What Tertullian Says About 'Jesus the Man' in Marcion

[stephan happy huller]

In order to get out of the way of Anonymous's voluminous output I will go through all of Tertullian's De Carne Christi with commentary at my blog. Part One:

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2014/ ... y-man.html

[arnoldo]

Crucifixus est dei filius; non pudet, quia pudendum est.
Et mortuus est dei filius; credibile prorsus est, quia ineptum est.
Et sepultus resurrexit; certum est, quia impossibile.

The Son of God was crucified: I am not ashamed--because it is shameful.
The Son of God died: it is immediately credible--because it is silly.
He was buried, and rose again: it is certain--because it is impossible. (Evans translation).

"The argument is whether or not it is real, or whether Christ was really just a phantasm. This latter view is justified by its author (Marcion) as being less impossible, dangerous or shameful. The context is not about 'reason', but 'wisdom', meaning worldly wisdom or convention, not logic. . . .

. . . Indeed the non-Christian holds views considerably less 'rational' to a modern perspective, than otherwise -- that Christ was some form of semi-physical ghost, not a man, although he looked like one. So no argument for whether or not the resurrection happened, per se, is to be expected. Still less is any discussion of the truth of the Christian religion part of this, except as regards the argument with Marcion." (Roger Pearse)

http://www.tertullian.org/works/de_carne_christi.htm

Do you agree with Roger's views on Marcion?

[stephan happy huller]

I will answer this in more detail later when I am not driving but there has to be a reason Tertullian (or his source) refuses to tell us what Marcion said about Jesus the Man. As I note, it is quite deliberate. Why? My guess is that it was quite sensible and "Biblical"