Freethought & Rationalism Archive

the_cave · 04-20-2004, 06:38 AM

Well, I've done my best here--sorry it's so long, I got rather interested in the issue for some reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Right now what you have to do is explain the assertion that Tertullian is stating there is a difference between the greek God-stories and the Christian one. That term does not appear. You've created it where it does not exist. To the benefit of the apologist view. It is therefore apologetics.

Alright, if you want to call it that, but just because it comes down on one side or another in no way undermines its validity. The argument should stand and fall on its own merits.

Quote:

I don't mean this in an adversarial way. Friendly debate. But firm.

Understood.

Quote:

The speaker's entire point is the similarity between classes of things. Yet, what you take from it is how different the classes of things are. He says they are "like" the greek stories. You assert he is claiming a difference from the greek stories.

I assert he is implying a difference despite similarities. Otherwise he would have said "just like" or "identical to".

Quote:

That is not what it says. He could have written that. He didn't.

He could also have written "just like" or "identical to", but he didn't.

Quote:

Show me where the word "different" appears in the passage we are referring to. The term that appears is "like".

Which, because it does not mean "identical to", implies some remaining differences.

Quote:

So how can we conclude anything whatsoever except what they are "like"?

We can conclude that they are not "alike in every regard".

Quote:

Please quote anything in this passage that asserts some difference, and what the nature of the difference is.

Let's look at that passage again--in fact, let's go back to the passage before that one to get even more of a context:

Quote:

[....lengthy discourse on the nature of the Christian god....]This ray of God, then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, descending into a certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united. The flesh formed by the Spirit is nourished, grows up to manhood, speaks, teaches, works, and is the Christ. Receive meanwhile this fable, if you choose to call it so--it is like some of your own--while we go on to show how Christ's claims are proved, and who the parties are with you by whom such fables have been set agoing to overthrow the truth, which they resemble.

So, Tertullian discourses at length on the nature of God and the Son and the Spirit and so forth. He then says, "Receive meanwhile this fable..."

In fact, reading it over again carefully, it seems to me that he's actually refering to what he just said--that is, the lengthy discourse on the nature of God and the descent of the Spirit and Christ. That's the "fable". He's saying to the Greeks "Take what I just said for what it's worth to you--and it should be worth no less than the kinds of things you already accept as true. And now I will explain how it is true..."["Receive meanwhile this fable...while we go on to show how Christ's claims are proved]..."

Not only that, but his next words are even clearer (if you can call it that)--"and who the parties are with you by whom such fables have been set agoing to overthrow the truth, which they resemble."

Now, "such fables" must refer to the Greek fables, since they are in the plural, but Tertullian has told only one "fable". Those fables have been "set agoing" against the truth. Between Tertullian and the Greeks, guess which one he thinks has the truth?

So which fable is the truth, and which ones are "set agoing" the truth?

Finally, he once again reiterates exactly what I'm claiming he says--he says that the Greek fables "resemble" the truth--i.e. the Christian teachings. Now...if he is saying that the Greek fables and the Christian "fable" are identical, how on earth could he claim one is the truth, and the other is "set agoing" it???

The simple answer must be, that while there is indeed a resemblance, there is also a difference--one "fable" is the truth, while the others are not.

It would be a strange thing indeed to claim a fable is true.

Therefore Tertullian must not himself be claiming that the Christian "fable" is indeed a fable.

Furthermore, it would be a very odd thing indeed to immediately go on to demonstrate how this fable ["Christ's claims"] are "proved", if all it is, is a fable, identical to those of the Greeks.

Therefore, there must again be some salient difference which he is in fact highlighting. He is clearly opposing the two--Christ's claims vs. the Greek fables--they are after all "set agoing".

He does not say "Receive meanwhile this fable, as I choose to call it"--he qualifies the label: "Receive meanwhile this fable, if you choose to call it so--" He is using the word ironically and clearly conditionally (what else could the word "if" be introducing, other than a conditional???)

Quote:

We need to see the translation, I suppose, to see if there is a greek word for "like" that means "in contrast to" - but that is really silly.

We merely need to see the translation to see if there is a Greek word for "like" that does not mean "is identical to".

Quote:

You cannot say that the golden goose and rip van winkle are the same story. They are indeed different stories.

What if I said the American Revolution was like "Star Wars"? Would I be right, or wrong? Would I be implying that there were no difference between the two?

Quote:

But I suppose if I told you a third story that I advise is like these two, you would be incapable of deciding that it was history or not? Particularly if it was of supernatural theme to begin with?

I'm not sure I understand this point, but I can say that if you told me that the story of William Tell was like both "Star Wars" and the American Revolution, I would be inclined to agree (and yet would also understand that there are differences.)

Quote:

Tell you what, let's present this dilemma to a child and see what they say.

