Irenaeus was not Catholic?

[Pythagoras]

After watching National Geographic Channel’s Gospel of Judas where Irenaeus condemned that book as heretic in his “Against Heresies”, my Protestant friends claimed that Irenaeus was a member of the early Church BEFORE The RCC. They is because he never worshipped statues and he never prayed repeatedly to the Blessed Virgin. So which is which is telling the truth?

 

[Christus_Rex]

Since when do Catholics worship statues? Or pray repeatedly (aka obsessively) to the Blessed Virgin?

Its just an attempt to discredit the Catholic Church. Don’t worry.

Other posters will help you alot more than me, but your friends assumption that we worship statues should throw up a guard straight away.

 

[Magicsilence]

We worship statues?

Thats news to me.

Prayer to the saints is upheld by every church - Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Oriental orthodox, and some C of E people too i think.

It is a very new idea that we would not pray to the saints.

the burden of proof is on him to show that we condemned such practices.

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[FightingFat]

Pythagoras:

my Protestant friends claimed that Irenaeus was a member of the early Church BEFORE The RCC.

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” *Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180). *

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

Pythagoras:

he never prayed repeatedly to the Blessed Virgin

Some info on this here-
marymediatrix.com/kb/kb4/7.shtml

Also-

“In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.’ But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise ‘they were both naked, and were not ashamed,’ inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty… Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.” *Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22 (A.D. 180). *

Specifically on Mary as our powerful intercessor: -

“For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1 (A.D. 180).

All that from Scripture Catholic, which is a great resource!

There’s also a load of great stuff, including quotes from Irenaeus here at Catholic Answers. On the Church & Papacy
On Mary & the Saints

Specifically, look out for tracts with (Fathers*) next to them, they have quotes from the early church fathers backing up the Church of topday’s teachings.

Cont…

 

[Fredricks]

He taught that Christ lived to be elderly. People love to quote him on the Roman church but not his view about this matter, that he claims comes from John. Kind of throws a kink in the reliability of Sacred Tradition.

"They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, ‘to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,’ maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. In speaking thus, they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: ‘Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,’ when He came to receive baptism); and, according to these men, He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, affirming that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the validity of the statement…But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, ‘Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,’ they answered Him, ‘Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?’ Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, ‘Thou art not yet forty years old.’ For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, ‘Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?’ He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year" (Against Heresies, 2:22:5-6)

 

[FightingFat]

I remember reading ‘The Gnostic Gospels’ by Elaine Pagels a couple of years ago. Pagels constently uses Tertullian and Irenaeus as evidence that the early church was the tradition that became the church we call today ‘Roman Catholic’- Roman is only used to differentiate from Anglo a la Henry the VIII, Catholic meaning ‘Universal’. I’m paraphrasing as I don’t have my copy of the book here, but there’s one sentence that goes something like ‘There is no doubt that the church founded by the Apostles is the church that has grown into the Roman Catholic Church today’.

My point being she isn’t even a Catholic, but a scholar of ancient writing (and someone who currently thinks of herself as Gnostic, but she can recognise that Irenaeus was a part of the One Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church.

I hope this helps!

 

[Pythagoras]

Did Irenaeus have writings that recognize the Bishop of Rome as the leader of the Church?

 

[FightingFat]

There’s this bit on the authority of the Pope. You can find it here

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Peter’s Roman residency

Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3, 3, 2).

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. … To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (ibid., 3, 3, 3).

I’m sure there’s more, have a look through!

 

[VociMike]

There is no “Church before the RCC”. They only claim that in order to be able to claim that the Catholic Church is a distortion of the Church founded by Christ. They can’t even decide when this happened, because whenever they supply a date it is possible to provide Early Church Fathers earlier than that date who support distinctively Catholic notions.

 

[JoeMomma]

Fredricks:

He taught that Christ lived to be elderly. People love to quote him on the Roman church but not his view about this matter, that he claims comes from John. Kind of throws a kink in the reliability of Sacred Tradition.

"They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, ‘to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,’ maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. In speaking thus, they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: ‘Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,’ when He came to receive baptism); and, according to these men, He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, affirming that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the validity of the statement…But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, ‘Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,’ they answered Him, ‘Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?’ Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, ‘Thou art not yet forty years old.’ For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, ‘Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?’ He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year" (Against Heresies, 2:22:5-6)

True, St. Irenaeus might have been wrong. Nobody ever said the Church Fathers were infallible. Or maybe there’s a different explanation:
bringyou.to/apologetics/a38.htm

 

[montanaman]

Pythagoras:

After watching National Geographic Channel’s Gospel of Judas where Irenaeus condemned that book as heretic in his “Against Heresies”, my Protestant friends claimed that Irenaeus was a member of the early Church BEFORE The RCC. They is because he never worshipped statues and he never prayed repeatedly to the Blessed Virgin. So which is which is telling the truth?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Son of a motherless goat!!!

