Home About Network of subjects Linked subjects heatmap Book indices included Search by subject Search by reference Browse subjects Browse texts

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database

validated results only / all results

and or

Filtering options: (leave empty for all results)
By author:     
By work:        
By subject:
By additional keyword:       

Results for
Please note: the results are produced through a computerized process which may frequently lead to errors, both in incorrect tagging and in other issues. Please use with caution.
Due to load times, full text fetching is currently attempted for validated results only.
Full texts for Hebrew Bible and rabbinic texts is kindly supplied by Sefaria; for Greek and Latin texts, by Perseus Scaife, for the Quran, by Tanzil.net

For a list of book indices included, see here.

39 results for "homonymy"
1. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 1.5 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 171
1.5. "עַל־כֵּן לֹא־יָקֻמוּ רְשָׁעִים בַּמִּשְׁפָּט וְחַטָּאִים בַּעֲדַת צַדִּיקִים׃", 1.5. "Therefore the wicked shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.",
2. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, None (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 61
3. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, 18.3-18.6 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 215
18.3. "וָאֵרֵד בֵּית הַיּוֹצֵר והנהו [וְהִנֵּה־] [הוּא] עֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה עַל־הָאָבְנָיִם׃", 18.4. "וְנִשְׁחַת הַכְּלִי אֲשֶׁר הוּא עֹשֶׂה בַּחֹמֶר בְּיַד הַיּוֹצֵר וְשָׁב וַיַּעֲשֵׂהוּ כְּלִי אַחֵר כַּאֲשֶׁר יָשַׁר בְּעֵינֵי הַיּוֹצֵר לַעֲשׂוֹת׃", 18.5. "וַיְהִי דְבַר־יְהוָה אֵלַי לֵאמוֹר׃", 18.6. "הֲכַיּוֹצֵר הַזֶּה לֹא־אוּכַל לַעֲשׂוֹת לָכֶם בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל נְאֻם־יְהוָה הִנֵּה כַחֹמֶר בְּיַד הַיּוֹצֵר כֵּן־אַתֶּם בְּיָדִי בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל׃", 18.3. "Then I went down to the potter’s house, and, behold, he was at his work on the wheels.", 18.4. "And whensoever the vessel that he made of the clay was marred in the hand of the potter, he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.", 18.5. "Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying:", 18.6. "’O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay in the potter’s hand, so are ye in My hand, O house of Israel.",
4. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, 37 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 75, 99
5. Anon., 1 Enoch, 103-104, 102 (3rd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 17
102. In those days when He hath brought a grievous fire upon you, Whither will ye flee, and where will ye find deliverance And when He launches forth His Word against you Will you not be affrighted and fear,And all the luminaries shall be affrighted with great fear, And all the earth shall be affrighted and tremble and be alarmed.,And all the angels shall execute their commandst And shall seek to hide themselves from the presence of the Great Glory, And the children of earth shall tremble and quake; And ye sinners shall be cursed for ever, And ye shall have no peace.,Fear ye not, ye souls of the righteous, And be hopeful ye that have died in righteousness.,And grieve not if your soul into Sheol has descended in grief, And that in your life your body fared not according to your goodness, But wait for the day of the judgement of sinners And for the day of cursing and chastisement.,And yet when ye die the sinners speak over you: ' As we die, so die the righteous, And what benefit do they reap for their deeds,Behold, even as we, so do they die in grief and darkness, And what have they more than we From henceforth we are equal.,And what will they receive and what will they see for ever Behold, they too have died, And henceforth for ever shall they see no light.,I tell you, ye sinners, ye are content to eat and drink, and rob and sin, and strip men naked, and,acquire wealth and see good days. Have ye seen the righteous how their end falls out, that no manner,of violence is found in them till their death ' Nevertheless they perished and became as though they had not been, and their spirits descended into Sheol in tribulation.
6. Septuagint, Wisdom of Solomon, 3.1-3.4 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 246
3.1. But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God,and no torment will ever touch them. 3.2. In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died,and their departure was thought to be an affliction, 3.3. and their going from us to be their destruction;but they are at peace." 3.4. For though in the sight of men they were punished,their hope is full of immortality.
