I happened upon a new thread at the Catholic Answers Forums about Irenaeus. Since this had come up a few days ago, I clicked on it. Once again it had to do with Irenaeus’ mistakenly trying to argue against the gnostics that Jesus had in essence recapitulated all the ages of man’s life in Himself so that he died an older man, far older than the commonly accepted 33 years of age. The relevance of the issue is that Irenaeus is the first to lay claim to “apostolic tradition” as substantiation of his viewpoints. Since Rome would agree Irenaeus is in error, this raises a vital question: how could the very first claim of “apostolic tradition” give us a corrupt tradition? And if such “tradition” cannot survive to the end of the second century, how can anyone take seriously the claim that such dogmas as the Bodily Assumption of Mary, unknown for centuries longer, are actually “apostolic” in origin?
   Well, as I noted a few days ago, Mark Bonocore, a Roman Catholic apologist, put forth a brave, but wholly erroneous, attempt to respond to my citation of this fact. I reviewed, and I believe, fully refuted, Bonocore’s article here and here (and refuted another of his articles on the early church here). So what do I find in this new thread? Not only is the real argument completely missed by the various Roman Catholic writers, but as it stands right now, it currently ends with a reference to the very article by Bonocore that I refuted above, describing it as a “good article.” I wonder how many there will bother to put “Bonocore + Irenaeus” into Google? Thankfully, the first two hits are to my blog. But see how a single response, even if refuted, just goes on and on and on?

©2021 Alpha and Omega Ministries. All Rights Reserved.

Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?