Stephan Huller's recent interview by Jacob Berman

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Stephan Huller's recent interview by Jacob Berman

Post by Secret Alias »

Unfortunately, your argument is a non sequitur, that is, there is no connection to what Tertullian said about Marcion's anti-christ being derived from Jacob wrestling with an angel.
Well my argument is not a non sequitur. I am assuming that like most people that don't like one another Tertullian isn't helping his opponent's argument (he's not providing context or COMPLETE context). Let's suppose for another example that you have a sick mother in the hospital just for arguments sake. And only one of her children comes to visit her and takes off time from work and goes to live in her mother's house and basically gives up her job to take care of her mom even though she lives in another country and a city 3000 miles away and - again theoretically - her two brothers and two sisters who live at most 1 hour 30 minutes and in most cases 10 minutes, 20 minutes and again 40 minutes respectively basically don't come to take care of their mother. Again all theoretically. If you asked the two brothers and two sisters who don't care for the mother THEY ALL WOULD HAVE JUSTIFICATIONS. It wouldn't be one version of one truth. It would be like this reason that reason that reason and that reason. This is how human beings are. Everyone has THEIR VERSION of the truth which they think is THE RIGHT VERSION OF TRUTH.

The same is true for Tertullian and Marcion. It's only because you subscribe to a myth that Tertullian had the holy spirit or was a 'good and fair guy' that WHAT TERTULLIAN SAYS ABOUT MARCION is just repeated verbatim as 'facts about Marcion.' But this is ridiculous. Families don't always behave like that let alone people who detest one another and want each other dead. Tertullian isn't going to give us the verbatim truth - THE COMPLETE ENCYCLOPEDIAC REFERENCE for why Marcion thinks his god is a phantasma. But when you start to see Tertullian reference Marcion's interest in angels and references to the angels that ate with Abraham it becomes apparent that THESE EXAMPLES HAD RELEVANCE FOR MARCION otherwise Tertullian wouldn't have to bring them up. Indeed I am about to show in other works how Marcion did in fact use the example of the 'men' or 'Man' who visited and dined Abraham. In other words Tertullian is only telling us HALF-THE TRUTH here.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Stephan Huller's recent interview by Jacob Berman

Post by John T »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:53 am Indeed I am about to show in other works how Marcion did in fact use the example of the 'men' or 'Man' who visited and dined Abraham. In other words Tertullian is only telling us HALF-THE TRUTH here.
Please do. While your at it, how about providing a link to the works of Marcion. I don't want to put words into his mouth nor should you. :popcorn:
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Stephan Huller's recent interview by Jacob Berman

Post by MrMacSon »

John T wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:09 am Please cite your Greek source for "phantasm".



John T wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:09 am Also, please provided the Hebrew word for phantasm
  • Why??



Regarding
John T wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:14 am
John T wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:09 am
αἰσθόμενος γὰρ ἄγγελον εἶναι θεοῦ
struggled with an angel of God.

The angel appeared (phantasia) in the form of a man. The name Israel is understood in the Hebrew tongue to signify "one that struggled with the divine angel."...Whiston

  • Where's this Greek from?
  • Where's the Whiston from? Antiquites 20.331-334 / 20.2 ??
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Stephan Huller's recent interview by Jacob Berman

Post by Secret Alias »

Tertullian De resurrectione carnis

Ideoque et Christum aliter disponere coacti, ne creatoris habeatur, in ipsa prius carne eius erraverunt, aut nullius veritatis contendentes eam secundum Marcionem et Basiliden, aut propriae qualitatis secundum heredes Valentini et Apellen. [4]Atque ita sequitur ut salutem eius substantiae excludant cuius Christum consortem negant, certi illam summo praeiudicio resurrectionis instructam si iam in Christo resurrexerit caro. [5] Propterea et nos volumen praemisimus de carne Christi, quo eam et solidam probamus adversum phantasmatis vanitatem et humanam vindicamus adversus qualitatis proprietatem, cuius condicio Christum et hominem et filium hominis inscripserit. [6] Carneum enim atque corporeum probantes eum, proinde et obducimus praescribendo nullum alium credendum deum praeter creatorem, dum talem ostendimus Christum in quo dinoscitur deus, qualis promittitur a creatore. Obducti dehinc de deo carnis auctore et de Christo carnis redemptore, iam et de resurrectione carnis revincentur, congruente scilicet et deo carnis auctori et Christo carnis redemptori.

