have for quite some time considered the naturalism/theism discussion and can no longer take atheism seriously whatsoever.
"The world came together through natural laws and processes that have been constant for 13.8 billion years without fail... preposterous!"
"The world is too complex to have come from natural processes, it was created in a blink (and 5 or 6?) days by an even more complex, omnipotent being that spontaneously appeared from nothing and is everywhere and nowhere at the same time and violates multiple laws of nature and logic... makes more sense to me!"
Sorry, I am having a hard time how you can say theism is not the more ridiculous of the two positions.
Welcome to the forum, I hope you enjoy your stay :)
Just a little advice, perhaps before you try to introduce yourself on a specific forum and put yourself over, you should think about not simply farting out something like you can not take the theme of a forum seriously at all (in this case, it's atheism). You are guaranteed to get a negative reply back and it only makes you look like a self convinced arse.
Hi. I have a hard time taking religion seriously so we are a match.
Aw ,shocks you guys, with all the warnings, you probably scare the hell out of him... oh wait, there is no hell... bummer #-o
(//http://i.imgur.com/3zUBOIl.gif)
Talking snakes and donkeys, a woman from a man's rib, an arc with every species, a Zombie who's Father let Him be crucified, a virgin birth. Of course we are suppose to take that serious. :roll: :Hangman: Solitary
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Now, he ever comes back he'll say 'I didn't say I was a Christian, I just believe in some sort of a supreme being.'
That and a high probability of the ol' "I don't see how something could come from nothing" first cause argument.
We are doomed atheists!
Irenaeus still lives and Jesus will come back next. 8-[ :-$
QuoteIrenaeus (/a?r??ni??s/; Greek: ?????????) (2nd century – c. AD 202), referred to by some as Saint Irenaeus, was Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, then a part of the Roman Empire (now Lyons, France). He was an early Church Father and apologist, and his writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology. He was a hearer of Polycarp,who in turn was traditionally a disciple of John the Evangelist.
Irenaeus' best-known book, Adversus Haereses or Against Heresies (c. 180) is a detailed attack on Gnosticism, which was then a serious threat to the Church, and especially on the system of the Gnostic Valentinus. As one of the first great Christian theologians, he emphasized the traditional elements in the Church, especially the episcopate, Scripture, and tradition. Against the Gnostics, who said that they possessed a secret oral tradition from Jesus himself, Irenaeus maintained that the bishops in different cities are known as far back as the Apostles—and none of them was a Gnostic—and that the bishops provided the only safe guide to the interpretation of Scripture.
His writings, with those of Clement and Ignatius, are taken as among the earliest signs of the developing doctrine of the primacy of the Roman see. Irenaeus is the earliest witness to recognition of the canonical character of all four gospels.
Irenaeus is recognized as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. His feast day is on June 28 in the Roman Catholic calendar of saints, where it was inserted for the first time in 1920; in 1960 it was transferred to July 3, leaving June 28 for the Vigil of the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, but in 1969 it was returned to June 28, the day of his death. The commemorates Irenaeus on that same date for his life of exemplary Christian witness. In the Orthodox Church his feast day is 23 August.
Biography
Irenaeus was born during the first half of the 2nd century (the exact date is disputed: between the years 115 and 125 according to some, or 130 and 142 according to others), and he is thought to have been a Greek from Polycarp's hometown of Smyrna in Asia Minor, now ?zmir, Turkey.Unlike many of his contemporaries, he was brought up in a Christian family rather than converting as an adult.
During the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Emperor from 161–180, Irenaeus was a priest of the Church of Lyons. The clergy of that city, many of whom were suffering imprisonment for the faith, sent him in 177 to Rome with a letter to Pope Eleuterus concerning the heresy Montanism, and that occasion bore emphatic testimony to his merits. While Irenaeus was in Rome, a massacre took place in Lyons. Returning to Gaul, Irenaeus succeeded the martyr Saint Pothinus and became the second Bishop of Lyons.
During the religious peace which followed the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, the new bishop divided his activities between the duties of a pastor and of a missionary (as to which we have but brief data, late and not very certain). Almost all his writings were directed against Gnosticism. The most famous of these writings is Adversus haereses (Against Heresies). Irenaeus alludes to coming across Gnostic writings, and holding conversations with Gnostics, and this may have taken place in Asia Minor or in Rome.However, it also appears that Gnosticism was present near Lyon: he writes that there were followers of 'Magus the Magician' living and teaching in the Rhone valley.
