The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman EmpireGlover, T. R. (Terrot Reaveley)
Religion
The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire
Glover, T. R. (Terrot Reaveley)
Christianity and other religions; Church history -- Primitive and early church, ca. 30-600; Rome -- Religion
The teaching of Jesus, to which Christians pointed, was after all a
mere medley of garbled quotations from Greek literature. Thus when
Jesus said that it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye
than for a rich man to go into the kingdom of God, he was merely
spoiling the Platonic saying that it is impossible for a man to be
exceedingly good and exceedingly rich at the same time.[62] The
kingdom of heaven itself comes from the "divinely spoken" words of
Plato; it is the "supercelestial region" of the _Phaedrus_.[63] Satan is
a parody of Heraclitus' conception of War.[64] The Christian
resurrection comes from metempsychosis.[65] The idea that "God will
descend, carrying fire (like a torturer in a law-court)" comes from
some confused notion of the teaching of the Greeks upon cycles and
periods and the final conflagration.[66] Plato has this advantage that
he never boasted and never said that God had "a son who descended and
talked with me."[67] The "son of God" itself was an expression
borrowed in their clumsy way by the Christians from the ancients who
conceived of the universe as God's offspring.[68]
[Sidenote: Resurrection]
Christians lay great stress on the immortality, "but it is silly of
them to suppose that when God--like a cook--brings the fire, the rest
of mankind will be roasted and they themselves will alone remain, not
merely the living, but even those who died long ago, rising from the
earth with the identical flesh they had before. Really it is the hope
of worms! For what soul of a man would any longer wish for a body that
{253} had rotted?"[69] The loathsomeness of the idea, he says, cannot
be expressed, and besides it is impossible. "They have nothing to
reply to this, so they fly to the absurdest refuge, and say that all is
possible with God. But God cannot do what is foul, and what is
contrary to nature he will not do. Though you in your vulgarity may
wish a loathsome thing, it does not follow that God can do it, nor that
you are right to believe at once that it will come to pass. For it is
not of superfluous desire and wandering disorder, but of true and just
nature that God is prince (_archegetes_). He could grant immortal life
of the soul; but 'corpses,' as Heraclitus says, 'are less useful than
dung.' The flesh is full of--what it is not beautiful even to
mention--and to make it immortal contrary to all reason (_paralogos_),
is what God neither will nor can do. For he is the reason of all
things that are, so that he cannot do anything contrary to reason or
contrary to himself."[70] And yet, says Celsus, "you hope you will see
God with the eyes of your body, and hear his voice with your ears, and
touch him with the hands of sense."[71] If they threaten the heathen
with eternal punishment, the exegetes, hierophants, and mystagogues of
the temples hurl back the same threat, and while words are equal, they
can show proofs in daemonic activities and oracles.[72] "With those
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account