Adversus Praxean

Vidimus et audivimus et contrectavimus de sermone vitae, praedictum est. sed quem deum? 25 scilicet patrem, apud quem deus erat sermo unigenitus filius, qui sinum patris ipse disseruit. [7] ipse et auditus et visus, et ne phantasma crederetur etiam contrectatus. hunc et Paulus conspexit, nec tamen patrem vidit : Nonne, inquit, vidi Iesum? Christum autem et ipse deum cognominavit : Quorum patres, et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia deus, benedictus in aevum. ostendit et ipse visibilem dei filium, id est sermonem dei, quia qui caro factus est Christus dictus est.

De Anima 17.5

Non licet, non licet nobis in dubium sensus istos deuocare, ne et in Christo de fide eorum deliberetur, ne forte dicatur quod falso satanan prospectarit de caelo praecipitatum aut falso uocem patris audierit de ipso testificatam aut deceptus sit, cum Petri socrum tetigit, aut alium postea unguenti senserit spiritum, quod in sepulturam suam acceptauit, alium postea uini saporem, quod in sanguinis sui memoriam consecrauit. [14] Sic enim et Marcion phantasma eum maluit credere, totius corporis in illo dedignatus ueritatem. Atquin ne in apostolis quidem eius ludificata natura est; fidelis fuit et uisus et auditus in monte, fidelis et gustus uini illius, licet aquae ante, in nuptiis Galilaeae, fidelis et tactus exinde creduli Thomae. Recita Johannis testationem: quod uidimus, inquit, quod audiuimus, oculis nostris uidimus, et manus nostrae contrectauerunt de sermone uitae. Falsa utique testatio, si oculorum et aurium et manuum sensus natura mentitur.

De Carne Christi 1

Marcion ut carnem Christi negaret negavit etiam nativitatem, aut ut nativitatem negaret negavit et carnem, scilicet ne invicem sibi testimonium responderent nativitas et caro, quia nec nativitas sine carne nec caro sine nativitate: [ quasi non eadem licentia haeretica et ipse potuisset aut admissa carne nativitatem negare ut Apelles discipulus et postea desertor ipsius, aut et carnem et nativitatem confessus aliter illas interpretari ut condiscipulus et condesertor eius Valentinus. [4] sed et, qui carnem Christi putativam introduxit, aeque potuit nativitatem quoque phantasma confingere, ut et conceptus et praegnatus et partus virginis, et ipsius exinde infantis ordo, tw~| dokei=n haberentur: eosdem oculos eosdemque sensus fefellissent quos carnis opinio elusit.

3

alioquin par erit eorum quae conversa amittunt quod fuerunt, quorum utique deus in omnibus par non est: sic nec in exitu conversionis. angelos creatoris conversos in effigiem humanam aliquando legisti et credidisti, et tantam corporis gestasse veritatem ut et pedes eis laverit Abraham et manibus ipsorum ereptus sit Sodomitis Loth, conluctatus quoque homini angelus toto corporis pondere dimitti desideraverit, adeo detinebatur. [7] quod ergo angelis inferioris dei licuit conversis in corpulentiam humanam, ut angeli nihilominus permanerent, hoc tu potentiori deo auferes, quasi non valuerit Christus eius vere hominem indutus deus perseverare? aut numquid et angeli illi phantasma carnis apparuerunt? sed non audebis hoc dicere: nam si sic apud te angeli creatoris sicut et Christus, eius dei erit Christus cuius angeli tales qualis et Christus. [8] si scripturas opinioni tuae resistentes non de industria alias reiecisses alias corrupisses, confudisset te in hac specie evangelium Iohannis praedicans spiritum columbae corpore lapsum desedisse super dominum. qui spiritus cum [hoc] esset, tam vere erat et columba quam et spiritus, nec interfecerat substantiam propriam assumpta substantia extranea. [9] sed quaeris corpus columbae ubi sit, resumpto spiritu in caelum. aeque et angelorum, eadem ratione interceptum est qua et editum fuerat. si vidisses cum de nihilo proferebatur, scisses et cum in nihilum subducebatur. si non fuit initium visibile, nec fmis. tamen corporis soliditas erat quoquo momento corpus videbatur: non potest non fuisse quod scriptum est.