Little is known about the career of Irenaeus after he became bishop. The last action reported of him (by Eusebius, 150 years later) is that in 190 or 191, he exerted influence on Pope Victor I not to excommunicate the Christian communities of Asia Minor which persevered in the practice of the Quartodeciman celebration of Easter.
Nothing is known of the date of his death, which must have occurred at the end of the 2nd or the beginning of the 3rd century. The Roman Catholic Church celebrates him as a martyr.He was buried under the Church of Saint John in Lyons, which was later renamed St Irenaeus in his honour. The tomb and his remains were utterly destroyed in 1562 by the Huguenots.
Writings
Irenaeus wrote a number of books, but the most important that survives is the Against Heresies (or, in its Latin title, Adversus Haereses). In Book I, Irenaeus talks about the Valentinian Gnostics and their predecessors, who go as far back as the magician Simon Magus. In Book II he attempts to provide proof that Valentinianism contains no merit in terms of its doctrines. In Book III Irenaeus purports to show that these doctrines are false, by providing counter-evidence gleaned from the Gospels. Book IV consists of Jesus' sayings, and here Irenaeus also stresses the unity of the Old Testament and the Gospel. In the final volume, Book V, Irenaeus focuses on more sayings of Jesus plus the letters of Paul the Apostle.
The purpose of "Against Heresies" was to refute the teachings of various Gnostic groups; apparently, several Greek merchants had begun an oratorial campaign in Irenaeus' bishopric, teaching that the material world was the accidental creation of an evil god, from which we are to escape by the pursuit of gnosis. Irenaeus argued that the true gnosis is in fact knowledge of Christ, which redeems rather than escapes from bodily existence. Until the discovery of the Library of Nag Hammadi in 1945, Against Heresies was the best-surviving description of Gnosticism. According to some biblical scholars, the findings at Nag Hammadi have shown Irenaeus' description of Gnosticism to be largely inaccurate and polemic in nature.
Though correct in some details about the belief systems of various groups, Irenaeus' main purpose was to warn Christians against Gnosticism, rather than catalog those beliefs. He described Gnostic groups as sexual libertines, for example, when some of their own writings advocated chastity more strongly than did orthodox texts—yet the gnostic texts cannot be taken as guides to their actual practices, about which almost nothing is reliably known today. However, at least one scholar, Rodney Stark, claims that it is the same Nag Hammadi library that proves Ireneaus right.
It seemed that Irenaeus's critiques against the gnostics were exaggerated, which led to his scholarly dismissal for a long time. For example, he wrote: "They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no other did, accomplished the mystery of betrayal; by him all things were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas." These claims turned out to be truly mentioned in the Gospel of Judas where Jesus asked Judas to betray him. In any case the gnostics were not a single group, but a wide array of sects. Some groups were indeed libertine because they considered bodily existence meaningless; others praise chastity, and strongly prohibited any sexual activity, even within marriage.
Irenaeus also wrote The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching (also known as Proof of the Apostolic Preaching), an Armenian copy of which was discovered in 1904. This work seems to have been an instruction for recent Christian converts.
Eusebius attests to other works by Irenaeus, today lost, including On the Ogdoad, an untitled letter to Blastus regarding schism, On the Subject of Knowledge, On the Monarchy or How God is not the Cause of Evil
Irenaeus exercised wide influence on the generation which followed. Both Hippolytus and Tertullian freely drew on his writings. However, none of his works aside from Against Heresies and The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching survive today, perhaps because his literal hope of an earthly millennium may have made him uncongenial reading in the Greek East. Even though no complete version of Against Heresies in its original Greek exists, we possess the full ancient Latin version, probably of the third century, as well as thirty-three fragments of a Syrian version and a complete Armenian version of books 4 and 5.
Irenaeus' works were first translated into English by John Keble and published in 1872 as part of the Library of the Fathers series.
Scripture
See also: Development of the New Testament canon
Irenaeus pointed to Scripture as a proof of orthodox Christianity against heresies, classifying as Scripture not only the Old Testament but most of the books now known as the New Testament, while excluding many works, a large number by Gnostics, that flourished in the 2nd century and claimed scriptural authority.
