fatpie42

I think you've misunderstood.

Tertullian and Marcion both believed that Jesus was divine. (So that heresy wasn't the issue.) What they disagreed on was whether a divine being such as Jesus could have been human, with human flesh.

Marcion believed that Jesus was God, but not God INCARNATE (at least, not a physical incarnation). It's the incarnation as a flesh and blood human being that Marcion disagreed with.

Tertullian's view of Jesus as fully (physically) human as well as divine, has become the traditional orthodox view.

aa5874

Well, according to Justin Martyr, Marcion did NOT preach about Jesus at all.

Marcion preached ANOTHER God and ANOTHER Son in "First Apology" attributed to Justin Martyr.

"First Apology" LVIII It is IMPERATIVE that you READ sources of antiquity to UNDERSTAND what is claimed about Marcion.

Marcion's Son of God of some other God was a PHANTOM without birth and flesh and the Church claimed Jesus was their Son of God born of Mary and a Holy Ghost.

Marcion's Son of God had ZERO earthly family and came directly from Heaven to Capernaum in the 15th year of Tiberius.

Jesus was supposedly born on earth about 30 years BEFORE Marcion's Son of God Phantom came to Capernaum from heaven.

"Against Marcion" 4.7 It should be OBVIOUS that Marcion's Phantom Son of God was NOT Jesus Christ of NT based on the writings of the Church.

JonA

Where have you read this argument? Perhaps starting there might be a good way to track down the origins of the idea.

I, personally, have never heard this argument made—ever. The argument almost sounds too ridiculous to make, really, except perhaps by your typical ignorant 14 year old Fundamentalist.

Jon

Toto

In post 2, I quoted a similar argument from wikipedia. It is actually a common Christian apologetic argument on the internet.

Vorkosigan

It's the high subjectivity quotient that is one of the factors making the embarrassment criterion so...embarrassing.

Steven Carr

I guess there must have been a crucified thief who praised Jesus on the cross.

Who would have invented a recommendation from not just a thief, but a thief who had died a shameful death?

JonA

No, you didn't. The argument you quoted and the one given in the OP are two different arguments.

One is absolutely stupid; the other mildly sensible.

Jon

fatpie42

Occasionally using CAPS LOCKS in your replies is not HELPING at all, OKAY?


When we were talking earlier, we were not talking about the massive divide between Tertullian and Marcion in terms of their ideas on religion. We were not talking about Marcion's gnosticism including his ideas on the Demiurge and the like.

What you said before was that Tertullian would never have denied the divinity of Jesus. The point is that neither of them would have denied the divinity of Jesus and it's just that, for Marcion, affirming the divinity of Jesus required denying the humanity of Jesus.

As I said before, Tertullian, far from committing heresy by calling Jesus human, was affirming what is now the orthodox view. The view that Jesus was all human and all God. That's all I was trying to say. At worst, I was conveying stuff that was far too obvious and missing the point of your dispute.

vijeno

Isn't one just an overapplication of the other, with a few stupidities thrown in for good measure?

I agree that it is much too subjective to be worth a lot. OTOH, I understand those poor theologians in their quest for some historical straw to grasp. (sarcasm) The criterion seems like a good idea superficially, and why care to think further before creating a huge theology around it? (/sarcasm)

As for where I found the argument, it is totally pervasive in catholic and protestant theological publications. From universities, nonetheless. Bultmann comes to mind, and I think it is a building block of basically all modern historical-critical bible analysis.

aa5874

It is a TOTAL waste of time trying to tell me how to present my post. I don't waste time trying to tell you what to write and how to present it.

I have a RED-LETTER KJV BIBLE with words in CAPS and I LIKE the way it was presented so I am using a similar format.

Now, examine an excerpt from your own post

My point is that Marcion's Son of God was NOT the Jesus of Tertullian. The Jesus Christ of Tertullian was supposedly ALREADY on earth in Galilee 30 years BEFORE Marcion's Phantom Son of God arrived.

Do you UNDERSTAND your error?

Marcion did NOT believe in Jesus and did NOT accept that there was a character called Jesus that was on earth since the time of King Herod. This MUST be understood.

In gLuke Jesus was ABOUT to be 30 years old in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

In "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian Marcion's Phantom ARRIVED DIRECTLY from heaven in the 15th year of Tiberius.

And further, Justin Martyr in "First Apology" did claim that Marcion preached ANOTHER Son who was NOT the Son of the God of the Jews.