4, 5

dicat haec aliquis stulta non esse, et alia sint quae deus in aemulationem elegerit sapientiae saecularis: et tamen apud illam facilius creditur Iuppiter taurus factus aut cycnus, quam vere homo Christus penes Marcionem. V. [1] Sunt plane et alia tam stulta, quae pertinent ad contumelias et passiones dei: aut prudentiam dicant deum crucifixum. aufer hoc quoque, Marcion, immo hoc potius. quid enim indignius deo, quid magis erubescendum, nasci an mori, carnem gestare an crucem, circumcidi an suffigi, educari an sepeliri, in praesepe deponi an in monimento recondi? sapientior eris si nec ista credideris. sed non eris sapiens nisi stultus in saeculo fueris, dei stulta credendo. [2] an ideo passiones a Christo non rescidisti quia ut phantasma vacabat a sensu earum? diximus retro aeque illum et nativitatis et infantiae imaginariae vacua ludibria subire potuisse. sed iam hic responde, interfector veritatis: nonne vere crucifixus est deus? nonne vere mortuus est ut vere crucifixus? nonne vere resuscitatus ut vere scilicet mortuus? [3] falso statuit inter nos scire Paulus tantum Iesum crucifixum, falso sepultum ingessit, falso resuscitatum inculcavit? falsa est igitur et fides nostra, et phantasma erit totum quod speramus a Christo, scelestissime hominum, qui interemptores excusas dei: nihil enim ab eis passus est Christus, si nihil vere est passus. parce unicae spei totius orbis: quid destruis necessarium dedecus fidei?
Last edited by Secret Alias on Mon Aug 08, 2022 12:23 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Stephan Huller's recent interview by Jacob Berman

Post by Ken Olson »

The Perseus site has put the Greek text of Josephus Antiquities from Niese's critical edition (Flavii Iosephi opera. B. Niese. Berlin. Weidmann. 1892) online. The relevant passage from Antiquities Book I is (highlighting mine):

[331]Ταῦτα συνθεὶς διὰ πάσης τῆς ἡμέρας νυκτὸς ἐπιγενομένης ἐκίνει τοὺς σὺν αὑτῷ: καὶ χειμάρρουν τινὰ Ἰάβακχον λεγόμενον διαβεβηκότων Ἰάκωβος ὑπολελειμμένος φαντάσματι συντυχὼν διεπάλαιεν ἐκείνου προκατάρχοντος τῆς μάχης ἐκράτει τε τοῦ φαντάσματος, [332] ὃ δὴ καὶ φωνῇ χρῆται καὶ λόγοις πρὸς αὐτὸν χαίρειν τε τοῖς γεγενημένοις παραινοῦν καὶ μὴ μικρὸν κρατεῖν ὑπολαμβάνειν, ἀλλὰ θεῖον ἄγγελον νενικηκέναι καὶ σημεῖον ἡγεῖσθαι τοῦτο μεγάλων ἀγαθῶν ἐσομένων καὶ τοῦ μηδέποτε τὸ γένος ἐκλείψειν αὐτοῦ, μηδὲ ὑπέρτερον ἀνθρώπων τινὰ τῆς ἰσχύος ἔσεσθαι τῆς ἐκείνου. [333] ἐκέλευσέ τε καλεῖν αὐτὸν Ἰσραῆλον, σημαίνει δὲ τοῦτο κατὰ τὴν Ἑβραίων γλῶτταν τὸν ἀντιστάτην ἀγγέλῳ θεοῦ. ταῦτα μέντοι προύλεγεν Ἰακώβου δεηθέντος: αἰσθόμενος γὰρ ἄγγελον εἶναι θεοῦ, τίνα μοῖραν ἕξει σημαίνειν παρεκάλει. καὶ τὸ μὲν φάντασμα ταῦτ᾽ εἰπὸν ἀφανὲς γίνεται. [334] ἡσθεὶς δὲ τούτοις Ἰάκωβος Φανουῆλον ὀνομάζει τὸν τόπον, ὃ σημαίνει θεοῦ πρόσωπον. καὶ γενομένου διὰ τὴν μάχην ἀλγήματος αὐτῷ περὶ τὸ νεῦρον τὸ πλατὺ αὐτός τε ἀπέχεται τῆς τούτου βρώσεως καὶ δι᾽ ἐκεῖνον οὐδὲ ἡμῖν ἐστιν ἐδώδιμον.
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... apter%3D20