Before Irenaeus, Christians differed as to which gospel they preferred. The Christians of Asia Minor preferred the Gospel of John. The Gospel of Matthew was the most popular overall. Irenaeus asserted that four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were canonical scripture. Thus Irenaeus provides the earliest witness to the assertion of the four canonical Gospels, possibly in reaction to Marcion's edited version of the Gospel of Luke, which Marcion asserted was the one and only true gospel.
Based on the arguments Irenaeus made in support of only four authentic gospels, some interpreters deduce that the fourfold Gospel must have still been a novelty in Irenaeus' time. Against Heresies 3.11.7 acknowledges that many heterodox Christians use only one gospel while 3.11.9 acknowledges that some use more than four.The success of Tatian's Diatessaron in about the same time period is "... a powerful indication that the fourfold Gospel contemporaneously sponsored by Irenaeus was not broadly, let alone universally, recognized."
Irenaeus is also our earliest attestation that the Gospel of John was written by John the apostle,[36] and that the Gospel of Luke was written by Luke, the companion of Paul.
The apologist and ascetic Tatian had previously harmonized the four gospels into a single narrative, the Diatesseron (c 150–160).
Scholars[specify] contend that Irenaeus quotes from 21 of the 27 New Testament Texts:
Matthew (Book 3, Chapter 16)
Mark (Book 3, Chapter 10)
Luke (Book 3, Chapter 14)
John (Book 3, Chapter 11)
Acts of the Apostles (Book 3, Chapter 14)
Romans (Book 3, Chapter 16)
1 Corinthians (Book 1, Chapter 3)
2 Corinthians (Book 3, Chapter 7)
Galatians (Book 3, Chapter 22)
Ephesians (Book 5, Chapter 2)
Philippians (Book 4, Chapter 18)
Colossians (Book 1, Chapter 3)
1 Thessalonians (Book 5, Chapter 6)
2 Thessalonians (Book 5, Chapter 25)
1 Timothy (Book 1, Preface)
2 Timothy (Book 3, Chapter 14)
Titus (Book 3, Chapter 3)
1 Peter (Book 4, Chapter 9)
1 John (Book 3, Chapter 16)
2 John (Book 1, Chapter 16)
Revelation to John (Book 4, Chapter 20)
He may refer to Hebrews (Book 2, Chapter 30) and James (Book 4, Chapter 16) and maybe even 2 Peter (Book 5, Chapter 28) but does not cite Philemon, 3 John or Jude.[cita
Apostolic authority
In his writing against the Gnostics, who claimed to possess a secret oral tradition from Jesus himself, Irenaeus maintained that the bishops in different cities are known as far back as the Apostles — and none were Gnostic — and that the bishops provided the only safe guide to the interpretation of Scripture.In a passage that became a locus classicus of Catholic-Protestant polemics, he emphasized the unique position of the bishop of Rome. With the lists of bishops to which Irenaeus referred, the later doctrine of the apostolic succession of the bishops could be linked. This succession was important to establish a chain of custody for orthodoxy. He felt it important, however, to also speak of a succession of elders (presbyters).
Irenaeus' point when refuting the Gnostics was that all of the Apostolic churches had preserved the same traditions and teachings in many independent streams. It was the unanimous agreement between these many independent streams of transmission that proved the orthodox Faith, current in those churches, to be true.Had any error crept in, the agreement would be immediately destroyed. The Gnostics had no such succession, and no agreement amongst themselves.
Irenaeus' theology and contrast with Gnosticism
The central point of Irenaeus' theology is the unity and the goodness of God, in opposition to the Gnostics' division of God into a number of divine "Aeons", and their distinction between the utterly transcendent "High God" and the inferior "Demiurge" who created the world. Irenaeus uses the Logos theology he inherited from Justin Martyr. Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was said to have been tutored by John the Apostle.(John had used Logos terminology in the Gospel of John and the letter of 1 John). Irenaeus prefers to speak of the Son and the Spirit as the "hands of God".
His emphasis on the unity of God is reflected in his corresponding emphasis on the unity of salvation history. Irenaeus repeatedly insists that God began the world and has been overseeing it ever since this creative act; everything that has happened is part of his plan for humanity. The essence of this plan is a process of maturation: Irenaeus believes that humanity was created immature, and God intended his creatures to take a long time to grow into or assume the divine likeness. Thus, Adam and Eve were created as children. Their Fall was thus not a full-blown rebellion but rather a childish spat, a desire to grow up before their time and have everything with immediacy.
