stephan huller

I challenge you to give a single, plausible reason why Eusebius or whomever you attribute the 'invention' of the Church Fathers would want to make Tertullian appear as a follower of Montanus.

aa5874

Can you show me a single passage in all the writings of "Tertullian" where he himself claimed he was a Montanist?

You must remember the Church writers claimed Luke was a physician and traveled all over the Roman Empire with ALL the Pauline writers, that Matthew and John were apostles of Jesus who wrote Gospels and that the apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome (a most blatant lie).

The Church writers have a virtual ZERO credibility rating when dealing with their own history so I do not expect any better credibility when dealing with "Tertullian".

stephan huller

I don't want to argue about whether Tertullian's writings reflect his belonging to the New Prophesy movement associated with Montanus. It's there in his writings. The great Roger Pearse provides some context for the many references in Tertullian's writings with this passage from Praedestinatus:

Holy Soter, Pope of the City, wrote against them a book, as did the master, Apollonius of Ephesus. Against these wrote the priest Tertullian of Carthage. Who in all ways wrote well, wrote first and wrote incomparably, in this alone did reprehensibly, that he defended Montanus, acting against the command of Pope Soter of Rome as mentioned earlier, asserting the talk of infants' blood to be false, asserting one God in trinity, the penitence for the lapsed, one Easter with the same ceremonies as ours.

"By this alone we differ," he said, "that we do not admit second marriages, and we do not reject the prophecy of Montanus on the future judgement"

Some hold against Tertullian that he says that the soul comes from sex ,that is he says the soul is begotten from the soul, just as the body from bodies; which is vehemently execrated by the Catholic faith.

http://www.tertullian.org/tertullian...destinatus.htm

aa5874

You keep on repeating what Church writers say about "Tertullian".

The Church writers wrote fiction about their own Lord and Saviour, the Creator of heaven and earth and EQUAL to God, the TRUTH and the LIFE Jesus Christ.

I asked you to show me a passage from any writing under the name of "Tertullian" where he claimed he was a Montanist and you give me an anonymous writing dated perhaps from the 5th century.

stephan huller

Nein, nein, nein Tausendmal nein!

This is not a game where you can challenge people to spend the day wasting their refuting points that don't require refutation. Tertullian DOES MAKE reference to the New Prophesy. This is common knowledge. It would be like making me prove that the word 'Christ' appears in the New Testament.

Come on, this post is over. You said something about Origen that is not true. You were using an English translation of the original Greek which led you to believe that 'Marcion' was not included in the reference to 'the disciples of Marcion.' The Greek however does not say 'disciples' but 'Marcionites' and Marcion was certainly included in the subset of Marcionites.

I am going to enjoy the day. Here are three references NO MORE I've had it with this game

[The Spirit speaks:] Desire not to die in bed, nor in delivery of children, nor by enervating fevers, but in martyrdom, that He may be glorified who has suffered for you. (Tertullian, De Fuga 9.4; cf. Tertullian De Anima 55.5.)

- [The Paraclete says through the prophetess Prisca:] They are flesh and [yet] they hate the flesh. (Tertullian, de Resurr. Mort. 11.2.).

- [The holy prophetess Prisca proclaims:] A holy minister must understand how to minister holiness. ... (Tertullian, De Exhort. Cast. 10.5.)

aa5874

But, that is absolutely false. I quoted a passage from "Against Celsus" 2.27.

But, you are the one who may be promoting fallacies. "Marcionites" do not inherently mean "Marcion" himself just as "Christians" do not inherently mean "Christ" himself.

You have NO statement from the writer called "Tertullian" that he was a Montantist except an anonymous writing from around the 5th century about 200 years after the supposed writings of "Tertullian"

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

The work you are seeking, I believe, is "Against Praxeas," Here Tertullian clearly defends Montanus, Prisca and Maximlla against the attacks of Praxeas:
Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

But, this passage does not claim "Tertullian" was a Montanist.

The passage clearly states that "the Bishop of Rome acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Montanus......".







.

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

The author says that by opposing the Bishop of Rome's letter, he "drove away prophecy"... and he "put to flight the Paraclete."

Followers of Montanus believed he had the gift of prophesy and was the Paraclete that Jesus had promised to send to the apostles.

One can infer from this that the writer was a Montanist.

Similarly, if Tertullian had written, "by rejecting Mitra, Praxeas has rejected the one hope for the salvation of mankind," you could make the reasonable inference that Tertullian was a follower of Mitra.

Warmly,

Jay

aa5874

The author is reporting on events that occurred.

Not really. You must have noticed that it was the bishop of Rome who acknowledged the prophectic gifts of THREE persons called Montanus, Prisca and Maximilla.

You have no idea of the doctrine of Prisca or Maximilla.

You simply cannot infer that anyone who reports on the acknowledgment of the bishop of Rome about three persons are only in agreement with one.

Based on your inferences, the bishop of Rome would then be a follower of Montanus, Prisca, Maximilla or any combination of the three.

You mean the Bishop of Rome who acknowledged Mitra by inference may be a follower of Mitra.

It was supposed to be the bishop of Rome who propagated the doctrine of the Church. "Tertullian" does not need to be a follower of Mitra to write that the bishop of Rome acknowledged the prophectic gifts of Mitra, Montanus, Valentinus, Marcion, Josephus, Prisca, Empedocles and Maximilla.