Whenever these people are smacked between the eyes with the truth they willfully choose to believe in made-up-on-the-spot fantasies. Let them be anathema…

 

[RyanL]

JoeMomma:

Fredricks:

He taught that Christ lived to be elderly. People love to quote him on the Roman church but not his view about this matter, that he claims comes from John. Kind of throws a kink in the reliability of Sacred Tradition.

True, St. Irenaeus might have been wrong. Nobody ever said the Church Fathers were infallible. Or maybe there’s a different explanation:
bringyou.to/apologetics/a38.htm

I love it when people try that whole, “But the ECF taught that Christ was old,” junk - I always point them to this site! As if (1) the didn’t read the Gospels or (2) actually talk with the Apostles themselves!

Well, Fredricks, do you have a response to your gross misreading of the text? Are the ECF a little more reliable now that you’ve been shown to be completely out to lunch in your interpretations of their writings?

No…prolly not…

Just some advice about Catholic theology - don’t try it at home without a helmet and a life preserver.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[jim1130]

Pythagoras:

After watching National Geographic Channel’s Gospel of Judas where Irenaeus condemned that book as heretic in his “Against Heresies”, my Protestant friends claimed that Irenaeus was a member of the early Church BEFORE The RCC. They is because he never worshipped statues and he never prayed repeatedly to the Blessed Virgin. So which is which is telling the truth?

Peace be with you.

Well, if it was on National Geographic then, like The History Channel, it must be true

Seriously, how sad that for many, centuries are devoted to undermining the Catholic Church. So weak and tenuous are their positions that to elevate their beliefs they must try to destroy the original.

Here is St. Irenaeus on Apostolic Succession: angelfire.com/ms/seanie/apostolicsuccess.html

Here is St. Irenaeus on the Eucharist: angelfire.com/ms/seanie/morefathers.html

Here is St. Irenaeus on eternal security: angelfire.com/ms/seanie/eternal.html

Here is "The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (all 939 pages!): ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.pdf

Here are writings of the Early Church Fathers: ccel.org/fathers2/

Peace.

Jim

 

[Fredricks]

I love it when people try that whole, “But the ECF taught that Christ was old,” junk - I always point them to this site! As if (1) the didn’t read the Gospels or (2) actually talk with the Apostles themselves!

Well, Fredricks, do you have a response to your gross misreading of the text? Are the ECF a little more reliable now that you’ve been shown to be completely out to lunch in your interpretations of their writings?

No…prolly not…

Just some advice about Catholic theology - don’t try it at home without a helmet and a life preserver.

God Bless,
RyanL
[/quote]

Would it be too out of line to call this response immature?
Regardless, the text stands alone. Any attempt to try to get from it other than its plain meaning is mental gymnastics.

But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, ‘Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,’ they answered Him, ‘Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?’ Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, ‘Thou art not yet forty years old.’ For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, 'Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year" (

 

[DeFide]

Fredricks:

Would it be too out of line to call this response immature?
Regardless, the text stands alone. (

In other words, you refuse to read the surrounding context.

Even without reading the link, I understood that he wasn’t implying that Jesus was old.

 

[RyanL]

Fredricks:

Would it be too out of line to call this response immature?

Nope - it was most certainly immature. So is refusing to look at context, and forcing words into others’ mouths in order to present them in a heterodox light.

Regardless, the text stands alone. Any attempt to try to get from it other than its plain meaning is mental gymnastics.

As DeFide said, you are demanding that we refuse to look at context.

Could you at least consider why we would think that this is an intellectually dishonest little trick, meant to lead people into error?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Fredricks]

No Ryan. When I read it, that is what I see and so have others for quite some time. I am sure you are aware of that. Calling someone dishonest because they disagree with you? That is your choice. So be it.

every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher

 

[DeFide]

Fredricks:

No Ryan. When I read it, that is what I see and so have others for quite some time. I am sure you are aware of that. Calling someone dishonest because they disagree with you? That is your choice. So be it.

every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher

From the link:
So far, Irenaeus’ point is that some say that Jesus died at age 30 (as a “young man,” as opposed to an “elder”), that He was NO OLDER than 30. And, he continues…

“Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years (i.e. age 1 to age 30), and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year (31-40), every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth (i.e. 40 plus) year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify …”

So Jesus wasn’t just in the first stage of life (1-30 by this reckoning).

