fatpie42

I find it very awkward to read. That's all.

I don't think I've made an error. I think I'm just looking at this in a different way to you. Marcion and Tertullian had a very different understanding of Jesus and I was taking that for granted.

Marcion did not believe Jesus was the same kind of thing as Tertullian thought Jesus was. Agreed.

This is rather more interesting to me.

Presumably this point is when Jesus supposedly has his baptism. While some would insist on adoptionism, whereby Jesus the man becomes Jesus the god-man at that stage, does Marcion insist that this is the point where Jesus appears on Earth (presumably somewhat like the Arian conception of Jesus as a demi-god begotten before time began)?

Certainly I can understand a Christian group deciding to miss out the birth narratives and Jesus' bar mitzvah; the scenes used to set up the story in the gospels. If we are missing out those bits, why not imagine Jesus descending from heaven right off the bat (particularly if your theology means that the god-man cannot be flesh and bone).

JonA

Then perhaps you can cite and quote one of these sources?

Jon

aa5874

Why are you PRESUMING?

There is NO need to presume anything.

You NEED to UNDERSTAND the written evidence.

There are SERIOUS problems with "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian based on other apologetics sources like Hippolytus, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr.

The evidence from apologetic sources TEND to show that "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian may be historically and doctrinally INACCURATE.

fatpie42

Could you actually respond to what I write rather than latching onto individual words, please? You are coming off like a troll.

If there's something you want me to pay attention to then please let me know. If you are just going to rant then that's a waste of both our times. Perhaps you'd seem a little more cogent if you didn't write every other word in caps locks...

archibald

Personally, I don't think the criterion from embarrassment is particularly robust. It's certainly not a good sign that it's mainly used by Jesus scholars, rather than by historians generally. Or am I wrong in thinking that?

vijeno

Yeah I can... Goeppelt, Leonhard: Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (=UTB850), p. 92f (about Jesus' baptism): "Daß Jesus die Bußtaufe zur Vergebung der Sünden empfing, war für die Gemeinde so anstößig und rätselhaft, daß niemand es erfunden hätte."

I'll look whether I can find something in Bultmann's Theologie des Neuen Testaments.

I'm afraid I don't have anything in english; and in general I mostly read theological stuff at the library, so I probably won't find much more than what I already told you. Bart Ehrmann should have some references, I guess.

vijeno

s/Goeppelt/Goppelt/ in above post.

JonA

I Google translated that, and still have no idea what it means:

[HR="1"]100[/HR]
That Jesus received the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, was so offensive to the community and mysterious that no one would have invented it.

[HR="1"]100[/HR]

I'm going to assume the silliness is related to a poor translation.

But clearly you speak both languages; so why not just translate it for us?

If Bart Ehrman made the argument you made in the OP, I would send him an email telling him to pull his head from his ass.

Jon

Huon

The translation is exact.
Now, it is theology, and I never understood the link between the crucifixion (baptism of repentance) and forgiveness of the sins of the humans. It is a dogm. Take it or leave it.

aa5874

Are you not the one latching onto words like "you are coming off a like a troll"?

I have ADDRESSED your post. You did make a presumption in your post.

Your posts are RECORDED.

I told you there is NO NEED to presume anything just try to understand the text.