14 Jun '05 21:17>1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat was in response to this garbage you posted
Who cares if you're Iranaeus' writings or not? I don't need your CV - I'm not doing a job interview here.
Unless you plan to actually make an argument where Iranaeus' writings come into play, this is just a red herring.
1. ...[text shortened]... non-asinine gnostic way of reading this, your Knowfulness?
"not to mention the usual dose of Church-bashing and name-calling".
Telling the truth about church history might seem like church-bashing and name-calling to you, however it's still the truth.
It wasn't enough for Ireneaus to tirade against the theology of Valentinaeus .. no no no ,, this SAINT to attack his character.
also here some of the SAINT's writing about Gnostics heresies
"There being thus three kinds of substances, they declare of all that is material (which they also describe as being "on the left hand" ) that it must of necessity perish, inasmuch as it is incapable of receiving any afflatus of incorruption. As to every animal existence (which they also denominate "on the right hand" ), they hold that, inasmuch as it is a mean between the spiritual and the material, it passes to the side to which inclination draws it..........."
Which ought to show you that Irenaeus didn't understand the Salvation or even what the message of Christ was.
he rants on : "For they affirm that He received the first-fruits of those whom He was to save [as follows], from Achamoth that which was spiritual, while He was invested by the Demiurge with the animal Christ,..."
Although neither Demiurge or Achamoth appear in either the Gospel of Truth or the Gospel of Thomas.
I will respond to the rest of your post later.