Everything that has happened since has therefore been planned by God to help humanity overcome this initial mishap and achieve spiritual maturity. The world has been intentionally designed by God as a difficult place, where human beings are forced to make moral decisions, as only in this way can they mature as moral agents. Irenaeus likens death to the big fish that swallowed Jonah: it was only in the depths of the whale's belly that Jonah could turn to God and act according to the divine will. Similarly, death and suffering appear as evils, but without them we could never come to know God.
According to Irenaeus, the high point in salvation history is the advent of Jesus. Irenaeus believed that Christ would always have been sent, even if humanity had never sinned; but the fact that they did sin determines his role as a savior. He sees Christ as the new Adam, who systematically undoes what Adam did: thus, where Adam was disobedient concerning God's edict concerning the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Christ was obedient even to death on the wood of a tree. Irenaeus is the first to draw comparisons between Eve and Mary, contrasting the faithlessness of the former with the faithfulness of the latter.
In addition to reversing the wrongs done by Adam, Irenaeus thinks of Christ as "recapitulating" or "summing up" human life.This means that Christ goes through every stage of human life, from infancy to old age, and simply by living it, sanctifies it with his divinity. Although it is sometimes claimed that Irenaeus believed Christ did not die until he was older than is conventionally portrayed, the bishop of Lyons simply pointed out that because Jesus turned the permissible age for becoming a rabbi (30 years old and above), he recapitulated and sanctified the period between 30 and 50 years old, as per the Jewish custom of periodization of human life, and so touches the beginning of old age when one becomes 50 years old. (see Adversus Haereses, book II, chapter 22).
In the passage of Adversus Haereses under consideration, Irenaeus is clear that after receiving baptism at the age of thirty, citing Luke 3:23, Gnostics then falsely assert that "He [Jesus] preached only one year reckoning from His baptism," and also, "On completing His thirtieth year He [Jesus] suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age." Irenaeus argues against the Gnostics by using scripture to show that Jesus lives at least several years after his baptism by referencing 3 distinctly separate visits to Jerusalem. The first is when Jesus makes wine out of water, He goes up to the Paschal feast-day, after which He withdraws and is found in Samaria. The second is when Jesus goes up to Jerusalem for Passover and cures the paralytic, after which He withdraws over the sea of Tiberias. The third mention is when He travels to Jerusalem, eats the Passover, and suffers on the following day.
Irenaeus quotes scripture, which we reference as John 8:57, to suggest that Jesus ministers while in his 40's. In this passage, Jesus' opponents want to argue that Jesus has not seen Abraham, because Jesus is too young. Jesus' opponents argue that Jesus is not yet 50 years old. Irenaeus argues that if Jesus was in his thirties, his opponents would've argued that He's not yet 40 years, since that would make Him even younger. Irenaeus' argument is that they would not weaken their own argument by adding years to Jesus' age. Irenaeus also writes that "The Elders witness to this, who in Asia conferred with John the Lord's disciple, to the effect that John had delivered these things unto them: for he abode with them until the times of Trajan. And some of them saw not only John, but others also of the Apostles, and had this same account from them, and witness to the aforesaid relation."
In Demonstration (74) Irenaeus reinforced his view that Jesus was at least 45 with the statement "For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified."This would place the crucifixion no earlier than AD 42.
Irenaeus conceives of our salvation as essentially coming about through the incarnation of God as a man. He characterizes the penalty for sin as death and corruption. God, however, is immortal and incorruptible, and simply by becoming united to human nature in Christ he conveys those qualities to us: they spread, as it were, like a benign infection. Irenaeus therefore understands the atonement of Christ as happening through his incarnation rather than his crucifixion, although the latter event is an integral part of the former.
By comparison, according to the Gnostic view of Salvation, creation was perfect to begin with; it did not need time to grow and mature. For the Valentinians, the material world is the result of the loss of perfection which resulted from Sophia's desire to understand the Forefather. Therefore, one is ultimately redeemed, through secret knowledge, to enter the pleroma of which the Achamoth originally fell.
According to the Valentinian Gnostics, there are three classes of human beings. They are the material, who cannot attain salvation; the psychic, who are strengthened by works and faith (they are part of the church); and the spiritual, who cannot decay or be harmed by material actions. Essentially, ordinary humans—those who have faith but do not possess the special knowledge—will not attain salvation. Spirituals, on the other hand—those who obtain this great gift—are the only class that will eventually attain salvation.