7. Hebrew Bible, Daniel, 12.2-12.3 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 18
12.2. "וְרַבִּים מִיְּשֵׁנֵי אַדְמַת־עָפָר יָקִיצוּ אֵלֶּה לְחַיֵּי עוֹלָם וְאֵלֶּה לַחֲרָפוֹת לְדִרְאוֹן עוֹלָם׃", 12.3. "וְהַמַּשְׂכִּלִים יַזְהִרוּ כְּזֹהַר הָרָקִיעַ וּמַצְדִּיקֵי הָרַבִּים כַּכּוֹכָבִים לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד׃", 12.2. "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence.", 12.3. "And they that are wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn the many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.",
8. Anon., Jubilees, 23 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 17
9. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 18.14, 18.315 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 24
18.14. They also believe that souls have an immortal rigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again; 18.315. but they took this just punishment as an affront, and carried off all the weapons which were kept in that house, which were not a few, and went into a certain place where was a partition of the rivers, and was a place naturally very fit for the feeding of cattle, and for preserving such fruits as were usually laid up against winter. The poorest sort of the young men also resorted to them, whom they armed with the weapons they had gotten, and became their captains; and nothing hindered them from being their leaders into mischief;
10. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 2.163 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 24
2.163. and yet allow, that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although fate does cooperate in every action. They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies,—but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.
11. New Testament, 1 Corinthians, 15.22, 15.39-15.41, 15.51, 15.53-15.56 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 73, 75, 171, 250
15.22. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνήσκουσιν, οὕτως καὶ ἐν τῷ χριστῷ πάντες ζωοποιηθήσονται. 15.39. οὐ πᾶσα σὰρξ ἡ αὐτὴ σάρξ, ἀλλὰ ἄλλη μὲν ἀνθρώπων, ἄλλη δὲ σὰρξ κτηνῶν, ἄλλη δὲ σὰρξ πτηνῶν, ἄλλη δὲ ἰχθύων. 15.40. καὶ σώματα ἐπουράνια, καὶ σώματα ἐπίγεια· ἀλλὰ ἑτέρα μὲν ἡ τῶν ἐπουρανίων δόξα, ἑτέρα δὲ ἡ τῶν ἐπιγείων. 15.41. ἄλλη δόξα ἡλίου, καὶ ἄλλη δόξα σελήνης, καὶ ἄλλη δόξα ἀστέρων, ἀστὴρ γὰρ ἀστέρος διαφέρει ἐν δόξῃ. 15.51. ἰδοὺ μυστήριον ὑμῖν λέγω· πάντες οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα, 15.53. δεῖ γὰρ τὸ φθαρτὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσασθαι ἀφθαρσίαν καὶ τὸ θνητὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσασθαι ἀθανασίαν. 15.54. ὅταν δὲ τὸ θνητὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσηται [τὴν] ἀθανασίαν, τότε γενήσεται ὁ λόγος ὁ γεγραμμένος Κατεπόθη ὁ θάνατος εἰς νῖκος. 15.55. ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ νῖκος; ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ κέντρον; 15.56. τὸ δὲ κέντρον τοῦ θανάτου ἡ ἁμαρτία, ἡ δὲ δύναμις τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ νόμος· 15.22. For as inAdam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 15.39. All flesh is not the same flesh, butthere is one flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish,and another of birds. 15.40. There are also celestial bodies, andterrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial differs from that ofthe terrestrial. 15.41. There is one glory of the sun, another gloryof the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs fromanother star in glory. 15.51. Behold, I tell you a mystery. We will not all sleep, but wewill all be changed, 15.53. For thiscorruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put onimmortality. 15.54. But when this corruptible will have put onincorruption, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then whatis written will happen: "Death is swallowed up in victory." 15.55. "Death, where is your sting?Hades, where is your victory?" 15.56. The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
