Irenaeus Hellenized Roman tool?

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

I've been interacting with some of the pre-mill guys in another forum. Most source their authority to the so called 'early church fathers'. But when researched; several (Clement of Alexandria; Africanus; Augustine; Tertullian; even perhaps Barnabus) say that the 70 wks of Daniel are fulfiled. Thus, In looking over just one area of Irenaeus' writings (book 5; chapter 25) the modern pre-mill; 7 yr anti-christ themed events are written out as if they were taken from a modern writer.

In the very preceding chapter; Ireneaeus is talking about God's continued administration through what seems to be any and all human forms of governments and the Christians supposed continued support of them. One strikingly obvious error is that Irenaeus uses the first part of Romans 13 to support these concepts and says that some "erroneously" interpret the 'higher powers" to be pertaining to laws of God as the Highest Powers. James later calls this the Perfect law of Liberty through grace. The first part of Romans 13 in association with the second part of Romans 12 indeed DO talk of the very thing Ireneaous implies that they don't.

He also refers (as modern government churches do) to Peter and Jesus' payment of the temple tax (within Judea) to support rendering "tribute" to national govt. The commentary could be preached from a pulpit today (and perhaps is) without alteration and be the same doctrines taught today. Peter and Jesus paid a specific yearly Jewish temple administration tax; not the tribute tax to Ceasar. This tax also would end with the ending of the mosaic covenant; but "dues" and maintainance charges for usage of religious/public buildings are certainly acceptable common sense; as one chooses/not chooses to use them; but not religious duty. The second part of Romans 13 includes some respect and tribute to Govt for certain aspects; but would obviously not include the tribute tax to Caesar hailing him as 'lord'.

Without getting into detail about Romans 13; it seems that there are obvious fundamental errors in Ireneaeus' interpretations. I find it also interesting that in the same context that he talks about submission to Govt; he talks about the postponed kingdom of God; the coming anti-christ and so forth.
These would seem to me to be clear Jewish/Hellenist/talmudists and or/roman interpretation schemes.
During the first 250 yrs of AD; thousands of writings and documents were destroyed by the Roman empire. No doubt some of these writings may have been talking of setting up Peaceable domains and independent communities of the victorious kingdom of God which could be construed to be opposition to the Empire and especially opposition to the Hellenist interests. The fact of so much of Ireneaeus' writings remaining through this time period AND the awareness of some of the un-kingdom of Christ; un-apostolic themes leads one to question if He and his writings were allowed to remain as a plant for a Judaized/Hellenized postponed kingdom of God/ judaized Christianity upon which many groups (including dispy's) base their foundations upon.
If they could alter the Mazoretic texts they would have certainly attempted to influence the thoughts of the more prolific "Christian" writers of the day. The more it would appear that the writer was writing against their group; the less likely this would be suspected.

Ireneaeus is questionable on several other issues which deny the then present kingdom of God including the Revelation date.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

One strikingly obvious error is that Irenaeus uses the first part of Romans 13 to support these concepts and says that some "erroneously" interpret the 'higher powers" to be pertaining to laws of God as the Highest Powers.

Does anyone know of any of Ireneous' contemporary writers which are on record as having published this opinion?

If the speculation would be correct that the Roman Govt/likely with support of the hellenists and whatever groups were involved; censored which documents were allowed to be continued and which documents and letters were destroyed, then the source of the futurists [postponed] kingdom of God is either a knowingly false interpretation by Ireneous or an exploitation of his person, office and writings by whatever sources were at work formulating the pre-millenial/chilaist aspects. These would have likely been jewish misinterpretations based on their chilaist interpretations/hopes while disreguarding the prophecied ending of their nation and covenant.

In the above post, the fulfillment of the 70 weeks of Daniel seems to be the predominant teaching of the early writers with the exception of Ireneaus and Hippolytus. (from what I've been told). Many make a great importance that Ireneous was a disciple of polycarp and polycarp of John, But does that really mean much? Can't outside influences persuade other persons (especially of the 'status' of Ireneous) even the first generation from the source, and especially if they would follow the teaching and instruction of others and not the Holy Spirit.

There is a HUGE difference that is evident when reading Barnabus as when reading Ireeneous. Barnabus cautions against being influenced to think that the covenant is both theirs and the jews of israel (hereditary) and/or religiously. It is not that it is not permitted to what is left of Israel, but that the new covenant is not a hereditary, religious or specifically national.

Comemnts?
I've not read alot of Ireneous though, but it seems as though his writings have influence the 'church' and it's teachings much more than the apostles writings and the interpretations from the original languages with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Does anyone know of any of Ireneous' contemporary writers which are on record as having published this opinion?

If the speculation would be correct that the Roman Govt/likely with support of the hellenists and whatever groups were involved; censored which documents were allowed to be continued and which documents and letters were destroyed, then the source of the futurists [postponed] kingdom of God is either a knowingly false interpretation by Ireneous or an exploitation of his person, office and writings by whatever sources were at work formulating the pre-millenial/chilaist aspects. These would have likely been jewish misinterpretations based on their chilaist interpretations/hopes while disreguarding the prophecied ending of their nation and covenant.