In his article entitled "The Demiurge," J.P. Arendzen sums up the Valentinian view of the salvation of man. He writes, "The first, or carnal men, will return to the grossness of matter and finally be consumed by fire; the second, or psychic men, together with the Demiurge as their master, will enter a middle state, neither heaven (pleroma) nor hell (whyle); the purely spiritual men will be completely freed from the influence of the Demiurge and together with the Saviour and Achamoth, his spouse, will enter the pleroma divested of body (húle) and soul (psuché)."
Irenaeus is also known as one of the first theologians to use the principle of apostolic succession to refute his opponents.
In his criticism of Gnosticism, Irenaeus made reference to a Gnostic gospel which portrayed Judas in a positive light, as having acted in accordance with Jesus' instructions. The recently discovered Gospel of Judas dates close to the period when Irenaeus lived (late 2nd century), and scholars typically regard this work as one of many Gnostic texts, showing one of many varieties of Gnostic beliefs of the period.
Irenaeus mariology
Irenaeus of Lyons is perhaps the earliest of the Church Fathers to develop a thorough mariology. It is certain that, while still very young, Irenaeus had seen and heard Bishop Polycarp (d. 155) at Smyrna.Irenaeus sets out a forthright account of Mary's role in the economy of salvation.
Even though Eve had Adam for a husband, she was still a virgin... By disobeying, Eve became the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race. In the same way Mary, though she had a husband, was still a virgin, and by obeying, she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.
According to Irenaeus, Christ, being born out of the Virgin Mary, created a totally new historical situation. This view influences later Ambrose of Milan and Tertullian, who wrote about the virgin birth of the Mother of God. The donor of a new birth had to be born in a totally new way. The new birth being that what was lost through a woman, is now saved by a woman.
Prophetic Exegesis
The first four books of Against Heresies constitute a minute analysis and refutation of the Gnostic doctrines. The fifth is a statement of positive belief contrasting the constantly shifting and contradictory Gnostic opinions with the steadfast faith of the church. He appeals to the prophecies to demonstrate the truthfulness of Christianity.
Rome and Ten Horns
Irenaeus shows the close relationship between the predicted events of Daniel 2 and 7. Rome, the fourth prophetic kingdom, would end in a tenfold partition. The ten divisions of the empire are the "ten horns" of Daniel 7 and the "ten horns" in Revelation 17. A "little horn," which is to supplant three of Rome's ten divisions, is also the still future "eighth" in Revelation. Irenaeus climaxes with the destruction of all kingdoms at the Second Advent, when Christ, the prophesied "stone," cut out of the mountain without hands, smites the image after Rome's division.
Antichrist
Irenaeus identified the Antichrist, another name of the apostate Man of Sin, with Daniel's Little Horn and John's Beast of Revelation 13. He sought to apply other expressions to the Antichrist, such as "the abomination of desolation," mentioned by Christ (Matt. 24:15) and the "king of a most fierce countenance," in Gabriel's explanation of the Little Horn of Daniel 8. But he is not very clear how "the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away" during the "half-week," or three and one-half years of the Antichrist's reign.
Under the notion that the Antichrist, as a single individual, might be of Jewish origin, he fancies that the mention of "Dan," in Jeremiah 8:16, and the omission of that name from those tribes listed in Revelation 7, might indicate the Antichrist's tribe. This surmise became the foundation of a series of subsequent interpretations by others.
Time, Times and Half a Time
Like the other early church fathers, Irenaeus interpreted the three and one-half "times" of the Little Horn of Daniel 7 as three and one-half literal years. Antichrist's three and a half years of sitting in the temple are placed immediately before the Second Coming of Christ.
They are identified as the second half of the "one week" of Daniel 9. Irenaeus says nothing of the seventy weeks; we do not know whether he placed the "one week" at the end of the seventy or whether he had a gap.
666
Irenaeus is the first of the church fathers to consider the mystic number 666. While Irenaeus did propose some solutions of this numerical riddle, his interpretation was quite reserved. Thus, he cautiously states:
But knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is six hundred sixty and six, let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, [let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking, have a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation.
Although Irenaeus did speculate upon three names to symbolize this mystical number, namely Euanthas, Teitan, and Lateinos, nevertheless he was content to believe that the Antichrist would arise some time in the future after the fall of Rome and then the meaning of the number would be revealed.