12. New Testament, Apocalypse, 12.1-12.6, 20.5-20.6 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 232, 246
12.1. Καὶ σημεῖον μέγα ὤφθη ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, γυνὴ περιβεβλημένη τὸν ἥλιον, καὶ ἡ σελήνη ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτῆς στέφανος ἀστέρων δώδεκα, καὶ ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα· 12.2. καὶκράζει ὠδίνουσα καὶ βασανιζομένη τεκεῖν. 12.3. καὶ ὤφθη ἄλλο σημεῖον ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἰδοὺ δράκων μέγας πυρρός, ἔχων κεφαλὰς ἑπτὰ καὶκέρατα δέκακαὶ ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτοῦ ἑπτὰ διαδήματα, 12.4. καὶ ἡ οὐρὰ αὐτοῦ σύρει τὸ τρίτοντῶν ἀστέρων τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἔβαλεναὐτοὺςεἰς τὴν γῆν.καὶ ὁ δράκων ἔστηκεν ἐνώπιον τῆς γυναικὸς τῆς μελλούσης τεκεῖν, ἵνα ὅταν τέκῃ τὸ τέκνον αὐτῆς καταφάγῃ· 12.5. καὶἔτεκενυἱόν,ἄρσεν,ὃς μέλλειποιμαίνεινπάντατὰ ἔθνη ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ·καὶ ἡρπάσθη τὸ τέκνον αὐτῆς πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ πρὸς τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ. 12.6. καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἔφυγεν εἰς τὴν ἔρημον, ὅπου ἔχει ἐκεῖ τόπον ἡτοιμασμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα ἐκεῖ τρέφωσιν αὐτὴν ἡμέρας χιλίας διακοσίας ἑξήκοντα. 20.5. οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη. 20.6. μακάριος καὶ ἅγιος ὁ ἔχων μέρος ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει τῇ πρώτῃ· ἐπὶ τούτων ὁ δεύτερος θάνατος οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν, ἀλλʼ ἔσονταιἱερεῖς τοῦ θεοῦκαὶ τοῦ χριστοῦ, καὶ βασιλεύσουσιν μετʼ αὐτοῦ [τὰ] χίλια ἔτη. 12.1. A great sign was seen in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 12.2. She was with child. She cried out, laboring and in pain, giving birth. 12.3. Another sign was seen in heaven. Behold, a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven crowns. 12.4. His tail drew one third of the stars of the sky, and threw them to the earth. The dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child. 12.5. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. Her child was caught up to God, and to his throne. 12.6. The woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that there they may nourish her one thousand two hundred sixty days. 20.5. The rest of the dead didn't live until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 20.6. Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over these, the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with him one thousand years.
13. New Testament, Colossians, 2.14, 3.1 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 184, 229, 246
2.14. ἐξαλείψας τὸ καθʼ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν, καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ· 3.1. Εἰ οὖν συνηγέρθητε τῷ χριστῷ, τὰ ἄνω ζητεῖτε, οὗ ὁ χριστός ἐστινἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ καθήμενος· 2.14. having wiped out the handwriting in ordices that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross; 3.1. If then you were raised together with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated on the right hand of God.
