Hitch is dead

Understand the time difference between Polycarp and Irenaeus .The former died 107 to 108 or 115 to 117.The later wrote around 200.The many claims about Polycarp came from Irenaeus.Not a very early source. And Irenaeus wrote in France. Modern day what is France, that is.CORRECTION. He wrote his extant, authentic Epistles during the time of Ignatius and writings. 107 to 108 or 115 to 117. But he lived to 156. Neither Ignatius nor Polycarp wrote a thing about knowing John. Irenaeus made it up. Irenaeus was almost an institution in and of himself. Possibly the dad of modern Christianity. The bastardization of all Christians might be due to the one man from France. The religion does not follow John or Jesus. It follows Father Irenaeus. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Tangle, you call yourself an atheist. I'm looking at trying to understandhow you differentiate between atheism and materialism.Here is the definition for atheism.

quote:

---

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

---

We already looked at this definition of materialsim.

quote:

---

the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

---

If there are no gods then what else is there besides matter. Aren't the two terms synonymous. It is fair to say that as an atheist you don't believe in any god that is part of any particular religion. But then if you hold to that distinction it would mean that an atheist is one who believes in an unknown god. You say that we can't know one way or the other, so shouldn't you be classified as agnostic as opposed to atheistic?

Polycarp was executed by the Romans in 155AD at age 86.

I don't. The two things are totally different. Not believing in gods doesn't mean I default to something else, it just means I don't believe in gods. That's it.I know what it's not, I have no idea what it is.Personally I doubt we'll ever know and don't see why we ever should, but the effort in trying to work it out is worth it because at least we work out what it's not. And what is obviously is not is theistic.There really isn't any point making word and logic boxes to put things into so that things can be all neat and tidy - you don't think it's this so it must be that; real reality doesn't work like that, it's far more complicated than we are capable of imagining.And no, just because we can't understand doesn't mean you can stick a god in there to save us the trouble. Gods explains nothing but our ignorance.

How would you define the gods that you don't believe in?

How would you define all the gods you don't believe in? Do you think it necessary?

But where did Polycarp indicate any relationship with John. He wrote 2 epistles that we still have today. Ignatius wrote him a letter. Ignatius died no later than 117.Irenaeus was fond of saying he had title deeds straight from the Apostles.Clement of Rome and Ignatius claimed that the 100 AD bishops were appointed by the Apostles, but there was never any meat or stories behind the brief claims.Very brief claims.Irenaeus was a great player but his stories lacked any kind of details that cause us to take seriously. No evidence that Ignatius or Polycarp could understand Aramaic or Hebrew. No evidence of any documents from John or any Apostle. No storyline details.Again, Polycarp never has been shown to know of John's Gospel that Irenaeus presents as John's Gospel. Polycarp is somebody who did not claim to have known John, in any actual document that exists in fragments, quotes, or in entirety. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

I guess that I am trying to distinguish your understanding of atheism from my understanding of agnosticism.I think that you have said that you can't reject the possibility that there is an intelligent creator of life, but that you don't believe it to be the case. So on one hand you don't believe in a creative intelligence of any description making you a materialist/atheist, but then you say that you can't reject the idea that such an entity exists making you agnostic.I guess I'm asking - which is it?

here is an excerpt from a writing of Eusebius. Also. Papias was a contemporay of Polycarb and interacted with John.

quote:

---

In the letter to Florinus, wihch we have spoken of above, Irenaeus again mentions his intercourse with Polycarp, and says: 'These opinions, O Florinus, that I may speak sparingly, do not belong to sound doctrine. These opinions are inconsistent with the church, and bring those who believe in them into the greatest impiety. These opinions not even the heretics outside the church ever dared to proclaim. These opinions those who were presbyters before us, who accompanied the apostles, did not hand on to you. For while I was still a boy I knew you in lower Asia in Polycarp's house when you were a man of rank in the royal hall and endeavoring to stand well with him. I remember the events of those days more clearly than those which happened recently, for what we learn as children grows up with the soul and is united to it, so that I can speak even of the place in which the blessed Polycarp sat and disputed, how he came in and went out, the character of his life, the appearance of his body, the discourses which he made to people, how he reported his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord, how he remembered their words, and what were the things concerning the Lord which he had heard from them, and about their miracles, and about their teaching, and how Polycarp had received them from the eyewitnesses of the word of life, and reported all things in agreement with the Scriptures. I listened eagerly even then to these things through the mercy of God which was given me, and made notes of them, not on paper but in my heart, and ever by the grace of God do I truly ruminate on them, and I can bear witness before God that if that blessed and apostolic presbyter had heard anything of this kind he would have cried out, and shut his ears, and said according to his custom, 'O good God, to what time hast thou preserved me that I should endure this?' He would have fled even from the place in which he was seated or standing when he heard such words. And from his letters which he sent either to the neighboring churches, strengthening them, or to some of the brethren, exhorting and warning them, this can be made plain." So says Irenaeus.

---

I've tried to explain that there's no such thing as agnosticism - you either believe in something or you don't. If you don't know whether you believe in something or not, you obviously don't believe do you? You know you believe don't you? That’s what it is to believe. I can't, and nobody can or ever will. That's the nature of rationality - that kind of negative can't be disproven. I do not believe that any god exists, no. That very last jump from understanding that a deistic god - note deistic god - can't be disproven to not believing that one does exist is not rational - it's a belief. But one founded on we we actually know. Call it a conclusion. Not being stupid enough to understand that a deistic god can't be disproven does not make me an agnostic. There is an enormous gulf between knowledge and belief.

Papias did not show knowledge of the Gospel of John.So what were there notes that Irenaeus jotted down during his interaction with Polycarp. I don't see any body of notes about Polycarp and his supposed interactions with John. Where are they. What are they about.Back to Papias, and your statement that he knew John. What do you have here to show us.

I will quote form P. N. Harrison's book, Polycarps Two Epistles To The Philippians.P.285Polycarp must hff have been familiar with all or most of the followingA The Synoptic Gospels and ActsLightfoot, as we have seen, recognized six definite quotations from Matthew, two from Mark, three from Luke, and two from Acts, in addition to two resemblances to Matthew and four to Acts.P. 294 to 295...Polycarps collection of Paulines... shows clear signs of acquaintance with the Pastoral EpistlesP. 296E The Catholic EpistlesWith the exception of 2 Peter, Polycarp shows possible affinities with all or most of the Catholic EpistlesP. 302Reference has already been made in Chapter XVIII to the negative fact that our Epistle affords no sign that Polycarp had ever read, or heard of, the Fourth Gospel.END QUOTES. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Bump

quote:

---

in the following words:

​

But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.

---

I guess inquiring minds want to know. Why do we exist? Are we the result of nothing but mindless processes or are the processes the result of a pre-existing intelligence?