Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 12-03-2012, 04:21 PM

Quote:

AH 5.12.4. But the apostle himself also, being one who had been formed in a womb, and had issued thence, wrote to us, and confessed in his Epistle to the Philippians that "to live in the flesh was the fruit of [his] work;" thus expressing himself. Now the final result of the work of the Spirit is the salvation of the flesh. For what other visible fruit is there of the invisible Spirit, than the rendering of the flesh mature and capable of incorruption? If then [he says], "To live in the flesh, this is the result of labour to me," he did not surely contemn the substance of flesh in that passage where he said, "Put ye off the old man with his works;" but he points out that we should lay aside our former conversation, that which waxes old and becomes corrupt; and for this reason he goes on to say, "And put ye on the new man, that which is renewed in knowledge, after the image of Him who created him." In this, therefore, that he says, "which is renewed in knowledge," he demonstrates that he, the selfsame man who was in ignorance in times past, that is, in ignorance of God, is renewed by that knowledge which has respect to Him. For the knowledge of God renews man. And when he says, "after the image of the Creator," he sets forth the recapitulation of the same man, who was at the beginning made after the likeness of God.

5. And that he, the apostle, was the very same person who had been born from the womb, that is, of the ancient substance of flesh, he does himself declare in the Epistle to the Galatians: "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles," it was not, as I have already observed, one person who had been born from the womb, and another who preached the Gospel of the Son of God; but that same individual who formerly was ignorant, and used to persecute the Church, when the revelation was made to him from heaven, and the Lord conferred with him, as I have pointed out in the third book, preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, his former ignorance being driven out by his subsequent knowledge: just as the blind men whom the Lord healed did certainly lose their blindness, but received the substance of their eyes perfect, and obtained the power of vision in the very same eyes with which they formerly did not see; the darkness being merely driven away by the power of vision, while the substance of the eyes was retained, in order that, by means of those eyes through which they had not seen, exercising again the visual power, they might give thanks to Him who had restored them again to sight. And thus, also, he whose withered hand was healed, and all who were healed generally, did not change those parts of their bodies which had at their birth come forth from the womb, but simply obtained these anew in a healthy condition.

6. For the Maker of all things, the Word of God, who did also from the beginning form man, when He found His handiwork impaired by wickedness, performed upon it all kinds of healing. At one time [He did so], as regards each separate member, as it is found in His own handiwork; and at another time He did once for all restore man sound and whole in all points, preparing him perfect for Himself unto the resurrection. For what was His object in healing [different] portions of the flesh, and restoring them to their original condition, if those parts which had been healed by Him were not in a position to obtain salvation? For if it was [merely] a temporary benefit which He conferred, He granted nothing of importance to those who were the subjects of His healing. Or how can they maintain that the flesh is incapable of receiving the life which flows from Him, when it received healing from Him? For life is brought about through healing, and incorruption through life. He, therefore, who confers healing, the same does also confer life; and He [who gives] life, also surrounds His own handiwork with incorruption.

13.1. Let our opponents--that is, they who speak against their own salvation--inform us [as to this point]: The deceased daughter of the high priest; the widow's dead son, who was being carried out near the gate; and Lazarus, who had lain four days in the tomb,--in what bodies did they rise again? In those same, no doubt, in which they had also died. For if it were not in the very same, then certainly those same individuals who had died did not rise again. For [the Scripture] says, "The Lord took the hand of the dead man, and said to him, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. And the dead man sat up, and He commanded that something should be given him to eat; and He delivered him to his mother." Again, He called Lazarus "with a loud voice, saying, Lazarus, come forth; and he that was dead came forth bound with bandages, feet and hands." This was symbolical of that man who had been bound in sins. And therefore the Lord said, "Loose him, and let him depart." As, therefore, those who were healed were made whole in those members which had in times past been afflicted; and the dead rose in the identical bodies, their limbs and bodies receiving health, and that life which was granted by the Lord, who prefigures eternal things by temporal, and shows that it is He who is Himself able to extend both healing and life to His handiwork, that His words concerning its [future] resurrection may also be believed; so also at the end, when the Lord utters His voice "by the last trumpet," the dead shall be raised, as He Himself declares: "The hour shall come, in which all the dead which are in the tombs shall hear the voice of the Son of man, and shall come forth; those that have done good to the resurrection of life, and those that have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."