We can compare Patrick Rogers' English translation of the passage (which he says is an updated alternative to Whiston):

331 After spending the day arranging this he moved on with his group at nightfall, and when they had crossed over a river called the Jabacchos, Jacob stayed behind and met with an apparition, who began wrestling with him, but he defeated the apparition. 332 Then it raised its voice and spoke to him words of greeting, encourging him by the event and saying that his victory was a significant one, for he had overcome a divine messenger and should see it as a sign of great future blessings, and that his descendants would never fail and that nobody would excel him in power. 333 He told him to take the name Israel, which in the Hebrew tongue means one who struggled with an angel of God. He foretold these things at Jacob's request, for recognising him as an angel of God, he asked him to indicate what would happen to him later. After saying this to him, the apparition disappeared. 334 Delighted, Jacob named the place Phanuel, which means, the face of God. Since after the fight he felt pain around his broad sinew, he abstained later from eating that joint as food, and for his sake it is still not eaten by us.
http://www.biblical.ie/page.php?fl=jose ... /AJGk01#20

To William Whiston's 1737 translation:

[331] When Jacob had made these appointments all the day, and night came on, he moved on with his company; and, as they were gone over a certain river called Jabboc, Jacob was left behind; and meeting with an angel, he wrestled with him, the angel beginning the struggle: but he prevailed over the angel, who used a voice, and spake to him in words, exhorting him to be pleased with what had happened to him, and not to suppose that his victory was a small one, but that he had overcome a divine angel, and to esteem the victory as a sign of great blessings that should come to him, and that his offspring should never fall, and that no man should be too hard for his power. He also commanded him to be called Israel, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that struggled with the divine angel.2 These promises were made at the prayer of Jacob; for when he perceived him to be the angel of God, he desired he would signify to him what should befall him hereafter. And when the angel had said what is before related, he disappeared; but Jacob was pleased with these things, and named the place Phanuel, which signifies, the face of God. Now when he felt pain, by this struggling, upon his broad sinew, he abstained from eating that sinew himself afterward; and for his sake it is still not eaten by us.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... apter%3D20

The English words 'apparition' and 'phantasm' are both fairly literal translations of the Greek φαντάσμα (which is a noun, not a verb) whereas 'angel' is not at all literal and highly interpretive.

Best,

Ken

PS Thackeray, in his Loeb Classics translation of Antiquities 1.331, renders φαντάσμα with 'phantom' and 'spectre'.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Stephan Huller's recent interview by Jacob Berman

Post by Secret Alias »

Here is the most critical passage from De Carne Christi where it is clear that the rhetorical claim that Marcion 'must' have denied the example of ish in the Pentateuch is contradicted. Let me cite the passage in total:

[8] si virtutes non sine spiritu, perinde et passiones non sine carne: si caro cum passionibus ficta, et spiritus ergo cum virtutibus falsus. quid dimidias mendacio Christum? totus veritas fuit. [9] maluit, credo, nasci quam ex aliqua parte mentiri, et quidem in semetipsum, ut carnem gestaret sine ossibus duram, sine musculis solidam, sine sanguine cruentam, sine tunica vestitam, sine fame esurientem, sine dentibus edentem, sine lingua loquentem, ut phantasma auribus fuerit sermo eius per imaginem vocis. fuit itaque phantasma etiam post resurrectionem cum manus et pedes suos discipulis inspiciendos offert, Aspicite, dicens, quod ego sum, quia spiritus ossa non habet sicut me habentem videtis--[10] sine dubio manus et pedes et ossa quae spiritus non habet, sed caro. quomodo hanc vocem interpretaris, Marcion, qui a deo optimo et simplici et bono tantum infers Iesum? ecce fallit et decipit et circumvenit omnium oculos, omnium sensus, omnium accessus et contactus. ergo iam Christum non de caelo deferre debueras sed de aliquo circulatorio coetu, nec deum praeter hominem sed magum hominem, nec salutis pontificem sed spectaculi artificem, nec mortuorum resuscitatorem sed vivorum avocatorem: nisi quod et si magus fuit, natus est.