14. New Testament, Ephesians, 5.27 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 252
5.27. ἵνα παραστήσῃ αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ ἔνδοξον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, μὴ ἔχουσαν σπίλον ἢ ῥυτίδα ἤ τι τῶν τοιούτων, ἀλλʼ ἵνα ᾖ ἁγία καὶ ἄμωμος. 5.27. that he might present the assembly to himself gloriously, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
15. New Testament, Romans, 7.5, 7.14-7.18, 7.23-7.25, 8.7, 8.11, 13.14 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 91, 171, 230, 252
7.5. ὅτε γὰρ ἦμεν ἐν τῇ σαρκί, τὰ παθήματα τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τὰ διὰ τοῦ νόμου ἐνηργεῖτο ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ἡμῶν εἰς τὸ καρποφορῆσαι τῷ θανάτῳ· 7.14. οἴδαμεν γὰρ ὅτι ὁ νόμος πνευματικός ἐστιν· ἐγὼ δὲ σάρκινός εἰμι, πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν. 7.15. ὃ γὰρ κατεργάζομαι οὐ γινώσκω· οὐ γὰρ ὃ θέλω τοῦτο πράσσω, ἀλλʼ ὃ μισῶ τοῦτο ποιῶ. 7.16. εἰ δὲ ὃ οὐ θέλω τοῦτο ποιῶ, σύνφημι τῷ νόμῳ ὅτι καλός. 7.17. Νυνὶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγὼ κατεργάζομαι αὐτὸ ἀλλὰ ἡ ἐνοικοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία. 7.18. οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι οὐκ οἰκεῖ ἐν ἐμοί, τοῦτʼ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου, ἀγαθόν· τὸ γὰρ θέλειν παράκειταί μοι, τὸ δὲ κατεργάζεσθαι τὸ καλὸν οὔ· 7.23. βλέπω δὲ ἕτερον νόμον ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου ἀντιστρατευόμενον τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ νοός μου καὶ αἰχμαλωτίζοντά με [ἐν] τῷ νόμῳ τῆς ἁμαρτίας τῷ ὄντι ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου. 7.24. ταλαίπωρος ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπος· τίς με ῥύσεται ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ θανάτου τούτου; 7.25. χάρις [δὲ] τῷ θεῷ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. ἄρα οὖν αὐτὸς ἐγὼ τῷ μὲν νοῒ δουλεύω νόμῳ θεοῦ, τῇ δὲ σαρκὶ νόμῳ ἁμαρτίας. 8.7. διότι τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκὸς ἔχθρα εἰς θεόν, τῷ γὰρ νόμῳ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐχ ὑποτάσσεται, οὐδὲ γὰρ δύναται· 8.11. εἰ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἐγείραντος τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐκ νεκρῶν οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν, ὁ ἐγείρας ἐκ νεκρῶν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ζωοποιήσει [καὶ] τὰ θνητὰ σώματα ὑμῶν διὰ τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος αὐτοῦ πνεύματος ἐν ὑμῖν. 13.14. ἀλλὰ ἐνδύσασθε τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς πρόνοιαν μὴ ποιεῖσθε εἰς ἐπιθυμίας. 7.5. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were through the law, worked in our members to bring forth fruit to death. 7.14. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold under sin. 7.15. For I don't know what I am doing. For I don't practice what I desire to do; but what I hate, that I do. 7.16. But if what I don't desire, that I do, I consent to the law that it is good. 7.17. So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwells in me. 7.18. For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwells no good thing. For desire is present with me, but I don't find it doing that which is good. 7.23. but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members. 7.24. What a wretched man I am! Who will deliver me out of the body of this death? 7.25. I thank God through Jesus Christ, our Lord! So then with the mind, I myself serve God's law, but with the flesh, the sin's law. 8.7. because the mind of the flesh is hostile towards God; for it is not subject to God's law, neither indeed can it be. 8.11. But if the Spirit of him who raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised up Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. 13.14. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, for its lusts.
16. New Testament, 1 Peter, 1.15-1.16 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 129
1.15. ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸν καλέσαντα ὑμᾶς ἅγιον καὶ αὐτοὶ ἅγιοι ἐν πάσῃ ἀναστροφῇ γενήθητε, 1.16. διότι γέγραπται [ὅτι]Ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε, ὅτι ἐγὼ ἅγιος. 1.15. but just as he who called you is holy, you yourselves also be holy in all of your behavior; 1.16. because it is written, "You shall be holy; for I am holy."
