Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

But of this I remind you, that Christ was not to be expected in the Gospel in any other wise than as He was promised before by the Creator, in the Scriptures of the Old Testament; especially as the things that were predicted of Him were fulfilled, and those things that were fulfilled had been predicted. As with reason I might truly and constantly say to that fanciful— I know not what— of those heretics who reject the authority of the Old Testament, as to a Christ feigned and coloured up from old wives' fables: Who are you? Whence are you? By whom are you sent? Wherefore have you now chosen to come? (quare nunc uenire uoluisti? = literally 'why at this particular time?') Why such as you are? Or how have you been able to come? Or wherefore have you not gone to your own, except that you have proved that you have none of your own, by coming to those of another? What have you to do with the Creator's world? What have you to do with the Creator's man? What have you to do with the image of a body from which you take away the hope of resurrection? Why do you come to another man's servant, and do you desire to solicit another man's son? Why do you strive to take me away from the Lord? Why do you compel me to blaspheme, and to be impious to my Father? Or what shall I gain from you in the resurrection, if I do not receive myself when I lose my body? If you wish to save, you should have made a man to whom to give salvation. If you desire to snatch from sin, you should have granted to me previously that I should not fall into sin. But what approbation of law do you carry about with you? What testimony of the prophetic word have you? Or what substantial good can I promise myself from you, when I see that you have come in a phantasm and not in a bodily substance? What, then, have you to do with the form of a body, if you hate a body? Nay, you will be refitted as to the hatred of bearing about the substance of a body, since you have been willing even to take up its form. For you ought to have hated the imitation of a body, if you hated the reality; because, if you are something else, you ought to have come as something else, lest you should be called the Son of the Creator if you had even the likeness of flesh and body. Assuredly, if you hated being born because you hated 'the Creator's marriage-union,' you ought to refuse even the likeness of a man who is born by the 'marriage of the Creator.'

Neither, therefore, do we acknowledge that that is a Christ of the heretics who was— as it is said— in appearance and not in reality; for of those things which he did, he could have done nothing real, if he himself was a phantasm, and not reality. Nor him who wore nothing of our body in himself, seeing he received nothing from Mary; neither did he come to us, since he appeared as a vision, not in our substance. Nor do we acknowledge that to be Christ who chose an ethereal or starry flesh, as some heretics have pretended. Nor can we perceive any salvation of ours in him, if in him we do not even recognise the substance of our body; nor, in short, any other who may have worn any other kind of fabulous body of heretical device. For all such fables as these are confuted as well by the nativity as by the death itself of our Lord. For John says: The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; so that, reasonably, our body should be in Him, because indeed the Word took on Him our flesh. And for this reason blood flowed forth from His hands and feet, and from His very side, so that He might be proved to be a sharer in our body by dying according to the laws of our dissolution. And that He was raised again in the same bodily substance in which He died, is proved by the wounds of that very body, and thus He showed the laws of our resurrection in His flesh, in that He restored the same body in His resurrection which He had from us. For a law of resurrection is established, in that Christ is raised up in the substance of the body as an example for the rest; because, when it is written that flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of God, it is not the substance of the flesh that is condemned, which was built up by the divine hands that it should not perish, but only the guilt of the flesh is rightly rebuked, which by the voluntary daring of man rebelled against the claims of divine law. Because in baptism and in the dissolution of death the flesh is raised up and returns to salvation, by being recalled to the condition of innocency when the mortality of guilt is put away.

Whence, too, does John (Ioannes) come upon the scene? Christ, suddenly; and just as suddenly, John (Ioannes)! After this fashion occur all things in Marcion's system. They have their own special and plenary course in the Creator's dispensation. Of John (Ioannes), however, what else I have to say will be found in another passage. To the several points which now come before us an answer must be given. This, then, I will take care to do ----demonstrate that, reciprocally, John (Ioannem) is suitable to Christ, and Christ to John ( Ioanni), the latter, of course, as a prophet of the Creator, just as the former is the Creator's Christ; and so the heretic may blush at frustrating, to his own frustration, the mission of John (Ioannis ordinem frustra frustratus).

And this, they claim, is what the Lord said of John, 'What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A reed shaken with the wind?'30 John was not perfect, they say; he was inspired by many spirits, like a reed stirring in every wind.

6:4 And when the spirit of the archon came he would preach Judaism; but when the Holy Spirit came he would speak of Christ. And this is the meaning of 'He that is least in the Kingdom'31 and so on. 'He said this of us,' they say, 'because the least of us is greater than he.'

Since the Saviour did say, 'Among them that are born of woman there is none greater than John' as a safeguard for us, lest any think that John was greater than even the Saviour himself—who was also born of woman, of the ever-virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit—he said that he who is 'less' than John, meaning in the length of his incarnate life, is greater in the kingdom of heaven.

7:6 For since the Saviour was born six months after the birth of John, it is plain that he appeared younger than he—though he was older than John, for he was always, and is. But to whom is this not plain? So all the things they say are worthless fabrication, good things turned into bad.

Secret Alias wrote:It is also important to note that if this is the first time that John is mentioned in the gospel you have to consider that there is no mention preceding it regarding the immediate death of John. John is dead - it could have been a century ago or yesterday -