Whatever attributes therefore you require as worthy of God, must be found in the Father, who is invisible and unapproachable, and placid, and the God of the philosophers; whereas those qualities which you censure as unworthy must be supposed to be in the Son . .Tertullian, Against Marcion 2:27, in ANF 3:319.
Where Christians differ is whether they think it was a good or bad thing. Your continued denial of Hellenic influence speaks more about your understanding of history. Tertullian beleived in modalism which has been declared heretical as well by "Orthodox" Christians.
What I find interesting is one of the main things "Orthodox" Christians really seem to agree on is that they all call each other heretics repeatedly.
Again later in your post you continue to quote those who used a philosophical concept such as "homouosis" which is not found in the Bible. (follow the previous link i posted w hile back for a textual comparison of Plato's and others ideas about one subtance compared to later post apostolic Chrisians who.. ahem.. borrowed them almost verbatim. I realize that "homousis" is found in your quotes when someone was trying to interpret what the Bible really means. You continue to claim homousis "one substance" is in the Bible shows how deeply seated Greek philosophy is in your interpetation of the Bible. If Jesus believed in "one substance" then why didn't he say it? If Jesus didn't say it then why are you insisting it is in there?
I think it is interesting that you insist Hellenization didn't happen then go on to provide Hellenic philospohy as evidenced by one substance.
Please give me your un-Hellenized interpretation of this scripture. "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God" (Acts 7:55-56).
What is most evident in our discussion is the web of intricate historicty and philosphy one must understand to make sense of what many Orthodox believe. I prefer the simple Gospel of Jesus that even a child can understand over the intellectual gymastics and debates that the philsophers have engaged in over the last 2 thousand years.
Anyway it's been fun on this thread. I think I have effetively made my point that Joseph Smith did restore what many early Christian Fathers beleived. If you want to call Justin Martyr a heretic for holding some of the same beliefs as Jospeh Smith fine. At least you haven't thrown around the label Satanist in your latest post to me. Which IMO, is a parralel to you violating Godwin's law (just substitute Satan for Nazi in the clause). Maybe I should be happy you have reverted to good old name calling of "heretic" as I am in good company with the early Christian Fathers.
Well its been fun on this thread but I think it's time to bow out. Last post is all yours.
#1 - Did he really? Let’s look at Tertullian ‘Against Marcion’ Book 2 Chapter 27 in complete context shall we?????
“And now, that I may briefly pass in review the other points which you have thus far been engaged in collecting, as mean, weak, and unworthy, for demolishing the Creator, I will propound them in a simple and definite statement: that God would have been unable to hold any intercourse with men, if He had not taken on Himself the emotions and affections of man, by means of which He could temper the strength of His majesty, which would no doubt have been incapable of endurance to the moderate capacity of man, by such a humiliation as was indeed degrading to Himself, but necessary for man, and such as on this very account became worthy of God, because nothing is so worthy of God as the salvation of man. If I were arguing with heathens, I should dwell more at length on this point; although with heretics too the discussion does not stand on very different grounds. Inasmuch as ye yourselves have now come to the belief that God moved about in the form and all other circumstances of man's nature, you will of course no longer require to be convinced that God conformed Himself to humanity, but feel yourselves bound by your own faith. For if the God (in whom ye believe,) even from His higher condition, prostrated the supreme dignity of His majesty to such a lowliness as to undergo death, even the death of the cross, why can you not suppose that some humiliations are becoming to our God also, only more tolerable than Jewish contumelies, and crosses, and sepulchres? Are these the humiliations which henceforth are to raise a prejudice against Christ (the subject as He is of human passions) being a partaker of that Godhead against which you make the participation in human qualities a reproach? Now we believe that Christ did ever act in the name of God the Father; that He actually from the beginning held intercourse with (men); actually communed with patriarchs and prophets; was the Son of the Creator; was His Word; whom God made His Son by emitting Him from His own self, and thenceforth set Him over every dispensation and (administration of) His will, making Him a little lower than the angels, as is written in David. In which lowering of His condition He received from the Father a dispensation in those very respects which you blame as human; from the very beginning learning, even then, (that state of a) man which He was destined in the end to become. It is He who descends, He who interrogates, He who demands, He who swears. With regard, however, to the Father, the very gospel which is common to us will testify that He was never visible, according to the word of Christ: "No man knoweth the Father, save the Son." For even in the Old Testament He had declared, "No man shall see me, and live." He means that the Father is invisible, in whose authority and in whose name was He God who appeared as the Son of God. But with us Christ is received in the person of Christ, because even in this manner is He our God. [Your quote mine begins here:]Whatever attributes therefore you require as worthy of God, must be found in the Father, who is invisible and unapproachable, and placid, and (so to speak) the God of the philosophers; whereas those qualities which you censure as unworthy must be supposed to be in the Son, who has been seen, and heard, and encountered, the Witness and Servant of the Father, uniting in Himself man and God,…”……Tertullian, a more complete quote, Against Marcion Book II, Chapter 27.
The whole of Tertullian’s 5 Books against Marcion is a refutation of Marcion’s heretical beliefs. In these works Tertullian contrasts His God and Marcion’s god and reinforces the Scriptural teaching of the Trinity and Marcion’s heresy. You really should read the entire 5 books before you start quote mining out and distorting what Tertullian was really saying here. And when you read the entire collection, not quote mined parts put out by Jeff Lindsay, Farms or FairLDS you understand your above quote is absurd.