Ack, I don't think a child could make head or tail out of Tertullian!

Quote:

The word "distinction" does not appear.

The word "difference" does not appear.

They don't need to if they're implied.

Quote:

He makes no other comparison with what it is "like".

But he does say that it is the truth...

Quote:

The only thing the text says is about "likeness". Yet your conclusion is that there is a difference.

Because if there were no difference, Tertullian wouldn't have much to write about, would he?

And for that matter, very assertion of similarity implies a difference, unless it is an assertion of identity.

(Preferably it would be nice to consult a different translation--this one's a little archaic.)

GakuseiDon · 04-20-2004, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

In fact, reading it over again carefully, it seems to me that he's actually refering to what he just said--that is, the lengthy discourse on the nature of God and the descent of the Spirit and Christ. That's the "fable".

I think you may be right. The sense is "receive this, while I present my proofs". I took your idea of looking for other translations, and I found 4 other translations here (the latest one is nearly 90 years old!):

Quote:

This ray, therefore, of God, as was always foretold15 in the past, coming down into a certain virgin and being formed into flesh in her womb, is born man mixed with God. The flesh having been informed with breath is nourished, grows up, speaks, teaches, works, and is Christ. Meantime accept this story, which is like your own, while I show how he is proved to be Christ and who they are among you who have previously supplied hostile tales of that kind to destroy a truth of this kind. The Jews too knew that Christ was to come, seeing that it was to them that the prophets used to speak. For even now they are looking out for his arrival, nor is there any greater cause of disagreement between us and them than the fact that they do not believe that he has already come.

Quote:

That Ray of |70 God, therefore, as was ever foretold in times past 65, descending into a certain Virgin, and becoming Flesh in her womb, is born Man united with God. His Flesh informed with the Divine Nature is nourished, groweth up, speaketh, teacheth, worketh, and is CHRIST.

Receive this story for the time being (it resembles your own), whilst we shew how Christ is approved. Those who supplied you beforehand with rival stories resembling the truth in order to destroy it, were aware of what was to come to pass. The Jews also knew that Christ was to come, because the prophets used to speak of it to them. And even now they look for His Advent; nor is there any other contention between them and us greater than this, because they do not believe that He has already come.

Quote:

The flesh being wrought and perfected by a divine Spirit, was nursed and grew up to the stature of a man, and then addressed the Jews, and preached and worked miracles among them; and this is the Christ, the God of
Christians. If you please now you may receive this great truth in the nature of a fable like one of yours, till I have given you my proofs; though it is a truth that could not be unknown to those among you who maliciously dressed up their own inventions on purpose to destroy it. The Jews likewise full well knew from their prophets that Christ was to come, and they are now in expectation of Him ;

Quote:

That emanation, therefore, of the Divinity, as was always before predicted, being sent down upon a virgin, and in her womb made flesh, was born God united with man. His flesh, animated with the Spirit, was nourished, grew up, spake, taught, acted, and was Christ.

Ye can surely have no difficulty in receiving this, for a time, even as a fable, for it is like your own; while we show in what manner the true character of Christ is demonstrated. Those amongst you, who devised fables of a similar nature, for the destruction of the |291 truth, well knew this. The Jews also, to whom the prophets foretold that Christ should come, knew this. For even to this day they look for his coming

The one that says "Receive this great truth" seems at odds with the others. We really need someone with Latin skills to analyse that passage.

Also, what we need to know is, how did the pagan audience view their fables? Did they regard them as untruths? I can't imagine Tertullian saying "you don't believe that fables are true, so receive ours in the same way". He would be kicking an own goal there.

Attonitus · 04-20-2004, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

He could also have written "just like" or "identical to", but he didn't.

Tertullian uses the latin word "similis" and the precise translation is "similar", "likeness".

Regards,

rlogan · 04-20-2004, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

The argument should stand and fall on its own merits.

Agreed, and again two things:
1) All comments by me respectfully submitted
2) I admit a lack of sufficient breadth.

What I am struggling for is taking each piece without reading something into it.

Quote:

I assert he is implying a difference despite similarities.

I think I must feel the same way now as that rascally Spin. We can't read into the text something we want. I do believe we are at an impasse and give this example:

Tertullian:

Story X is like your fables.

my interpretation - story X is like your fables

your interpretation - story X is not like your fables.

Example of problemmatic approach:

Quote:

We can conclude that they are not "alike in every regard".

Nobody has said that. What foundation can possibly be built from this?

you need to establish that he says it is something else. He doesn't - as you admit.

Quote:

In fact, reading it over again carefully, it seems to me that he's actually refering to what he just said

Well I agree we can't quote mine. We have to take the whole thing.