17. Anon., Targum Neofiti, 47.4-47.8, 47.30-47.37 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 141
18. Irenaeus, Demonstration of The Apostolic Teaching, 15 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 61
19. Tertullian, Against Marcion, 1.2, 2.5-2.7, 2.9.2, 2.9.4-2.9.5, 3.24.6, 4.38, 5.10.13-5.10.14, 5.12.4 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 100, 110, 115, 126, 129
1.2. The heretic of Pontus introduces two Gods, like the twin Symplegades of his own shipwreck: One whom it was impossible to deny, i.e. our Creator; and one whom he will never be able to prove, i.e. his own god. The unhappy man gained the first idea of his conceit from the simple passage of our Lord's saying, which has reference to human beings and not divine ones, wherein He disposes of those examples of a good tree and a corrupt one; how that the good tree brings not forth corrupt fruit, neither the corrupt tree good fruit. Which means, that an honest mind and good faith cannot produce evil deeds, any more than an evil disposition can produce good deeds. Now (like many other persons now-a-days, especially those who have an heretical proclivity), while morbidly brooding over the question of the origin of evil, his perception became blunted by the very irregularity of his researches; and when he found the Creator declaring, I am He that creates evil, Isaiah 45:7 inasmuch as he had already concluded from other arguments, which are satisfactory to every perverted mind, that God is the author of evil, so he now applied to the Creator the figure of the corrupt tree bringing forth evil fruit, that is, moral evil, and then presumed that there ought to be another god, after the analogy of the good tree producing its good fruit. Accordingly, finding in Christ a different disposition, as it were - one of a simple and pure benevolence - differing from the Creator, he readily argued that in his Christ had been revealed a new and strange divinity; and then with a little leaven he leavened the whole lump of the faith, flavouring it with the acidity of his own heresy. He had, moreover, in one Cerdon an abettor of this blasphemy - a circumstance which made them the more readily think that they saw most clearly their two gods, blind though they were; for, in truth, they had not seen the one God with soundness of faith. To men of diseased vision even one lamp looks like many. One of his gods, therefore, whom he was obliged to acknowledge, he destroyed by defaming his attributes in the matter of evil; the other, whom he laboured so hard to devise, he constructed, laying his foundation in the principle of good. In what articles he arranged these natures, we show by our own refutations of them. 2.5. Now then, you dogs, whom the apostle puts outside, Revelation 22:15 and who yelp at the God of truth, let us come to your various questions. These are the bones of contention, which you are perpetually gnawing! If God is good, and prescient of the future, and able to avert evil, why did He permit man, the very image and likeness of Himself, and, by the origin of his soul, His own substance too, to be deceived by the devil, and fall from obedience of the law into death? For if He had been good, and so unwilling that such a catastrophe should happen, and prescient, so as not to be ignorant of what was to come to pass, and powerful enough to hinder its occurrence, that issue would never have come about, which should be impossible under these three conditions of the divine greatness. Since, however, it has occurred, the contrary proposition is most certainly true, that God must be deemed neither good, nor prescient, nor powerful. For as no such issue could have happened had God been such as He is reputed - good, and prescient, and mighty - so has this issue actually happened, because He is not such a God. In reply, we must first vindicate those attributes in the Creator which are called in question - namely, His goodness and foreknowledge, and power. But I shall not linger long over this point for Christ's own definition John 10:25 comes to our aid at once. From works must proofs be obtained. The Creator's works testify at once to His goodness, since they are good, as we have shown, and to His power, since they are mighty, and spring indeed out of nothing. And even if they were made out of some (previous) matter, as some will have it, they are even thus out of nothing, because they were not what they are. In short, both they are great because they are good; and God is likewise mighty, because all things are His own, whence He is almighty. But what shall I say of His prescience, which has for its witnesses as many prophets as it inspired? After all, what title to prescience do we look for in the Author of the universe, since it was by this very attribute that He foreknew all things when He appointed them their places, and appointed them their places when He foreknew them? There is sin itself. If He had not foreknown this, He would not have proclaimed a caution against it under the penalty of death. Now if there were in God such attributes as must have rendered it both impossible and improper for any evil to have happened to man, and yet evil did occur, let us consider man's condition also - whether it were not, in fact, rather the cause why that came to pass which could not have happened through God. I find, then, that man was by God constituted free, master of his own will and power; indicating the presence of God's image and