• has joined the group.
  • has joined the group.
  • Blessings to all! Ken, thanks for your posts .... will have to "study" and "digest" them .... Right now am meditating on the Lessons for Divine Service tomorrow! *smile*
    1. Chapter 4: Beginning then with that nativity you so strongly object to, orate, attack now, the nastinesses of genital elements in the womb, the filthy curdling of moisture and blood, and of the flesh to be for nine months nourished on that same mire. Draw a picture of the womb getting daily more unmanageable, heavy, self-concerned, safe not even in sleep, uncertain in the whims of dislikes and appetites. Next go all out against the modesty of the travailing woman, a modesty which at least because of danger ought to be respected and because of its nature is sacred. You shudder, of course, at the child passed out along with his afterbirth, and of course bedaubed with it. You think it shameful that he is straightened out with bandages, that he is licked into shape with applications of oil, that he is beguiled by coddling. Evans, E. (1956). Tertullian's Treatise on the Incarnation (13). SPCK.
      1. Else you must remove nativity and show me man, you must take away flesh and present to me him whom God has redeemed. If these are the constituents of man whom God has redeemed, who are you to make them a cause of shame to him who redeemed them, or to make them beneath his dignity, when he would not have redeemed them unless he had loved them? Nativity he reshapes from death by a heavenly regeneration, flesh he restores from every distress: leprous he cleanses it, blind he restores its sight, palsied he makes it whole again, devil-possessed he atones for it, dead he brings it again to life: is he ashamed to be born into it?
      2. If indeed it had been his will to come forth of a she-wolf or a sow or a cow, and, clothed with the body of a wild or a domestic animal, he were to preach the kingdom of heaven, your censorship I suppose would make for him a ruling that this is a disgrace to God, that this is beneath the dignity of the Son of God, and consequently that any man is a fool who so believes. A fool, yes certainly: let us judge God in accordance with our own sentiments. But look about you, Marcion, if indeed you have not deleted the passage: God hath chosen the foolish things of the world, that he may put to shame the things that are wise?
      3. What are these foolish things? The conversion of men to the worship of the true God, the rejection of error, instruction in righteousness, in chastity, in mercy, in patience, and in all manner of innocency? No, these are not foolish things. Inquire then to what things he did refer: and if you presume you have discovered them, can any of them be so foolish as belief in God who was born, born moreover of a virgin, born with a body of flesh, God who has wallowed through those reproaches of nature? Let someone say these are not foolish things: suppose it to be other things which God has chosen for opposition to the wisdom of the world—and yet, the professors of this world’s wisdom find it easier to believe that Jupiter became a bull or a swan than Marcion finds it to believe that Christ veritably became man. Evans, E. (1956). Tertullian's Treatise on the Incarnation (13–17). SPCK.
    2. I like the directness of Tertullian, even if he can get moralistic at times... "Those whose design it is so to disturb the faith of the resurrection as to deny that that hope extends even to the flesh—a faith which, until the emergence of these kinsmen of the Sadducces, had remained exempt from controversy—with good reason tear asunder with inquisitions Christ’s flesh as well as ours, alleging either that it existed not at all, or that in any case it was other than human: else, if it were admitted that it was human, this would constitute a leading case against them that flesh certainly does rise again, seeing it has risen again in Christ.
      1. This is the opening for two essays. The first is "On the Flesh of Christ". The second is "The resurrection of the dead." A short summary is a bit hard, but he wants to tell the story of Jesus in a way that touches and claims our human flesh. If interested, I can keep on posting some (IMHO) key sections...
      2. That would be great!
      3. Yes, Ken! Indeed that would be great! I seem to do more "receiving" than contributing; however, I'll do the best I can in future days. Tonight I'm already beginning to enjoy Carson who is "on pause" ... *smile* And have studied Psalm 110 and a couple of commentaries... here's a nice quote: "While Melchizedek could only suggest or represent endlessness, the Lord Jesus actually possesses it. His priesthood, in which he represents sinners before God, will continue for ever." Ellsworth, R. (2006). Opening up Psalms. Opening Up Commentary (190). Leominster: Day One Publications.
    3. Heb 7 I was listening to Carson today, preaching on Melchizedek. http://thegospelcoalition.org/resources/a/getting_excited_about_melchizedek I have always let one fact that he brought stay at the back of my mind without fully meditating on it: That Jesus, who is the line of a human priest (greater than the Levitical priesthood but human all the same) and yet without sin, is the greatest of human priests. One mediator between God and man, the Godman Himself. In a way, His priestly ministry is the greatest affirmation of His humanity just as His kingship affirms His deity!
      1. Thanks for the Link to Carson, Geo! *smile* Heading over there and to Psalm 110 later this evening! Appreciated!
    4. Happy St. Athanasius day, everyone
      1. Good timing I say!
      2. Thanks, Ken! I might have missed this except for your post! MAY 2 | COMMEMORATION ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA, PASTOR AND CONFESSOR Lutheran Service Book Three Year Lectionary. 2009. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
    5. While hardly an expert in this, I offer the following summary – at least until someone does better. As much as western culture still influences us, there have been dramatic shifts in how we think since then. Greek philosophy started because Athens was running into people who valued different things. What is true? What is good? What about all those other people who worship strange gods? Yesterday’s hero of Athens could be exiled or even killed like Socrates.
      1. The Platonic tradition explained this by saying that this world of change and decay is not ultimate reality. Instead what is really “real” is not the chaotic world we see with our eyes, but rather a world beyond that with perfect “forms”. Some of this is borrowed from the Pythagoreans. We all learned the Pythagorean Theorem in school. What triangle does it describe? All of them. And any triangle we see is an image of this ideal triangle. And so, if we quickly draw one and the lines aren’t quite straight, that means that the one we drew is less real than the triangle we see with our mind’s eye. For more information, read Plato’s allegory of the Cave… So where do these “forms” exist? From what I understand, Plato wasn’t quite specific on this, but later Platonists said that they exist in the Mind of the One (God). They are what organize the matter of this world, and give it meaning.
      2. And so the “divine” is changeless. So while the concept of “logos” as the organizing principle that God uses to organize is a quite useful term to describe Jesus, it caused difficulties with saying that the ultimate changeless God is somehow in a specific historical, tangible, observable person of Jesus. But this isn’t really just something about a “divine” nature, since the “form” for all natures exists in the mind of God, and so is eternal. So even “human nature” is something eternal – because it is a part of God. So change and decay are not really “natural” but are because of a lack of nature. Death is not "natural" in this world view, but is rather a denial of even our ultimate nature. So, yeah - the philosophical presuppositions are influencing his thinking...
    6. has joined the group.