When we ask what is the "Truth" - he's pretty clear in subsequent passages about that. That there is one God - above all these piddling angels, demons, and lesser gods.

He also uses fable in the context of the things said about the Christians - about drinking the blood of children and such.

Quote:

Those fables have been "set agoing" against the truth. Between Tertullian and the Greeks, guess which one he thinks has the truth?

So which fable is the truth, and which ones are "set agoing" the truth?

Some of the fables are the dirty stories told about the Christians. Some fables such as the greek gods he absolutely does not deny. He admits to all kinds of spiritual goblins. The truth he insists upon is who is the sovereign God. Please read the remainder of the piece. All the stuff about making the "gods" inside of people admit they are but lowly demons. Etc.

Quote:

The simple answer must be, that while there is indeed a resemblance, there is also a difference--one "fable" is the truth, while the others are not.

The simple fact is he never says this. That is my observation whereas your observation is that Tertullian is saying the Jesus story is true. Damn - he could have said that in one line!

Quote:

Therefore Tertullian must not himself be claiming that the Christian "fable" is indeed a fable.

*sigh* Still waiting for where tertullian says the Jesus story is historical fact.

Quote:

What if I said the American Revolution was like "Star Wars"?

One would say that you are being absurd. Please bring to my attention where anyone has actually done that as a general similarity. Not something stupid like both being conducted primarily in english.

Go for it. There must be a hundred reviews of the various star war movies out there, plus all kinds of discussion board threads.

Quote:

But he does say that it is the truth...

Cite.

GD - I appreciated the different translations. I need to absorb them before commenting...

GakuseiDon · 04-21-2004, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

*sigh* Still waiting for where tertullian says the Jesus story is historical fact.

He probably doesn't say it, as no-one ever questioned it. But we have lots of statements by him where he clearly (IMHO) discusses the Jesus story as historical. I've given you a couple of quotes already. They aren't hard to find. I'll give one more, and wish you luck:
The Prescription against heretics

Quote:

Christ Jesus our Lord (may He bear with me a moment in thus expressing myself!), whosoever He is, of what God soever He is the Son, of what substance soever He is man and God, of what faith soever He is the, teacher, of what reward soever He is the Promiser, did, whilst He lived on earth, Himself declare what He was, what He had been, what the Father's will was which He was administering, what the duty of man was which He was prescribing; (and this declaration He made,) either openly to the people, or privately to His disciples, of whom He had chosen the twelve chief ones to be at His side, and whom He destined to be the teachers of the nations. Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to "go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost." Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as "the sent." Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David, chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judaea, and rounding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner rounded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (rounded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring).

That's a pretty clear progression of Jesus to apostles to the churches.

Another statement from the same letter:

Quote:

There is, however, a certain man named Nigidius, and Hermogenes, and several others, who still pursue the course of perverting the ways of the Lord. Let them show me by what authority they come! If it be some other God they preach, how comes it that they employ the things and he writings and the names of that God against whom they preach? If it be the same God, why treat Him in some other way? Let them prove themselves to be new apostles! Let them maintain that Christ has come down a second time, taught in person a second time, has been twice crucified, twice dead, twice raised!

There's lots more on Paul and Peter, as well as John.

rlogan · 04-21-2004, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Also, what we need to know is, how did the pagan audience view their fables? Did they regard them as untruths? I can't imagine Tertullian saying "you don't believe that fables are true, so receive ours in the same way". He would be kicking an own goal there.

Now here is a profitable line of inquiry. Obviously, the greeks have a complete menu of gods. They move back and forth between their god-world and the human world. There are all kinds of absurd things going on with these gods.

There would have been a whole range of opinion about this, but where the typical greek stood I cannot say.

Tertullian says the Jesus story is similar. A "beam" of God shines on earth through this hot virgin and does these miracles, etc.

It is just like the greek stories.

That there is a straight line of transmission from his "greek god" jesus to the church he favors is a logical necessity.

What I get from the last citation you gave is this: We establish the apostolic succession as a means of discrediting any other challenge to authority.

I would say it has become more clear to me over the last few months that the Jesus on earth story is an absolute political necessity.

By what other means can they corral the other horses? There is no ancient scripture to constrain them. This is a new religion. They have no great temple or king to enforce discipline.

So we need this.

GakuseiDon · 04-23-2004, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Now here is a profitable line of inquiry. Obviously, the greeks have a complete menu of gods. They move back and forth between their god-world and the human world. There are all kinds of absurd things going on with these gods.

There would have been a whole range of opinion about this, but where the typical greek stood I cannot say.

Tertullian says the Jesus story is similar. A "beam" of God shines on earth through this hot virgin and does these miracles, etc.

It is just like the greek stories.

Yes, and Tertullian's points was that if the Greeks somehow believed in those stories, why not in the NT?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.