VI. [1] Sed quidam iam discentes Pontici illius, supra magistrum sapere compulsi, concedunt Christo carnis veritatem, sine praeiudicio tamen renuendae nativitatis: 'Habuerit, inquiunt, carnem, dum omnino non natam.' pervenimus igitur de calcaria quod dici solet in carbonariam, a Marcione ad Apellen, qui posteaquam a disciplina Marcionis in mulierem carne lapsus et dehinc in virginem Philumenen spiritu eversus est, solidum Christi corpus sed sine nativitate suscepit ab ea praedicare. [2] et angelo quidem illi Philumenes eadem voce apostolus respondebit qua ipsum illum iam tunc praecinebat dicens, Etiamsi angelus de caelis aliter evangelizaverit vobis quam nos evangelizavimus, anathema sit: his vero quae insuper argumentantur, nos resistemus. [3] confitentur vere corpus habuisse Christum. unde materia si non ex ea qualitate in qua videbatur? unde corpus si non caro corpus? unde caro si non nata? quia nasci haberet, ea futura quae nascitur. De sideribus, inquiunt, et de substantiis superioris mundi mutuatus est carnem: et utique proponunt non esse mirandum corpus sine nativitate, cum et apud nos angelis licuerit nulla uteri opera in carne processisse. [4] agnoscimus quidem ita relatum: sed tamen quale est ut alterius regulae fides ab ea fide quam impugnat instrumentum argumentationibus suis mutuetur? quid illi cum Moyse qui deum Moysi reicit? si alius deus est, aliter sint res eius. sed utantur haeretici omnes scripturis eius cuius utuntur etiam mundo--erit illis hoc quoque in testimonium iudicii quod de exemplis ipsius blasphemias suas instruunt--facile est veritati etiam nihil tale adversus eos praescribenti obtinere. [5] igitur qui carnem Christi ad exemplum proponunt angelorum, non natam dicentes licet carnem, comparent velim et causas tam Christi quam et angelorum ob quas in carne processerint. nullus unquam angelus ideo descendit ut crucifigeretur, ut mortem experiretur, ut a morte suscitaretur. si nunquam eiusmodi fuit causa angelorum corporandorum, habes causam cur non nascendo acceperint carnem: non venerant mori, ideo nec nasci. [6] at vero Christus mori missus nasci quoque necessario habuit ut mori posset. non enim mori solet nisi quod nascitur: mutuum debitum est nativitati cum mortalitate: forma moriendi causa nascendi est. [7] si propter id quod moritur mortuus est Christus, id autem moritur quod et nascitur, consequens erat, immo praecedens, ut aeque nasceretur propter id quod nascitur, quia propter id ipsum mori habebat quod quia nascitur moritur: non competebat non nasci pro quo mori competebat. atquin tunc quoque inter angelos illos ipse dominus apparuit Abrahae sine nativitate, cum carne scilicet, pro eadem causae diversitate: [8] sed vos hoc non recipitis, non eum Christum recipientes qui iam tunc et adloqui et liberare et iudicare humanum genus ediscebat in carnis habitu, non natae adhuc quia nondum moriturae nisi prius et nativitas eius et mortalitas annuntiarentur. igitur probent angelos illos carnem de sideribus concepisse: [9] si non
probant, quia nec scriptum est, nec Christi caro inde erit, cui angelorum accommodant exemplum. constat angelos carnem non propriam gestasse utpote natura substantiae spiritalis--etsi corporis alicuius, sui tamen generis--in carnem autem humanam transfigurabiles ad tempus videri et congredi cum hominibus posse. [10] igitur cum relatum non sit unde sumpserint carnem, relinquitur intellectui nostro non dubitare hoc esse proprium angelicae potestatis, ex nulla materia corpus sibi sumere. Quanto magis, inquis, ex aliqua. certum est: sed nihil de hoc constat, quia scriptura non exhibet. [11] ceterum qui valent facere semetipsos quod natura non sunt, cur non valeant ex nulla substantia facere?
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Stephan Huller's recent interview by Jacob Berman

Post by John T »

Ken Olson wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 12:15 pm The Perseus site has put the Greek text of Josephus Antiquities from Niese's critical edition (Flavii Iosephi opera. B. Niese. Berlin. Weidmann. 1892) online. The relevant passage from Antiquities Book I is (highlighting mine):

We can compare Patrick Rogers' English translation of the passage (which he says is an updated alternative to Whiston):

The English words 'apparition' and 'phantasm' are both fairly literal translations of the Greek φαντάσμα (which is a noun, not a verb) whereas 'angel' is not at all literal and highly interpretive.