Think about it. Irenaeus says that the Gospel TESTIFIES to this. Does the Gospel ever say that Jesus was 40 or 50??? Of course not! Rather, John’s Gospel presents Jesus as thirty years old at the time of His Baptism, and then gives a 3-year narrative. And THAT is Irenaeus’ point.

…

And Irenaeus then sums up his point, saying:

“He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year …”

 

[Fredricks]

I was just curious if the Catholic encyclopedia is intellectually dishonest as well?

There are two extreme views as to the length of the ministry of Jesus: St. Irenaeus (Contra Haer., II, xxii, 3-6) appears to suggest a period of fifteen years; the prophetic phrases, “the year of recompenses”, “the year of my redemption” (Isaiah 34:8; 63:4), appear to have induced Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Philastrius, Hilarion, and two or three other patristic writers to allow only one year for the public life. This latter opinion has found advocates among certain recent students: von Soden, for instance, defends it in Cheyne’s “Encyclopaedia Biblica”. But the text of the Gospels demands a more extensive duration. St. John’s Gospel distinctly mentions three distinct paschs in the history of Christ’s ministry (ii, 13; vi, 4; xi, 55). The first of the three occurs shortly after the baptism of Jesus, the last coincides with His Passion, so that at least two years must have intervened between the two events to give us the necessary room for the passover mentioned in vi, 4. Westcott and Hort omit the expression “the pasch” in vi, 4 to compress the ministry of Jesus within the space of one year; but all the manuscripts, the versions, and nearly all the Fathers testify for the reading “En de eggysto pascha heeorteton Ioudaion”: “Now the pasch, the festival day of the Jews, was near at hand”. Thus far then everything tends to favour the view of those writers and more recent commentators who extend the period of Christ’s ministry a little over two years.

newadvent.org/cathen/08377a.htm

 

[jim1130]

Looks as if this has been addressed before:

catholic-legate.com/qa/jesusage.html

Topic: Jesus’ Age & St. Irenaeus

Question:

Some Protestant Apologists point to the weakness of ‘Tradition’ citing Irenaeus who believed that Jesus was 50 years old, and he got that from Tradition. How do you reconcile this with the biblical account of Jesus being 33?

Answer:

First of all, Ireneaus’ point is that Jesus’ humanity identifies with human beings of every age:

“For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God --infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise.”

So, is Ireneaus saying that Jesus became an “old man”???

Nope. But, first he continues …

“They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, “to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,” maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable … “Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,” when He came to receive baptism; and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age.”

So, so far, Ireneaus’ point is that some say that Jesus died at age 30 (as a “young man,” as opposed to an “elder”). …That He was NO OLDER than 30. And, he continues …

“Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years (i.e., age 1 to age 30), and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year (31-40), every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth (40 plus) year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify …”

Ah! Now what is Ireneaus’ point??? It’s that Jesus was OLDER than 30 when He died (i.e., 33 years old, to be precise --“EVEN AS THE GOSPEL …TESTIFIES” …that is, the Gospel of John ;-). His point is that Jesus lived past the first stage of life, and was in the stage of life between 31 and 50, which extends into “old age” (as they saw it in Roman times). In this, Jesus was qualified to be a teacher; since a Jewish rabbi had to be a “elder” in order to be a true teacher.

Think about it. Ireneaus says that the Gospel TESTIFIES to this. Does the Gospel ever say that Jesus was 40 or 50??? Of course not! Rather, John’s Gospel presents Jesus as thirty years old at the time of His Baptism, and then gives a 3-year narrative. And THAT is Ireneaus’ point.

And, Ireneaus continues, …

"But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,” they answered Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, “Thou art not yet forty years old.”

Notice how Ireneaus is counting in 10’s here. Jesus is 33, so the Jews do not use “forty,” but “fifty.” Why? Because the Jews would only say “forty” if Jesus was 30-years-old or younger. Yet, he had entered into the next stage of life --the period between 31 and 50, as opposed to the period between 13 and 30.

And Ireneaus then sums up his point, saying:

“He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year …”

So, Ireneaus’ point is that Jesus was between 30 and 50. That is all he is saying. He is showing that Jesus had reached the age of a Teacher: 33 yrs-old, according to the Gospel of John.

Mark Bonocore
Catholic Apologist
July 1, 2001