It sounds like you are saying that Eusebius forged Polycarp's epistle, is that right? Then how do you account for Ignatius's epistles who are quoted by both Origen and Irenaeus?


It seems, though, that Irenaeus spent a great deal of time with him:


So, with this kind of vivid experience recalled by Irenaeus, what are we to make of this quote?:


If Eusebius forged the Polycarp epistle, then why is that Irenaeus is familiar with it and said that it was "most satisfactory, from which those that have a mind to do so may learn the character of his faith"?

Don't you see that you are just grabbing at straws to preserve your pet theory? Give up the pet theory TC.

No, I'm intimating that any "evidence" Eusebius claims he has has to be regarded with a very skeptical eye. Who is entrenched in heated debates over heresies? Who needs to establish some type of connection to an historic past to fight these opponents. Who is the first Father to mention the canonical Gospels by name?


Yes, because the testimony of anyone recalling their youth is always crystal clear. Especially if you make an emphatic statement about it. If you really want to know, it sounds like someone overly eager to convince me of his perfect clarity. This is the evidence?


I'm not claiming Eusebius forged it, I'm claiming his verification of the evidence, whom he is apparently the authority of, is questionable. What you are asking me to believe, is that a polemicist such as Irenaeus does nothing but tell us the truth and that we should just trust his pronouncements? Why? I've demonstrated why an early date such as 115 CE is untenable. Why middle second century seems to make more sense. Motivations as to why Irenaeus would lie. But, you are willing to believe him at the drop of a hat, and that's not supposed to be a grasping of straws?

This from a guy who:

Photius describes as "the purity of truth, with respect to ecclesiastical traditions, is adulterated by his false and spurious readings" (Phot.; Bibl. ch. cxx)

Who's perfect memory recalls that Jesus died of OLD AGE around 50

Believes the fabulous stories about Simon Magus

Had a zodiac painted on the floor of his Church at Lyons

I'm sure such a trustworthy person such as this would never tell us anything but the absolute truth especially if he assures us:


I mean, I must be some type of ogre to not accept such an affirmation on its face value. Good God man! He remembers where Polycarp sat! What more could I possibly need! I'm going to go find some more straws, while I do, could you go over again why the 115 CE date is the one we should accept based on the abundant external and internal evidence we were promised by the Good Fathers.

-TC

Here. Here. Here. This is how you "exit" the debate. This is why I made the comments that I did in this post earlier in this thread. Here, now that your hypothesis faces condemnation from hard, written evidence you use exit strategy #3 and exit strategy #4:



Listen carefully. No scholar accepts these conclusions. No scholar. You are alone in this opinion. Let's look at your reasons:


You ignored my response to this argument:


Okay. So, at this point we know that you aren't committing to Eusebius being the forger (although you have zero trust in Eusebius), does this mean that you are now suggesting that Irenaeus forged the documents? If so, then the pagan Lucian of Samosata in "Passing of Peregrinus" shows that we ought to reject this argument when he said that Peregrinus "despatched missives to almost all the famous cities—testamentary dispositions, so to speak, and exhortations and prescriptions—and he appointed a number of ambassadors for this purpose from among his comrades, styling them 'couriers of God'" thereby showing that Peregrinus was familiar with the Ignatius letters as was said by Ignatius in his letters to the Smyrmeans and Polycarp (c. 167 CE quoting events that happened in the past)

I think what your last few responses have shown is that you have no significant evidence, no scholars supporting your view (none qualified, and none in the last two centuries), and you are committed to a hypothesis so much so that you will simply and absolutely reject any hard evidence against your hypothesis as inventions.

Here's a question for you TC. Why go through all the trouble to argue every source. Why not just say that Eusebius invented Christianity, and that he wrote the Gospels, Epistles of Paul, Ignatius letters, etc., etc.? This way, you only have one conspiracy and no one can say otherwise. See, what a pal, I'm helping you form your mega-conspiracies to lead all conspiracies.

And this is how you constantly appeal to authority and completely discount the effect of bias. Got it.


Yet, the Catholic Encyclopedia admits there is controversy about the authenticity. If no scholar admits these things, why is there controversy about authenticity?


Sorry, I did miss that. So which part of the "letter(s)" are early and which part are late, and how late. Because it would still seem that the points about the Gnostics and kings would indicate forgery attributed to Polycarp.


I'll have to investigate that. But, yes, I have zero confidence in Eusebius and believe that Irenaeus has good reason to make up things.


I think you just want to dismiss things in appeals to authority, gloss over evidence you don't think is credible, and you really don't have any "hard evidence" which has been discussed repeatedly because all we can have in ancient texts is "probabilities". You go with the establishment on those, I against.

By the way, if Irenaeus was convinced Jesus died of old age and was convinced it was a heresy to suggest he died sooner, does this mean this is what Polycarp believed as well since he remembers with absolute clarity his teachings when he was a young boy? But, there's no reason to doubt Irenaeus. OK, got it. You win. Set in stone. Congratulations.

-TC

Hi Travis Clementsmith and Harvey1


For me this debate is neat as l am learning much and oh so many new words .
Below is a thing l found and l feel it has some sort of reality in it because l assume we humans were to be born in a Tropical Climate since we are born naked and etc . Please clarify this thing below for rme as to it's reality , if you can , because if it is true then it does have an impact on both of your words in this debate which l am enjoying which is good considering l am so stupid lol . and then unles you're done please get back to your amazing debate lol , , seriously .


===============>" 2008-02-22 Have you ever been to Africa? According to the latest studies on human diversity, you have! Scientists identified that sub-Saharan Africa is the place where the human migration phenomenon began 100,000 years ago, when a small group of humans headed for North Africa and Middle East, and kept on going ever since, reaching the farthest continents of Americas and Australia.

Up until this point, theories on a global migration with an African starting point have been circulating, but none of them brought the arguments and evidence this study did on the topic. “It’s like looking back at the earth with a telescope a thousand times more powerful than what you had before,” said Richard Myers from Stanford University school of Medicine, the journal Science reports.

Two studies have already been published in the journals Science and Nature on the patterns of genetic mutations and human diversity, and based on the similar DNA samples, proved one common conclusion: the modern human left Africa (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia to be more precise), traversed Central Asia and continued heading east and west to Europe, Asia and Americas.

Another genetic study, similar to the other two and published in the journal Nature, concluded that after the African migration, the newly settled European population started losing its genetic diversity and at the same time, while continuing to expand on the continent, they started accumulating a series of genetic mutations before older ones, with potentially negative impacts, have had the chance to wear out.

What was very surprising was that many of the groups thought to have one well established origin actually presented traces to several continents. This was the case of the Bedouins in the Middle East, who were traced back to Europe and Pakistan, or the Yakut population, who should have the most similarities with the Siberians, but actually relate to East Asia, Europe and American Indians.

The conclusion draw attention to the fact that we are much more related than we think we are, curiously enough, to people on different parts of the world, more than we are to people around us. “A huge amount of our genomes are the same across the world, and that helps to argue against racism in my view,” Myers said the journal Nature.> <===========