likeness in him by nothing so well as by this constitution of his nature. For it was not by his face, and by the lineaments of his body, though they were so varied in his human nature, that he expressed his likeness to the form of God; but he showed his stamp in that essence which he derived from God Himself (that is, the spiritual, which answered to the form of God), and in the freedom and power of his will. This his state was confirmed even by the very law which God then imposed upon him. For a law would not be imposed upon one who had it not in his power to render that obedience which is due to law; nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will. So in the Creator's subsequent laws also you will find, when He sets before man good and evil, life and death, that the entire course of discipline is arranged in precepts by God's calling men from sin, and threatening and exhorting them; and this on no other ground than that man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance. 2.6. But although we shall be understood, from our argument, to be only so affirming man's unshackled power over his will, that what happens to him should be laid to his own charge, and not to God's, yet that you may not object, even now, that he ought not to have been so constituted, since his liberty and power of will might turn out to be injurious, I will first of all maintain that he was rightly so constituted, that I may with the greater confidence commend both his actual constitution, and the additional fact of its being worthy of the Divine Being; the cause which led to man's being created with such a constitution being shown to be the better one. Moreover, man thus constituted will be protected by both the goodness of God and by His purpose, both of which are always found in concert in our God. For His purpose is no purpose without goodness; nor is His goodness goodness without a purpose, except forsooth in the case of Marcion's god, who is purposelessly good, as we have shown. Well, then, it was proper that God should be known; it was no doubt a good and reasonable thing. Proper also was it that there should be something worthy of knowing God. What could be found so worthy as the image and likeness of God? This also was undoubtedly good and reasonable. Therefore it was proper that (he who is) the image and likeness of God should be formed with a free will and a mastery of himself; so that this very thing - namely, freedom of will and self-command - might be reckoned as the image and likeness of God in him. For this purpose such an essence was adapted to man as suited this character, even the afflatus of the Deity, Himself free and uncontrolled. But if you will take some other view of the case, how came it to pass that man, when in possession of the whole world, did not above all things reign in self-possession - a master over others, a slave to himself? The goodness of God, then, you can learn from His gracious gift to man, and His purpose from His disposal of all things. At present, let God's goodness alone occupy our attention, that which gave so large a gift to man, even the liberty of his will. God's purpose claims some other opportunity of treatment, offering as it does instruction of like import. Now, God alone is good by nature. For He, who has that which is without beginning, has it not by creation, but by nature. Man, however, who exists entirely by creation, having a beginning, along with that beginning obtained the form in which he exists; and thus he is not by nature disposed to good, but by creation, not having it as his own attribute to be good, because, (as we have said,) it is not by nature, but by creation, that he is disposed to good, according to the appointment of his good Creator, even the Author of all good. In order, therefore, that man might have a goodness of his own, bestowed on him by God, and there might be henceforth in man a property, and in a certain sense a natural attribute of goodness, there was assigned to him in the constitution of his nature, as a formal witness of the goodness which God bestowed upon him, freedom and power of the will, such as should cause good to be performed spontaneously by man, as a property of his own, on the ground that no less than this would be required in the matter of a goodness which was to be voluntarily exercised by him, that is to say, by the liberty of his will, without either favour or servility to the constitution of his nature, so that man should be good just up to this point, if he should display his goodness in accordance with his natural constitution indeed, but still as the result of his will, as a property of his nature; and, by a similar exercise of volition, should show himself to be too strong in defense against evil also (for even this God, of course, foresaw), being free, and master of himself; because, if he were wanting in this prerogative of self-mastery, so as to perform even good by necessity and not will, he would, in the helplessness of his servitude, become subject to the usurpation of evil, a slave as much to evil as to good. Entire freedom of will, therefore, was conferred upon him in both tendencies; so that, as master of himself, he might constantly encounter good by spontaneous observance of it, and evil by its spontaneous avoidance; because, were man even otherwise circumstanced, it was yet his bounden duty, in the judgment of God, to do justice according to the motions of his will regarded, of course, as