Best,

Ken

PS Thackeray, in his Loeb Classics translation of Antiquities 1.331, renders φαντάσμα with 'phantom' and 'spectre'.
Once again, what Greek manuscript did Whiston use to translate compared to the other translators you mentioned? I have read the introduction in Whiston but do not see which Greek manuscript(s) he used.
Even so, your choice of Greek manuscript still says Jacob struggled with an angel who came in the appearance/apparition/phantom/specter of a man but it turns out he was really an angel of God. This implies it was a physical struggle with an angel not a mental,spiritual, or hologram image.


[333] ἐκέλευσέ τε καλεῖν αὐτὸν Ἰσραῆλον, σημαίνει δὲ τοῦτο κατὰ τὴν Ἑβραίων γλῶτταν τὸν ἀντιστάτην ἀγγέλῳ θεοῦ. ταῦτα μέντοι προύλεγεν Ἰακώβου δεηθέντος : αἰσθόμενος γὰρ ἄγγελον εἶναι θεοῦ, τίνα μοῖραν ἕξει σημαίνειν παρεκάλει. καὶ τὸ μὲν φάντασμα ταῦτ᾽ εἰπὸν ἀφανὲς γίνεται. [334] ἡσθεὶς δὲ τούτοις Ἰάκωβος Φανουῆλον ὀνομάζει τὸν τόπον, ὃ σημαίνει θεοῦ πρόσωπον. καὶ γενομένου διὰ τὴν μάχην ἀλγήματος αὐτῷ περὶ τὸ νεῦρον τὸ πλατὺ αὐτός τε ἀπέχεται τῆς τούτου βρώσεως καὶ δι᾽ ἐκεῖνον οὐδὲ ἡμῖν ἐστιν ἐδώδιμον.

333 He told him to take the name Israel, which in the Hebrew tongue means one who struggled with an angel of God. He foretold these things at Jacob's request, for recognizing him as an angel of God, he asked him to indicate what would happen to him later. After saying this to him, the apparition disappeared. 334 Delighted, Jacob named the place Phanuel, which means, the face of God. Since after the fight he felt pain around his broad sinew, he abstained later from eating that joint as food, and for his sake it is still not eaten by us.

Bold type, my emphasis.

John T
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Stephan Huller's recent interview by Jacob Berman

Post by Secret Alias »

Oh come on John T. This is just fucking stupid. There isn't a conspiracy at work. You're not this dense. Just move on.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Stephan Huller's recent interview by Jacob Berman

Post by John T »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 12:43 pm Oh come on John T. This is just fucking stupid. There isn't a conspiracy at work. You're not this dense. Just move on.
Just admit it. You have little to no supporting evidence. Your theory is no better or worse than crackpots like Richard Carrier and his mythicist cult members. I think if Marcion was alive today he would say; "Docetism is just a game of make believe based on the twisting of the meaning of words in the Bible. But to what end? You're not this dense. Just move on with your life."

"Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism?...For it is evident that those heretics lived not so long ago...and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the catholic church. They were in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus. However, because of their ever restless curiosity,...they were expelled more than once. In fact, Marcion was expelled with the two hundred sesterces that he had brought into the church. And, when banished at last to a permanent excommunication, these men scattered abroad the poison of their doctrines. It is true that, afterwards, Marcion professed repentance, and he agreed to the conditions granted to him. Those conditions were that he would receive reconciliation if he restored to the church all the others whom he had been training for perdition. However, he was prevented by death from doing this."... Tertullian (c. 197, W), 3.257

John T
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Stephan Huller's recent interview by Jacob Berman

Post by Secret Alias »

I am not understanding you. What Church Father doesn't think 'Jesus' dined with Abraham, was mistaken by Rebecca for her husband, wrestled with Jacob, met Joseph in a field, was seen by Moses in a burning bush, flew over the Sea drowning Pharaoh, was seen on the mountain (while another god was heard in heaven), was seen by Joshua before entering Jericho etc? What denomination of Hebrew didn't think that ish here was a second god of Israel or an angel?
Post Reply