Your continued denial of Hellenic influence speaks more about your understanding of history…
Let’s look at this deeper shall we?
You do realize Hellenism began before Christ when Alexander the Great conquered the Middle East. This influence occurred much earlier than Tertullian’s day, you do realize that don’t you????? Hint: Our New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew, or even Aramaic, GREEK.
However in spite of this influence, the historical and archaeological evidence show that both Judaism and early Christianity carefully guarded their religious views from the surrounding Hellenistic culture in which they lived. Example: The archaeological work of Eric Meyers on the city of Sepphoris in 1st century Upper Galilee reveals that the Jewish people maintained a strict observance of the Torah in spite of the Hellenistic culture that surrounded them. Archaeology again shows that early Christianity had a far more Jewish influence than a Hellenistic one. The essence of the Christian Gospel is the fulfillment of all the Old Testament covenantal promises fulfilled in a long-awaited Jewish Messiah. To suggest that New Testament Christianity was corrupted by later Hellenistic influences ignores the New Testament itself which clearly teach the triunity of God as I posted to you in my previous links. The LDS itself has been far more influenced by Hellenism with its pantheon of gods and polytheism than any of orthodox Christianity.
You continue to claim homousis "one substance" is in the Bible shows how deeply seated Greek philosophy is in your interpetation of the Bible.
And you continue to show your ignorance of New Testament Greek. Its not Greek philosophy that determines ‘the one substance’ issue: it’s the GREEK text! Look again:
In Hebrews 1:3 - Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person…. The Greek word translated ‘person’ in the above passage is ὑποστάσεως hupostaseōs. It figuratively means essence and may be translated essence or person. It however does LITERALLY mean SUBSTANCE. To say it does not mean the same as substance is a poor translation of the Greek text. The Greek word translated express is χαρακτὴρ charaktēr from charax or literally has the idea of an engraving, a stamped image, or exact representation. So, from the Greek construction the correct translation is χα.ρακ.τὴρ τῆς ὑ.πο.στά.σε.ως or charaktēr tēs hupostaseōs (literally: ‘the exact representation and substance’). For better understanding Hebrews 1:3 is literally ‘who being the brightness of His glory, and the exact representation of His (God’s) substance’. Hupostaseōs is actually translated into the English word ‘substance’ in Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen – so the Greek word hupostaseōs has been translated substance and does mean substance so you are wrong that the idea of substance comes from Greek philosophers. Completely bogus.
Another example: II Cor. 4:4 - In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
The Greek word translated image in the above verse is εἰκὼν eikōn – translation literally means ‘exact representation’. Again, the correct translation would be, ‘who is the exact representation of God’..
Another one:
Colossians Col. 1:19 - For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
The Greek word translated fulness is πλήρωμα plērōma, i.e, to be filled up, in the context of this passage it has the idea of to be filled up with God’s exact representation and substance. A correct rendering of that verse would literally be, ‘for it pleased the Father that in him should an exact representation and substance dwell’.
Yet another one:
Colossians 2:9 - For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
The Greek word dwelleth is κατοικεῖ katoikei, i.e, literally, to house permanently. Full phrase is: κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα katoikei pan to plērōma= literally ‘houses permanently all His [God’s] fullness’. Note again the word plērōma in the above passage. A correct interpretation would be, ‘for in him houses permanently an exact representation and substance of God’. Hardly Greek philosophy, its Greek TEXT, of which you’ve demonstrated you are ignorant.
Please give me your un-Hellenized interpretation of this scripture. "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God" (Acts 7:55-56).
How about just going to the text: ἑστῶτα ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ hestōta ek dexiōn tou theos which I’m sure is the phrase you are trying to zero in on. Literally: “Standing out of or from the right hand of God”. When Ek is used in conjunction with dexiōn it ALWAYS conveys the idea of ‘out of’ or ‘from’. Those darned Greek prepositions conjoined with adjectives, what a nuisance for you heretics. Again when you understand the Greek you understand this verse reinforces the triunity of God, it does not mean two separate individuals, rather 2 individuals of the same substance, EXACTLY as the other verses do. Hint: and its in the original language not from philosophy.
You should really concentrate more on the Greek texts rather than Joseph Smith’s Gaelic inscriptions that he tried to pass off as ‘Reformed Egyptian’. And you should also focus more on the evidences of Smith’s failed prophecies proving him to be what he was and is: A fraud. Deut. 18:22 is a HINT here. As to studying history, try studying the various Gnostic heresies which Smith copied from. Here’s a few: The heresies of: Valentinus; Apelles; Ebionaeaus; and Melchisedecians. They all taught many of the same things as the LDS currently does. (Hint: Melchisedecians taught the Melchisedek priesthood held power and was to be attained individually and was not solely found in Christ. Sound familiar?) Mormonism is nothing more than revised Gnosticism, an ancient heresy, of which Smith could freely draw from. Just so you know since you’re so interested in ‘history’.
***I think I have effetively made my point that Joseph Smith did restore what many early Christian Fathers beleived. If you want to call Justin Martyr a heretic for holding some of the same beliefs as Jospeh Smith fine. ***
The only point that you have effectively made is that the LDS has incorporated some of the earliest held heresies. I see little similarity between Justin Martyr and the LDS fables.