2. Vain, therefore, and truly miserable, are those who do not choose to see what is so manifest and clear, but shun the light of truth, blinding themselves like the tragic OEdipus. And as those who are not practised in wrestling, when they contend with others, laying hold with a determined grasp of some part of [their opponent's] body, really fall by means of that which they grasp, yet when they fall, imagine that they are gaining the victory, because they have obstinately kept their hold upon that part which they seized at the outset, and besides falling, become subjects of ridicule; so is it with respect to that [favourite] expression of the heretics: "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;" while taking two expressions of Paul's, without having perceived the apostle's meaning, or examined critically the force of the terms, but keeping fast hold of the mere expressions by themselves, they die in consequence of their influence (periautas), overturning as far as in them lies the entire dispensation of God.

Irenaeus's citation of Luke 7:11 - 17 is very different from our own narrative. First there is mention of the youth grabbing hold of the hand of Jesus (like Secret Mark) and then a mention of Jesus commanding the youth to be fed. I was just thinking that when you read the narrative it starts to appear that there many resurrection narratives but that they were all marshaled by Irenaeus to disprove something associated with another (heretical) narrative somewhere in early Christianity - i.e. that when Jesus resurrects us it will be in the same flesh as we have. The corollary has to be that in the other gospel(s) of the heretics there was a resurrection which supported their contention that we arise with a different body or different (spiritual) flesh. This has to be true. The same idea comes up against the Marcionites (with reference to the apostle Philip?) in the Third Book of the Stromata of Clement.

There can be no doubt then that such a heretical narrative existed which wasn't the three resurrection narratives listed here by Irenaeus. The upshot of this lost narrative was that we 'die' and then become 'reborn' - presumably through baptism - and assume new flesh. This text would also have been associated with St Paul. Is this narrative the one featured in Clement's Letter to Theodore? Hard to see why not.

Duvduv · 12-03-2012, 05:21 PM

What is also interesting is that this same Irenaeus who ostensibly claimed the "four gospels" corresponding to the four winds, has such a long passage where doesn't even mention WHICH gospel has the story of resurrecting the fellow, no verse or name yet two epistles are named, Philippians and Galatians with the name of Paul, ostensibly just a mere 30 or so years after one Justin who knew not the name of Paul or any epistles, even in the possession of the great bogeyman, Marcion.

Huon · 12-04-2012, 12:29 AM

Irenaeus of Lyons (b. 120/140 Asia Minor - d. 200/203 CE).
What he wrote dated about 180 CE, and is a testimony to christianity of the late 2nd century, at best, supposing that his writings were not modified later.

stephan huller · 12-04-2012, 12:35 AM

I have done a little write up on my blog about Harvey's explanation that Irenaeus's story is half the raised little girl (Mark 5) and half the raised little youth (Luke 7). I think the story is older than our existing gospels because Irenaeus is our oldest Church authority whose views we know anything substantial about.

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...f-muddled.html

Huon · 12-04-2012, 03:00 AM

Jairus' Daughter is in Mk 5:35-43, Lk 8:49-56, Mt 9:23-26

Jn 4:49-54 there was a royal official whose son was sick at Capernaum.

Capernaum has a bad reputation :
And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto heaven? thou shalt be brought down unto Hades. Lk 10:15 Mt 11:23

Widow's Son at Nain is in Lk 7:11-17, absent from the other gospels

sotto voce · 12-04-2012, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

when Jesus resurrects us it will be in the same flesh as we have.