Millennium
See also: Millennialism
Irenaeus declares that the Antichrist's future three-and-a-half-year reign, when he sits in the temple at Jerusalem, will be terminated by the second advent, with the resurrection of the just, the destruction of the wicked, and the millennial reign of the righteous. The general resurrection and the judgment follow the descent of the New Jerusalem at the end of the millennial kingdom.
Irenaeus calls those "heretics" who maintain that the saved are immediately glorified in the kingdom to come after death, before their resurrection. He avers that the millennial kingdom and the resurrection are actualities, not allegories, the first resurrection introducing this promised kingdom in which the risen saints are described as ruling over the renewed earth during the millennium, between the two resurrections.
Irenaeus held to the old Jewish tradition that the first six days of creation week were typical of the first six thousand years of human history, with Antichrist manifesting himself in the sixth period. And he expected the millennial kingdom to begin with the second coming of Christ to destroy the wicked and inaugurate, for the righteous, the reign of the kingdom of God during the seventh thousand years, the millennial Sabbath, as signified by the Sabbath of creation week.
In common with many of the fathers, Irenaeus did not distinguish between the new earth re-created in its eternal state—the thousand years of Revelation 20—when the saints are with Christ after His second advent, and the Jewish traditions of the Messianic kingdom. Hence, he applies Biblical and traditional ideas to his descriptions of this earth during the millennium, throughout the closing chapters of Book 5. This conception of the reign of resurrected and translated saints with Christ on this earth during the millennium-popularly known as chiliasm—was the increasingly prevailing belief of this time. Incipient distortions due to the admixture of current traditions, which figure in the extreme forms of chiliasm, caused a reaction against the earlier interpretations of Bible prophecies.
Irenaeus was not looking for a Jewish kingdom. He interpreted Israel as the Christian church, the spiritual seed of Abraham.
At times his expressions are highly fanciful. He tells, for instance, of a prodigious fertility of this earth during the millennium, after the resurrection of the righteous, "when also the creation, having been renovated and set free, shall fructify with an abundance of all kinds of food." In this connection, he attributes to Christ the saying about the vine with ten thousand branches, and the ear of wheat with ten thousand grains, and so forth, which he quotes from Papias of Hierapolis.
Exegesis
Irenaeus' exegesis does not give complete coverage. On the seals, for example, he merely alludes to Christ as the rider on the white horse. He stresses five factors with greater clarity and emphasis than Justin:
the literal resurrection of the righteous at the second advent
the millennium bounded by the two resurrections
the Antichrist to come upon the heels of Rome's breakup
the symbolic prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse in their relation to the last times
the kingdom of God to be established by the second advent.
:shock: :twisted: Solitary
Of all the thousands upon thousands of gods humanity has created to soothe its fears try to remember that you believe in one more of them than we do.
Enjoy your sojourn.
Of all the thousands upon thousands of gods humanity has created to soothe its fears try to remember that you believe in one more of them than we do.
Enjoy your sojourn.
Quote from: "Irenaeus"Hello people! I am no atheist but nevertheless, I thought it would be interesting to get to hear the perspective of the antithesis position. I have for quite some time considered the naturalism/theism discussion and can no longer take atheism seriously whatsoever. Hopefully I can bring something interesting to the discussions.
1) It's Atheism, not antitheism. To be anti you have to believe that there is something. Atheism is the natural state until you prove that a god exist!
2) I doubt that you are looking for a new perspective. If you are, you'd be the first one....EVER!
3) You can't qualify any discussion with alluding to a discussion that you may or may not have had but is not revealed in is entirity to the people you are dicussing it with. ala:
"I don't even consider what doctors say because I went to a cancer conference and they said something quite different."
You see it doesn't work. So you tell us that you considered the "naturalism/theism discussion". What comes to mind is which discussion, who was doing the debating, is it one discussion or several, what were the qualifications of the people doing the discussion, what evidence did they use to support their arguments and was that evidence credible and varifiable?
4) Atheism isn't a position. It is the natural state. Those of you that made up a god have a position. You created a position albeit based on myths and legends with absolutely NO evidence to support said position. You see you have things bassakwards as usual.
So Mr./Ms. believer, prove that there is a god, was a god, and then I'll start listening to you.
What's a god?
I think we're kicking a dead body here......
Quote from: "stromboli"I think we're kicking a dead body here......