free. But the reward neither of good nor of evil could be paid to the man who should be found to have been either good or evil through necessity and not choice. In this really lay the law which did not exclude, but rather prove, human liberty by a spontaneous rendering of obedience, or a spontaneous commission of iniquity; so patent was the liberty of man's will for either issue. Since, therefore, both the goodness and purpose of God are discovered in the gift to man of freedom in his will, it is not right, after ignoring the original definition of goodness and purpose which it was necessary to determine previous to any discussion of the subject, on subsequent facts to presume to say that God ought not in such a way to have formed man, because the issue was other than what was assumed to be proper for God. We ought rather, after duly considering that it behooved God so to create man, to leave this consideration unimpaired, and to survey the other aspects of the case. It is, no doubt, an easy process for persons who take offense at the fall of man, before they have looked into the facts of his creation, to impute the blame of what happened to the Creator, without any examination of His purpose. To conclude: the goodness of God, then fully considered from the beginning of His works, will be enough to convince us that nothing evil could possibly have come forth from God; and the liberty of man will, after a second thought, show us that it alone is chargeable with the fault which itself committed. 2.7. By such a conclusion all is reserved unimpaired to God; both His natural goodness, and the purposes of His goverce and foreknowledge, and the abundance of His power. You ought, however, to deduct from God's attributes both His supreme earnestness of purpose and most excellent truth in His whole creation, if you would cease to inquire whether anything could have happened against the will of God. For, while holding this earnestness and truth of the good God, which are indeed capable of proof from the rational creation, you will not wonder at the fact that God did not interfere to prevent the occurrence of what He wished not to happen, in order that He might keep from harm what He wished. For, since He had once for all allowed (and, as we have shown, worthily allowed) to man freedom of will and mastery of himself, surely He from His very authority in creation permitted these gifts to be enjoyed: to be enjoyed, too, so far as lay in Himself, according to His own character as God, that is, for good (for who would permit anything hostile to himself?); and, so far as lay in man, according to the impulses of his liberty (for who does not, when giving anything to any one to enjoy, accompany the gift with a permission to enjoy it with all his heart and will?). The necessary consequence, therefore, was, that God must separate from the liberty which He had once for all bestowed upon man (in other words, keep within Himself), both His foreknowledge and power, through which He might have prevented man's falling into danger when attempting wrongly to enjoy his liberty. Now, if He had interposed, He would have rescinded the liberty of man's will, which He had permitted with set purpose, and in goodness. But, suppose God had interposed; suppose Him to have abrogated man's liberty, by warning him from the tree, and keeping off the subtle serpent from his interview with the woman; would not Marcion then exclaim, What a frivolous, unstable, and faithless Lord, cancelling the gifts He had bestowed! Why did He allow any liberty of will, if He afterwards withdrew it? Why withdraw it after allowing it? Let Him choose where to brand Himself with error, either in His original constitution of man, or in His subsequent abrogation thereof! If He had checked (man's freedom), would He not then seem to have been rather deceived, through want of foresight into the future? But in giving it full scope, who would not say that He did so in ignorance of the issue of things? God, however, did foreknow that man would make a bad use of his created constitution; and yet what can be so worthy of God as His earnestness of purpose, and the truth of His created works, be they what they may? Man must see, if he failed to make the most of the good gift he had received, how that he was himself guilty in respect of the law which he did not choose to keep, and not that the Lawgiver was committing a fraud against His own law, by not permitting its injunctions to be fulfilled. Whenever you are inclined to indulge in such censure (and it is the most becoming for you) against the Creator, recall gently to your mind in His behalf His earnestness, and endurance, and truth, in having given completeness to His creatures both as rational and good. 4.38. Christ knew the baptism of John, whence it was. Luke 20:4 Then why did He ask them, as if He knew not? He knew that the Pharisees would not give Him an answer; then why did He ask in vain? Was it that He might judge them out of their own mouth, or their own heart? Suppose you refer these points to an excuse of the Creator, or to His comparison with Christ; then consider what would have happened if the Pharisees had replied to His question. Suppose their answer to have been, that John's baptism was of men, they would have been immediately stoned to death. Luke 20:6 Some Marcion, in rivalry to Marcion, would have stood up and said: O most excellent God; how different are his ways from the Creator's! Knowing that men