In the above post, the fulfillment of the 70 weeks of Daniel seems to be the predominant teaching of the early writers with the exception of Ireneaus and Hippolytus. (from what I've been told). Many make a great importance that Ireneous was a disciple of polycarp and polycarp of John, But does that really mean much? Can't outside influences persuade other persons (especially of the 'status' of Ireneous) even the first generation from the source, and especially if they would follow the teaching and instruction of others and not the Holy Spirit.

There is a HUGE difference that is evident when reading Barnabus as when reading Ireeneous. Barnabus cautions against being influenced to think that the covenant is both theirs and the jews of israel (hereditary) and/or religiously. It is not that it is not permitted to what is left of Israel, but that the new covenant is not a hereditary, religious or specifically national.

Comemnts?
I've not read alot of Ireneous though, but it seems as though his writings have influence the 'church' and it's teachings much more than the apostles writings and the interpretations from the original languages with the aid of the Holy Spirit.
I've read a commentary that totally trashed Irenaeus on many points, most notably his weird argument that Christ was over fifty when he was crucified. I'll see if I can find it and get back to you. I think it is very important to evaluate the Scriptural and historical validity of the opinions of the men revered as "church fathers" since they often failed to agree and their doctrines had such a strong extra-biblical influence on the historical development of Christian doctrine.

Thanks for bringing this up.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

I've read a commentary that totally trashed Irenaeus on many points, most notably his weird argument that Christ was over fifty when he was crucified. I'll see if I can find it and get back to you. I think it is very important to evaluate the Scriptural and historical validity of the opinions of the men revered as "church fathers" since they often failed to agree and their doctrines had such a strong extra-biblical influence on the historical development of Christian doctrine.

Thanks for bringing this up.

Thanks for responding.

12And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:

13On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.

14And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

We'll catch up later..

[Mad Mick]

Endtimes, maybe we should call him Error-naeus. It must come with the name, I know my father doesn't see eye to eye with an orthodox bishop of the same name, no doubt it's the same spirit.

I noticed you highlighted Rev. 21. a lot of people tend to overlook the link between the 12 tribes (gates) and the 12 disciples (foundations) with the 24 elders around the throne. You might want to check out the relationships I highlight in the threads. "13's everywhere" and "Four Winds," there's some interesting Geometry and numerical relationships with the Seraphim, whirling wheels and more.
Mick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Endtimes, maybe we should call him Error-naeus. It must come with the name, I know my father doesn't see eye to eye with an orthodox bishop of the same name, no doubt it's the same spirit.

Ha! That's funny - Error-naeus. :lmbo:

He was one man who lived in Rome. We know that he did not represent the common beliefs of the early church since other early "Fathers" contradict him. The "hero worship" of folks who happened to live a long time ago is a fundamental error.




I noticed you highlighted Rev. 21. a lot of people tend to overlook the link between the 12 tribes (gates) and the 12 disciples (foundations) with the 24 elders around the throne. You might want to check out the relationships I highlight in the threads. "13's everywhere" and "Four Winds," there's some interesting Geometry and numerical relationships with the Seraphim, whirling wheels and more.
Mick
Excellent point! 12 Tribes + 12 Apostles = 24 Elders.

[TheForgiven]

The fact of so much of Ireneaeus' writings remaining through this time period AND the awareness of some of the un-kingdom of Christ; un-apostolic themes leads one to question if He and his writings were allowed to remain as a plant for a Judaized/Hellenized postponed kingdom of God/ judaized Christianity upon which many groups (including dispy's) base their foundations upon.
If they could alter the Mazoretic texts they would have certainly attempted to influence the thoughts of the more prolific "Christian" writers of the day. The more it would appear that the writer was writing against their group; the less likely this would be suspected.

As you know brother Richard, from our phone conversations, I'm quite suspicious of Iranaeus. For some reason, I can't help but believe that he was possibly sent by the Roman government as an implant to the Church in Lyons.

When the church in Lyon began suffering intense persecution, Iranaeus left for Rome to beseech the Emperor to stop the persecution (at least so we think). The Bishop is killed, and when Iranaeus returned, he becomes the next Bishop. I'm not necessarily saying that Iranaeus planned this, but I find it a bit suspicious for someone to leave the Church when persecution began; unless the persecution began AFTER he left.

But reading his writings, his teachings, and the fact that he fled from persecution, makes him a possible candidate for corrupting the church.

Many Christians though of Rome as a brutal Empire that hated the Church. They were taught to be submissive to the authorities, and to live and lead a quiet life. But within themselves, they did not like the Roman Empire, and how they treated Christians. But Iranaeus didn't seem to offer much objection to their cruelty. How do we know or now if Iranaeus wasn't trying to take the heat away from the Emperor's? I know that my question may seem to suggest that Iranaeus was covering for the evil Emperor's, but I do admit that he writes about the "Latinois" as the possible 666. So perhaps even he disliked the Roman authorities.

At any rate, it's obvious that Iranaeus was not well taught in the scriptures based on his writings.

Joe