FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-13-2011, 01:03 AM   #151
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

The wonderful Roger Pearse has a wonderful website called tertullian.net which has all the texts of Tertullian available on it. I happened to have been working on a post at my blog with this very material so I can cite chapter 48 of de Resurrectione Carnis right now:

Quote:
The apostle, I suppose, having set before the Corinthians the complete definition of the church discipline, had bound up the sum-total of his own gospel and of their faith in his delivery of our Lord's death and resurrection, so as to derive the rule of our hope also from that whereon it might stand firm. And so he adds, But if Christ is preached that he hath risen from the dead, how say some among you that there is not a resurrection of the dead? For if there is not, neither is Christ risen. If Christ is not risen, our preaching is void, your faith also is void. We shall be found even false witnesses of God, seeing we have borne witness that he hath raised Christ up again, when he hath not raised him up. For if the dead rise not again, neither is Christ risen again. If Christ is not risen again your faith is vain, because ye are yet in your sins, and those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished..

To belief of what fact do you think he is by these means building us up? The resurrection of the dead, you (= Marcionites) reply, which was under denial..

Surely desiring it to be believed by the example of the Lord's resurrection? Certainly, you say. .

Now is an example applied out of diversity or out of similarity? Evidently, you say, of similarity. .

Then how did Christ rise again? In the flesh, or not? Undoubtedly if you hear that he died, that he was buried, according to the scriptures, and not otherwise than in the flesh, you must no less admit that he was raised again in the flesh: for that very thing which died in death, which lay down in burial, this it is which has also risen again, not so much Christ in the flesh as the flesh in Christ. .

Therefore if we are to rise again after Christ's example, and he rose again in the flesh----well, we shall not be rising again after Christ's example if we are not ourselves also to rise again in the flesh. Since, he says, by man death, by man also the resurrection, so as to distinguish the two authors, Adam the author of death, Christ the author of the resurrection, and yet, by bringing together the authors under the name of 'man', to determine that the resurrection is of the same substance as the death was..

For if as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive, they will be made alive in Christ in the flesh, just as in Adam they die in the flesh. But every one in his own order, because of course in his own body: for the order will be regulated in accordance with already regulated deserts. But since deserts are accounted to the body as well, so of necessity the order of the bodies must be regulated, to make it possible for the order of deserts to be..

And again, if some are baptized for the dead, we shall enquire whether this is with good reason. Certainly he suggests that they had instituted that custom on the assumption by which they supposed that vicarious baptism would be of benefit even to another flesh towards the hope of resurrection, which, unless it were corporal, would not be bound up with a corporal baptism..

He asks why they themselves also are baptized , that is, if the bodies that are baptized do not rise again? For the soul is sanctified not by the washing but by the profession of faith. And why, he asks, stand we in jeopardy every hour? ---evidently by virtue of the flesh. I die daily----surely by the perils of that flesh by which he also fought with beasts at Ephesus, meaning those beasts of the Asiatic affliction of which he speaks in the second epistle to the same people: For we would not have you ignorant, brethren, of our affliction in Asia, that above measure we were burdened beyond our strength, so that we were in doubt even of life. All these experiences, if I mistake not, he recounts because he does not wish the strivings of the flesh to be believed to be in vain, and does wish the resurrection of the flesh to be believed with full assurance: for the striving of that of which there will be no resurrection must be held to be in vain. But some man will say, How will the dead rise again, and with what body will they come? Here at last he discourses of the qualities of bodies, whether they be the same bodies, or others, that are resumed. But as this kind of question may be considered to come later, it shall suffice meanwhile that by this theme also the resurrection is defined as corporal, since it is with the quality of bodies that the discussion is concerned.[de Resurr Carnis 48]
stephan huller is offline  
Old 09-13-2011, 01:10 AM   #152
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
If Paul had received his teaching from a human being initially the passage at the beginning of Galatians doesn't make sense:



For the apostle says here also that he did not receive his teaching from men.
Where have you been Stephan? That has been discussed adnauseum, and refuted.

...
This particular verse has not been discussed before, and nothing has been refuted.
Toto is offline  
Old 09-13-2011, 01:24 AM   #153
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

archibald,

Quote:
In fact, unless I'm not thinking straight, the absence of this technical term.....might imply no teacher-pupil relationship after all......for the information..........and...are we then ok with the idea that he didn't say where he got it, so it could have been from other men?
No, what this suggests is that the term was added to the text shared - apparently - by Marcion and Tertullian (and Tertullian's anti-Marcionite source perhaps) so as to nullify the support the shared reading gave to the Marcionite tradition. Let's start at the beginning. The Marcionites held that there was no tradition, there was no master and student relationship, that Paul did not receive his understanding from men. The doctrine the apostle received came only by divine revelation.