Remember the second rule. Double tap. :-D
:popcorn:
Quote from: "Irenaeus"Hello people! I am no atheist but nevertheless, I thought it would be interesting to get to hear the perspective of the antithesis position. I have for quite some time considered the naturalism/theism discussion and can no longer take atheism seriously whatsoever. Hopefully I can bring something interesting to the discussions.
I like how direct you are!
For that, I welcome you.
Okay, a metaphor here. What we have is basically a person who threw a grenade in the door that didn't go off, was met with a hail of gunfire, and ran away into the night. Just sayin.
You people did not give him a chance. Went all guns after him. [-X
(//http://i.imgur.com/jqxpGN6.jpg) :P #-o I didn't want to choke to death! Solitary
i
I don't mind theist joining the forum, but to come on here and insult us by saying that there is no point of this forum is just flat out disrespectful and arrogant. Typical christian.
I love how they all state that they don't believe in religion but are devout christians, and yet everyone of them belong to a church.
They always and I mean always say that they are christian because of facts, but yet never, and I mean never provide any facts whatsoever. One of their so called facts is the quintessential personnal testimonial. "I believe in god because my friend had cancer and I prayed to god and they were cured." Crap like that!
None of them have the capability of critical thought, logic, or common sense.
I love how they turn to the bible (as if there is only one version) as a factual reference. They actually deny that it has been modified by accident, incompitence, and politically.
I'm so sick of christians I can't see straight. Fuck 'em, fuck 'em all!
I hope he returns . I need to ask him the most important question.
I think he got drunk and decided to make a post on an atheist forum. Then he got sober and decided it was best to forget the whole project.
I think about 3 posts in he figured he wasn't going to amaze us with his wisdom.
Quote from: "stromboli"I think about 3 posts in he figured he wasn't going to amaze us with his wisdom.
Looks like he decided to save the mods (and janitors) the trouble. No skin off my ass.
Hi.
One and done. Well, that was a hell of a contribution.
Quote from: "Irenaeus"I have for quite some time considered the naturalism/theism discussion and can no longer take atheism seriously whatsoever.
Well let me just say that its so nice to not be taken seriously. Thanks for that! I wish I could say I felt the same way about theists but the pedophilia thing kind of prevents that. As does the no birth control and treating homosexuals like shit thing. So go you for being taken seriously.
Quote from: "Aupmanyav"You people did not give him a chance. Went all guns after him. [-X
Then you need to re-read the thread.
Shit and run, brave warrior. Shit and run.
Unless someone is blackballed from the forum they are given a chance to give evidence for their beliefs. When they never answer your questions they are trolling. I think he may have been a Solarian and died---they have a very short life span. :wink: Solitary
You used the word evidence.That would be the first problem.
Quote from: "Irenaeus"Hello people! I am no atheist but nevertheless, I thought it would be interesting to get to hear the perspective of the antithesis position. I have for quite some time considered the naturalism/theism discussion and can no longer take atheism seriously whatsoever. Hopefully I can bring something interesting to the discussions.
1) Which Theism? Using theism in those blanket terms makes it sound like you think any religion makes more sense than Naturalism though I bet if we got it out of you you'd admit to being a Christian probably. So, you considered Naturalism and Theism objectively and can't take Atheism seriously? Well first of all Naturalism doesn't necessarily lead you to Atheism, plenty of Theists believe in the reality of nature (like Evolution etc). Naturalism is a done deal empirically, time to accept reality.
2) It's the default position that one does not believe in something until it has evidence, which you apply to 99.99% of the gods in history, except your god of choice. I can no longer take you seriously if you did not know that or know that in scope, you are 99.99% Atheist.
3) Not all Atheists are Anti-theists, so when you want an Anti-theist position don't conflate that with Atheism. I happen to be both but you started off with a conflation fallacy in your first post, good grief.
(Hate the ugly edit mark when somebody posts right after I edited my post)
Religion is bullshit. Nuff said.
Quote from: "The Non Prophet"stuff about stuff
Holy shit a necromancer!
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Quote from: "The Non Prophet"stuff about stuff
Holy shit a necromancer!
? Huh?
Before you posted the last post was from the 8th of November.
..And?
Replying to silliness knows no time limit.
Quote from: "The Non Prophet"..And?
Replying to silliness knows no time limit.
This has nothing to do with anything, but I think your avatar is fucking hilarious. :rollin: