aa5874

You CAN REALLY SEE them?
You tell me what happened. I WANT you to be RIGHT. You seem to know how the INVISIBLE can be executed.

It was NOT Marcion alone who developed theology around the INVSIBLE and PHANTOMS. You must read the HISTORIES of Antiquity. You must try and understand that people of Antiquity believed in the INVISIBLE and Phantoms.

1. NT Jesus of Nazareth was the Child of a Ghost and a VIRGIN.

2. MARCION'S Son of another God was a PHANTOM.

3. BASILIDES PROCLAIMED a Non-existing God created Existence.

4. JUSTINUS TAUGHT that ELOHIM, the FATHER, was INVISIBLE and UNKNOWN.

5. The DOCETAE TAUGHT the PRIMAL Deity is like the seed of a FIG tree.

6. TATIAN PREACHED that the world was created by INVISIBLE Aeons.

7. APPELLES CLAIMED that there were FOUR Gods.

8. THEODOTUS MAINTAINED that Jesus did NOT have assumed flesh in the womb of the Virgin.

9. NOETUS ASSERTED that the Father is also the Son, visible and invisible, begotten and unbegotten, mortal and immortal. And that the Father was crucified.

10. The ELCHASAITES MAINTAINED that at one time Christ was begotten of God, and at another time became the Spirit, and at another time was born of a virgin, and at another time not so.

What was WRONG with those Guys of Antiquity? Nothing was wrong.

They are just MYTH-MAKERS like the authors of the NT and MARCION. In Antiquity people BELIEVED in MYTHS. Jesus MUST have been a GOOD MYTH to BELIEVE.

See and READ "Refutation Against All Heresies" by Hippolytus

Tell me if the ENEMIES of ALL the MYTH-Makers did SEE ALL the MYTHS.

boneyard bill

aa5874 writes:

Who's to say no one saw the ordinary Jesus? If the ordinary Jesus existed, quite apart from the question of his theological nature, he presumably was seen by Roman soldiers and others. The absence of a written record of these events is not proof that they didn't happen.

What's your point? Tertullian and Marcion dispute the issue of Jesus' "real" nature, but they do not dispute the issue of his appearance. Consequently, the failure of observers to report any ghosts or phantoms does not rebut the claims of these men anymore than it rebuts the claims of those who insisted that Jesus was fully human.

jgreen44

According to aa5874, Tertullian wrote that the Marcionites believed Jesus was invisible to his enemies. However, aa5874 has yet to cite the passage from Tertullian which states this.

aa5874

You are NOT making much Sense.

Are you implying that the ABSENCE of written records is the PROOF that it DID happen?

You seem not to even understand how theories are developed.

Once there is NO written evidence that Jesus was SEEN and KNOWN as a mere human being, for about 30 years in Galilee based on gLuke, then the theory that Jesus was a MYTH character can be MAINTAINED without CONTRADICTION.

You have NO POINT

You do not even understand the DISPUTE.

I told you to read "On the FLESH of Christ"

Do you SEE the question, DID IT EVER EXIST?

Now what MUST TERTULLIAN USE TO PROVE JESUS DID EXIST IN THE FLESH?

HE MUST USE INDEPENDENT SOURCES OF RECORDS OF HIS BIRTH, LIFE, OR EVENTS surrounding JESUS.

TERTULLIAN DID NOT USE ANY JEWISH OR ROMANS RECORDS TO PROVE JESUS WAS PUBLICLY CRUCIFIED or ANY INDEPENDENT SOURCES SUCH AS JOSEPHUS OR TACITUS TO PROVE JESUS EXISTED IN THE FLESH.

You are NOT making much sense. How would you prove or show that Martin Luther King Jr or any KNOWN historical person of the past did exist in the Flesh when arguing with one who claimed they were PHANTOMS? Would you use Hebrew Scripture and prophecies or independent historical sources of the BIRTH, LIFE and EVENTS surrounding Martin Luther King Jr, or any KNOWN figure of history

Tertullian wrote a book with the INTENTION of PROVING Jesus did EXIST in the FLESH but FAILED to PROVIDE any INDEPENDENT HISTORICAL RECORDS that Jesus did exist in the FLESH in his argument.

TERTULLIAN should have been ABLE to PROVE or SHOW that his JESUS had at least an EARTHLY mother and was PUBLICLY crucified with INDEPENDENT historical sources.

The DISPUTE of the FLESH of Jesus was made and DOCUMENTED and TERTULLIAN UTTERLY FAILED since TERTULLIAN was AWARE of both Josephus and Tacitus but did NOT use them.

The theory that JESUS of the NT is MYTH BASED and that there was NO Jewish or Romans records of Jesus in the FLESH can be MAINTAINED FOREVER or until new evidence can be found.

jgreen44

But that is not the same thing as writing a book with the intention of proving that Jesus can be seen. Ghosts and phantoms are not necessarily invisible.

ghost
(gōst) pronunciation
n.

1. The spirit of a dead person, especially one believed to appear in bodily likeness to living persons or to haunt former habitats.

No one, including Marcion or Tertullian, would characterize a ghost or a phantom as existing in the flesh. But, by definition, ghosts and phantoms can be seen.

phan·tom also fan·tom (fntm)
n.
1.
a. Something apparently seen, heard, or sensed, but having no physical reality; a ghost or an apparition.

aa5874

So based on the meaning of Phantom, I hope you now SEE that MARCION'S SON OF GOD had NO PHYSICAL REALITY and could NOT be actually crucified by REAL HUMAN BEINGS.