When Jesus brought Lazarus and others back to life, it was to the same bodies that they had before, warts and all. Bodies that were to die, like any other— except one, if the NT is correct. The body of that one had apparent ability to relocate without visible means, but was otherwise tangible and worked in the normal physical way. The effect of this combination was to show that Jesus' bodily resurrection was genuine and complete, but also that there was thereafter to be a supernal, eternal aspect to Jesus. As the disciples would expect from one who had claimed to be the manifestation of the eternal 'I am'.

According to that same source, when Jesus comes for the second time, there will be a general resurrection for judgment, and people will be identifiable as those they were in earthly life, because their deeds will be 'shouted from the rooftops'. But, of after judgment, very, very little can be said in respect of bodily existence; partly because the NT gives no real clue, and also because it may be supposed that human understanding (and language) is limited about any afterlife. Partly because of the 'naming and shaming' or the opposite, one can establish that those acceptable to deity will have ('already' have, as there is no time in 'eternity') discrete expressions of existence (expressions that can and will experience the greatest bliss). It may therefore be the case that those unacceptable to deity will have ('already' have, as there is no time in 'eternity') no expressions of existence, yet have consciences, consciences raised in awareness by the complete absence of means of masking available in a temporal existence. It may be that there is nothing worse than having consciousness but no expression of existence.

Jaybees · 12-04-2012, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

when Jesus resurrects us it will be in the same flesh as we have.

What will embryos, fetuses and still births come back as? Xtianity has a lot of questions to answer.

sotto voce · 12-04-2012, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaybees

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

when Jesus resurrects us it will be in the same flesh as we have.

What will embryos, fetuses and still births come back as? Xtianity has a lot of questions to answer.

Surely not to posters who do not present questions correctly.

Duvduv · 12-04-2012, 08:05 AM

.....or supposing that "Irenaeus" did not write anything in the second century at all, and that his text was written in the 4th century and projected back to the second century, a mere 30 years after one "Justin" named none of 4 gospels or anything about a "Paul" or epistles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Irenaeus of Lyons (b. 120/140 Asia Minor - d. 200/203 CE).
What he wrote dated about 180 CE, and is a testimony to christianity of the late 2nd century, at best, supposing that his writings were not modified later.

Jaybees · 12-04-2012, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaybees

What will embryos, fetuses and still births come back as? Xtianity has a lot of questions to answer.

Surely not to posters who do not present questions correctly.

My apologies.

I should have given due credit to Irenaeus or to whoever may have stuffed
interpolations into his writings.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-03-2012, 05:21 PM	#2
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	What is also interesting is that this same Irenaeus who ostensibly claimed the "four gospels" corresponding to the four winds, has such a long passage where doesn't even mention WHICH gospel has the story of resurrecting the fellow, no verse or name yet two epistles are named, Philippians and Galatians with the name of Paul, ostensibly just a mere 30 or so years after one Justin who knew not the name of Paul or any epistles, even in the possession of the great bogeyman, Marcion.

12-04-2012, 12:29 AM	#3
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	Irenaeus of Lyons (b. 120/140 Asia Minor - d. 200/203 CE). What he wrote dated about 180 CE, and is a testimony to christianity of the late 2nd century, at best, supposing that his writings were not modified later.

12-04-2012, 12:35 AM	#4
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I have done a little write up on my blog about Harvey's explanation that Irenaeus's story is half the raised little girl (Mark 5) and half the raised little youth (Luke 7). I think the story is older than our existing gospels because Irenaeus is our oldest Church authority whose views we know anything substantial about. http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...f-muddled.html

12-04-2012, 03:00 AM	#5
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	Jairus' Daughter is in Mk 5:35-43, Lk 8:49-56, Mt 9:23-26 Jn 4:49-54 there was a royal official whose son was sick at Capernaum. Capernaum has a bad reputation : And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto heaven? thou shalt be brought down unto Hades. Lk 10:15 Mt 11:23 Widow's Son at Nain is in Lk 7:11-17, absent from the other gospels

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.