But that the term παραλαμβανω can be argued to have been added to Catholic version of the text to open the door to the fact that he received something from Peter and the rest of the Church (= Acts). I am not sure spin would agree with my construction of how the term got there. But the implication seems to me at least that the term was added to leave the door open at least to the idea that he learned something from the other apostles. In other words to nullify the radical 'lone wolf' scenario cultivated by Marcionitism.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 09-13-2011, 01:28 AM   #154
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default

Stephan, I thought that this had been pointed out a while ago, on the initial thread about 1 Cor 15. Perhaps I am mistaken.

And yes, Acts is the elephant in the room.
dog-on is offline  
Old 09-13-2011, 01:52 AM   #155
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 1,305
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post

Where have you been Stephan? That has been discussed adnauseum, and refuted.

...
This particular verse has not been discussed before, and nothing has been refuted.
I'm puzzled (again!). That particular verse doesn't appear to be saying he didn't get 'it' from men.
archibald is offline  
Old 09-13-2011, 02:04 AM   #156
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
Stephan, I thought that this had been pointed out a while ago, on the initial thread about 1 Cor 15. Perhaps I am mistaken.

And yes, Acts is the elephant in the room.

The author of Acts DEVOTED over 15 chapters to the EXPEDITIONS and EXPLOITS of Paul. Acts of the Apostles is an EXTREMELY critical book since it was Canonised and deemed to be AUTHENTIC.

The author of Acts CLAIMED that he TRAVELED with Paul ALL OVER the Roman Empire.

No other author has even claimed to have TRAVELED with Jesus Christ in the NT Canon but the author of gLuke is a supposed WITNESS of the historicity of "Paul".

Why does "Paul" NEED Acts if Acts is NOT credible? What does it benefit the Christian Faith to CANONIZE KNOWN Fiction?

The answer is CLEAR.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are NOT history. There is NO true history of "Paul" just the FICTION found in Acts of the Apostles and the very Pauline epistles.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 09-13-2011, 02:08 AM   #157
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
Stephan, I thought that this had been pointed out a while ago, on the initial thread about 1 Cor 15. Perhaps I am mistaken.

And yes, Acts is the elephant in the room.

The author of Acts DEVOTED over 15 chapters to the EXPEDITIONS and EXPLOITS of Paul. Acts of the Apostles is an EXTREMELY critical book since it was Canonised and deemed to be AUTHENTIC.

The author of Acts CLAIMED that he TRAVELED with Paul ALL OVER the Roman Empire.

No other author has even claimed to have TRAVELED with Jesus Christ in the NT Canon but the author of gLuke is a supposed WITNESS of the historicity of "Paul".

Why does "Paul" NEED Acts if Acts is NOT credible? What does it benefit the Christian Faith to CANONIZE KNOWN Fiction?

The answer is CLEAR.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are NOT history. There is NO true history of "Paul" just the FICTION found in Acts of the Apostles and the very Pauline epistles.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 09-13-2011, 02:11 AM   #158
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 1,305
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
The wonderful Roger Pearse has a wonderful website called tertullian.net which has all the texts of Tertullian available on it. I happened to have been working on a post at my blog with this very material so I can cite chapter 48 of de Resurrectione Carnis right now:

Quote:
The apostle, I suppose, having set before the Corinthians the complete definition of the church discipline,........... since it is with the quality of bodies that the discussion is concerned.[de Resurr Carnis 48]
Sorry about the triple posts. My internet keeps freezing when I post, so I mistakenly think it hasn't posted.

Thanks Stephen. Though at first glance, this doesn't appear to be the bit dealing with 'receive' (or its absence from a verse).

I'm at work, and may have to look at Tertullian Against Marcion 3.8 later (that was the one I was interested in, your second quote, about verse 3. Perhaps I should have made this more clear). I don't expect people to spoon feed me. Unless they're happy to.
archibald is offline  
Old 09-13-2011, 02:13 AM   #159
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 1,305
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
Stephan, I thought that this had been pointed out a while ago, on the initial thread about 1 Cor 15. Perhaps I am mistaken.
I don't recall it. Though I could equally be mistaken. I recall Stephen saying something about Marcion, and my asking for more detail, so maybe that was what we recall? I am certainly interested.
archibald is offline  
Old 09-13-2011, 03:14 AM   #160
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,619
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by archibald View Post


I'm at work, and may have to look at Tertullian Against Marcion 3.8 later (that was the one I was interested in, your second quote, about verse 3. Perhaps I should have made this more clear). I don't expect people to spoon feed me. Unless they're happy to.
Tertullian against marcion III .8 has nothing to do with “the dumbest thread seen in this forum” but it makes it even dumber. Marcion is a subject interesting only to those with an excitable imagination.

The Brit is leaving this thread. Welcome the Frank
Iskander is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:51 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.