Now, I told you to read "On the FLESH of Christ" so that you can SEE what was DISPUTED. From the VERY FIRST CHAPTER the author will ATTEMPT to PROVE JESUS did EXIST with ACTUAL HUMAN FLESH

"On the FLESH of Christ" It should be OBVIOUS that TERTULLIAN or the author of "On the FLESH OF CHRIST" MUST HAVE BELIEVED or MOST LIKELY BELIEVED that ANY proof that JESUS HAD FLESH and was ACTUALLY BORN would have DESTROYED MARCION'S PHANTOM.

Tertullian had NO proof, and USED NO Jewish or Roman records just Hebrew Scripture in a book where he INTENDED to show that Jesus did exist in the FLESH.

INSTEAD Tertullian used so-called prophecies of the FUTURE to PROVE the PAST. He used Isaiah 7.14 to PROVE Jesus was born of a woman when Isaiah 7.14 was written hundreds of years before it was ASSUMED Jesus lived.

"On the Flesh of Christ" 17 There is a way to prove or demonstrate that Marcion's enemies SAW the Phantom and that it had ACTUAL human flesh.

Tertullian used information that was HUNDREDS of years before the Phantom because NOBODY ever even SAW anything like Jesus either as a Ghost, a Phantom or a mere man, except "PAUL" and over 500 others, who saw the resurrected MYTH Jesus.

jgreen44

But, to the Marcionites, the Christus reference in Annals would only have proven that Jesus appeared to other people. It would not prove to the Marcionites that Jesus was composed of actual human flesh because the Marcionites believed that Jesus only appeared to be composed of actual human flesh.
That's not true. Tertullian references the gospel of John to point out that Jesus had a mother and brothers. According to the Marcionites, Jesus, in the gospel of John, was tempted by other people to believe that he had a mother and brothers. How could these other people tempt someone who was not visible? Do you think the Marcionites believed that these other people were tempting an invisible Jesus?

aa5874

Please read your own post first.

Do you understand the difference between "SEEING" Phantoms through hallucinations or dreams and SEEING an actual PUBLIC TRIAL, CRUCIFIXION and DEATH of a real human?

It does not seem so.

Are you a real person? I just quoted passages from "On the Flesh of Christ" that made reference to Hebrew Scripture and you say that it is not true that Tertullian used information that was hundreds of years before the Phantom.

Well, look at this from "On the Flesh of Christ"

"On the Flesh of Christ" 23 Tertullian did USE writings that were hundreds of years BEFORE the Phantom to prove Jesus was born of a virgin.

What nonsense! Why would the Marcionites BELIEVE their Son of God was NOT seen 100 years earlier? The Marcionites are CLAIMING people SAW the Phantom and that it had NO HUMAN FLESH.

Tertullian is CLAIMING that his JESUS when SEEN had REAL HUMAN FLESH and was BORN of a VIRGIN as written by the prophet Isaiah.

I told you to read "On the FLESH of Christ".

Now, the Marcionites USED gJohn AGAINST Tertullian.

You seem to forget that there is NO BIRTH NARRATIVE in gJohn and that in gJohn Jesus was the "WORD" and that the "WORD" was GOD and that the WORD was BEFORE ALL things and the CREATOR.

Read "On the FLESH of Christ" and you will see that John 1 was very conducive to Marcionism.

The Marcionites USED John 1.13 against Tertullian. "On the Flesh of Christ"

Tertullian has DESTROYED his own argument. He ADMITTED the FLESH of Jesus was NOT of MAN.

Tell me if ALL the enemies of Tertullian SAW the WORD who was GOD whose FLESH was NOT of MAN.

jgreen44

No. I am not saying that. I am saying it is not true that Tertullian believed, as you said...Tertullian believed that the gospel accounts accurately recorded the life of one Jesus of Nazareth. Included in those accounts was an anecdote which (according to Tertullian) Marcionites took as an attempt by human beings to tempt Jesus into believing he had a flesh and blood human family. The human beings who tempted Jesus presumably had to SEE him in order to tempt him.
But you have also said...So you are saying that Tertullian wrote that the Marcionites believed Jesus was visible to his supporters but invisible to his enemies. Where is this written in "On the Flesh of Christ"?
Come on. Read the whole thing in context...

12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

IOW, this is speaking of spiritual birth.
Show me an exact quote somewhere in Tertullian's writings where he specifically states that Marcionites believed Jesus was visible to his supporters but invisible to his enemies.

aa5874

What is not true? What did Tertullian believe?

So, you ADMIT that you are PRESUMING.


This is what I wrote. Come on read "On the FLESH of Christ" and you will see if Tertullian used the whole thing.

"On the Flesh of Christ" Tertullian answered the question. He WROTE that the FLESH of Jesus was NOT of BLOOD, NOT of the WIIL of the FLESH and was NOT of MAN.

The DISPUTE IS OVER.

Whether or not you BELIEVE Jesus did exist or that his ENEMIES SAW HIM, his FLESH was NOT of BLOOD and was NOT of MAN.

"On the FLESH of Christ"