Neither do I
Commentary : both Mark and Luke say there is no marriage in heaven.
Luke says marriage is for mortals,, but for those whom God considered worthy to attain of that age ( that is resurrection in heaven) for those there is no marriage.
There is no need to replicate in heaven for they are no longer mortal
Mark denies the marriage in heaven while Marcion denies it in both earth and heaven.
The point of Paul (if we assume with Carrier that the bodies of the dead people are left on the earth and NOT rise) seems more Gnostic if one puts more emphasis on the verse 50.
The sense of both Paul and Marcion seems to be something as:
you do as you want, but what matters truely is that corruption cannot inherit incorruption.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe wrote:Mark denies the marriage in heaven while Marcion denies it in both earth and heaven.
The point of Paul (if we assume with Carrier that the bodies of the dead people are left on the earth and NOT rise) seems more Gnostic if one puts more emphasis on the verse 50.
The sense of both Paul and Marcion seems to be something as:
you do as you want, but what matters truely is that corruption cannot inherit incorruption.
We are mortal now , but we ' inherit ' immortality.
Giuseppe wrote:
See two evident contradictions of Luke (and, I would add, of Mark, too):
In a first moment Luke talks about two aeons and then he, surprisingly, talks about a single life ''encompassing past, present and future''.
In both Mcn and Luke only ''some of the scribes'' react positively. For Marcion this means that some scribes agree with Jesus AGAINST the sadducees. And this is expected because the sadducees are the polemical target of the Marcionite Jesus, in that episode.
Luke cannot explain why only ''some of the experts in the law'' react positively, and not also the sadducees.
Its too trusting of Tertullian to think that Marcion really had the scribes praising what Jesus said against the Sadducees. Since, obviously, if Jesus had said that each age has its own god, the scribes wouldn't praise that. The scribes praising the answer is Luke's invention, once he has changed the answer to support the Pharisaic version of the resurrection. Also, why would only Sadducees be targets of Marcion's polemic? That would only make sense if Pharisees didn't exist yet. If both Sadducees and Pharisees existed, then teaching two gods would make both of them polemical targets. Tertullian is not dealing straightforward with the text.
Giuseppe wrote:Put frankly, you are a fool Christian apologist if you thinks so.
But then you'd be ignoring the purpose for the long excursion 1 Cor 15 makes on the nature of the resurrection body. It presumes a debate on just what that resurrection body was. Non fare lo schemo e non confondere un prospettivo derivato da un analisi del testo con un prospettivo credente.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Even if Paul had done a long escursion of 1000 pages ''on the nature of the resurrection body'', it is sufficient the verse 50 alone to make my case.
And about the same ''long excursion'' : if the physical resurrection is meant, then why does Adam precede Jesus in sequence (in verse 45), when we assume that Christ is pre-existent to Adam per the Philippians Hymn?
The succession ''Adam first-->Jesus after'' is possible only if Paul was talking about the our future bodies: our risen body will be different from the our physical bodies, just as the risen body of Jesus is already different from the body of Adam (assumed by Jesus himself only to die on the cross).
The body ''made by the sperm of David''/''born by woman'' assumed by Jesus doesn't rise, even if Jesus rises.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
