Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 09-06-2011, 11:03 AM

It is usually thought that because the Marcionites held that Jesus was a 'phantom' that it would be impossible for him to have eaten with his disciples. Yet Tertullian notes, again in the ignored Book Three, of his anti-Marcionite treatise, that the Marcionites pointed to the example of angels eating and drinking with Abraham and Sarah:

Quote:

Now, in this discussion of yours, when you suppose that we are to be met with the case of the Creator's angels, as if they held intercourse with Abraham and Lot in a phantom state, that of merely putative flesh, and yet did truly converse, and eat, and work, as they had been commissioned to do, you will not, to begin with, be permitted to use as examples the acts of that God whom you are destroying.(AM 9:10)

I wouldn't have thought that the Christians who put forward a spiritual Jesus could have also held that this figure was also capable of eating food. I think the Church Fathers emphasis of him being a phantom has something to do with this. As such, if Jesus was like the angels who drank and ate with Abraham and Sarah, it would stand to reason that he was physically capable of being crucified. The nails wouldn't have passed through him any more than the food going through his mouth and stomach to his stomach.

Interesting. I wouldn't have thought this was the belief of the Marcionites.

dog-on · 09-06-2011, 11:48 AM

Paul does say that spiritual flesh is simply a different kind of flesh.

Quote:

Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

I am not sure that immaterial, in a modern context, is applicable.

Iskander · 09-06-2011, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It is usually thought that because the Marcionites held that Jesus was a 'phantom' that it would be impossible for him to have eaten with his disciples. Yet Tertullian notes, again in the ignored Book Three, of his anti-Marcionite treatise, that the Marcionites pointed to the example of angels eating and drinking with Abraham and Sarah:

Quote:

Now, in this discussion of yours, when you suppose that we are to be met with the case of the Creator's angels, as if they held intercourse with Abraham and Lot in a phantom state, that of merely putative flesh, and yet did truly converse, and eat, and work, as they had been commissioned to do, you will not, to begin with, be permitted to use as examples the acts of that God whom you are destroying.(AM 9:10)

I wouldn't have thought that the Christians who put forward a spiritual Jesus could have also held that this figure was also capable of eating food. I think the Church Fathers emphasis of him being a phantom has something to do with this. As such, if Jesus was like the angels who drank and ate with Abraham and Sarah, it would stand to reason that he was physically capable of being crucified. The nails wouldn't have passed through him any more than the food going through his mouth and stomach to his stomach.

Interesting. I wouldn't have thought this was the belief of the Marcionites.

Marcion followers come across as a weird unpleasant rabble.

Quote:

It seems that the catechumenate in Marcion’s churches was a long one, and baptism was granted only to those who were prepared to abandon the world and its joys including family life...Marcion’s communities therefore tended to be small select groups, forming part of the Encratite movement within Christianity, that exercised so powerful an influence in the latter part of the second century. This was, however, the way leading to the status of a respected sect, but not to that of a world religion

The rise of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk), W.C.H. Frend.
Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1985-page216

Frend has also something to say about Apelles,Potitus and Basilicus, but none of it makes them attractive .
In the end, Marcion’s church took permanent root only in part of Syria and towards the Euphrates frontier. There it found fertile ground in the existing ascetic Jewish Christian tradition, Frend says.

Yes, Jesus ate physical food

stephan huller · 09-06-2011, 12:47 PM

Unpleasant or not, they are essential to make sense of earliest Christianity. Many people argue that because Jesus was 'spiritual' he was a phantom. Not so apparently.

Iskander · 09-06-2011, 01:31 PM

Yes, some religious people said that Jesus was similar to the angels that appeared to Abraham in Mamre: Jesus “neither ate nor drank” and he was not the son of Mary. I think that Ignatius argued against such beliefs in the letter to the Philadelphians VIII. No to an existing “phantom “saviour, he said.

I know you are an expert on Marcion, one of the many subjects you excel at, and I am happy to accept data about Marcion from you, but his importance is a moot question.

stephan huller · 09-06-2011, 01:39 PM

The point is that I was surprised to find this. If I am an 'expert' it shows how we can all be very wrong about things. We inherit assumptions and carry them around for a very long time. I was surprised to find this. My German grandmother used to always say you can learn from anyone or anything. It is very true. One should never stop keeping one's eyes open. It is amazing what you'll end up seeing.

Iskander · 09-06-2011, 05:31 PM

See and most importantly think as freely as you wish. It is good to have someone like you posting here.

Your German grandmother may have also said this,

Die Gedanken sind frei, wer kann sie erraten,
sie fliegen vorbei wie nächtliche Schatten.
Kein Mensch kann sie wissen, kein Jäger erschießen
mit pulver und blei: Die Gedanken sind frei

Thoughts are free, who can guess them?
They flee by like nocturnal shadows.
No man can know them, no hunter can shoot them
with powder and lead: Thoughts are free!

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

09-06-2011, 12:47 PM	#4
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Unpleasant or not, they are essential to make sense of earliest Christianity. Many people argue that because Jesus was 'spiritual' he was a phantom. Not so apparently.

09-06-2011, 01:31 PM	#5
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	Yes, some religious people said that Jesus was similar to the angels that appeared to Abraham in Mamre: Jesus “neither ate nor drank” and he was not the son of Mary. I think that Ignatius argued against such beliefs in the letter to the Philadelphians VIII. No to an existing “phantom “saviour, he said. I know you are an expert on Marcion, one of the many subjects you excel at, and I am happy to accept data about Marcion from you, but his importance is a moot question.

09-06-2011, 01:39 PM	#6
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The point is that I was surprised to find this. If I am an 'expert' it shows how we can all be very wrong about things. We inherit assumptions and carry them around for a very long time. I was surprised to find this. My German grandmother used to always say you can learn from anyone or anything. It is very true. One should never stop keeping one's eyes open. It is amazing what you'll end up seeing.

09-06-2011, 05:31 PM	#7
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	See and most importantly think as freely as you wish. It is good to have someone like you posting here. Your German grandmother may have also said this, Die Gedanken sind frei, wer kann sie erraten, sie fliegen vorbei wie nächtliche Schatten. Kein Mensch kann sie wissen, kein Jäger erschießen mit pulver und blei: Die Gedanken sind frei Thoughts are free, who can guess them? They flee by like nocturnal shadows. No man can know them, no hunter can shoot them with powder and lead: Thoughts are free!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.