would rush down headlong over it, He placed them actually on the very precipice. For thus do men treat of the Creator respecting His law of the tree. But John's baptism was from heaven. Why, therefore, asks Christ, did you not believe him? Luke 20:5 He therefore who had wished men to believe John, purposing to censure them because they had not believed him, belonged to Him whose sacrament John was administering. But, at any rate, when He actually met their refusal to say what they thought, with such reprisals as, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things, Luke 20:8 He returned evil for evil! Render unto C sar the things which be C sar's, and unto God the things which be God's. Luke 20:25 What will be the things which are God's? Such things as are like C sar's denarius- that is to say, His image and similitude. That, therefore, which he commands to be rendered unto God, the Creator, is man, who has been stamped with His image, likeness, name, and substance. Let Marcion's god look after his own mint. Christ bids the denarius of man's imprint to be rendered to His C sar, (His C sar I say,) not the C sar of a strange god. The truth, however, must be confessed, this god has not a denarius to call his own! In every question the just and proper rule is, that the meaning of the answer ought to be adapted to the proposed inquiry. But it is nothing short of madness to return an answer altogether different from the question submitted to you. God forbid, then, that we should expect from Christ conduct which would be unfit even to an ordinary man! The Sadducees, who said there was no resurrection, in a discussion on that subject, had proposed to the Lord a case of law touching a certain woman, who, in accordance with the legal prescription, had been married to seven brothers who had died one after the other. The question therefore was, to which husband must she be reckoned to belong in the resurrection? Luke 20:27-33 This, (observe,) was the gist of the inquiry, this was the sum and substance of the dispute. And to it Christ was obliged to return a direct answer. He had nobody to fear; that it should seem advisable for Him either to evade their questions, or to make them the occasion of indirectly mooting a subject which He was not in the habit of teaching publicly at any other time. He therefore gave His answer, that the children of this world marry. Luke 20:34 You see how pertinent it was to the case in point. Because the question concerned the next world, and He was going to declare that no one marries there, He opens the way by laying down the principles that here, where there is death, there is also marriage. But they whom God shall account worthy of the possession of that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; forasmuch as they cannot die any more, since they become equal to the angels, being made the children of God and of the resurrection. Luke 20:35-36 If, then, the meaning of the answer must not turn on any other point than on the proposed question, and since the question proposed is fully understood from this sense of the answer, then the Lord's reply admits of no other interpretation than that by which the question is clearly understood. You have both the time in which marriage is permitted, and the time in which it is said to be unsuitable, laid before you, not on their own account, but in consequence of an inquiry about the resurrection. You have likewise a confirmation of the resurrection itself, and the whole question which the Sadducees mooted, who asked no question about another god, nor inquired about the proper law of marriage. Now, if you make Christ answer questions which were not submitted to Him, you, in fact, represent Him as having been unable to solve the points on which He was really consulted, and entrapped of course by the cunning of the Sadducees. I shall now proceed, by way of supererogation, and after the rule (I have laid down about questions and answers), to deal with the arguments which have any consistency in them. They procured then a copy of the Scripture, and made short work with its text, by reading it thus: Those whom the god of that world shall account worthy. They add the phrase of that world to the word god, whereby they make another god the god of that world; whereas the passage ought to be read thus: Those whom God shall account worthy of the possession of that world (removing the distinguishing phrase of this world to the end of the clause, in other words, Those whom God shall account worthy of obtaining and rising to that world. For the question submitted to Christ had nothing to do with the god, but only with the state, of that world. It was: Whose wife should this woman be in that world after the resurrection? Luke 20:33 They thus subvert His answer respecting the essential question of marriage, and apply His words, The children of this world marry and are given in marriage, as if they referred to the Creator's men, and His permission to them to marry; while they themselves whom the god of that world - that is, the rival god - accounted worthy of the resurrection, do not marry even here, because they are not children of this world. But the fact is, that, having been consulted about marriage in that world, not in this present one, He had simply declared the non-existence of that to which the question related. They, indeed, who had caught the very force of His voice, and pronunciation, and expression, discovered no other sense than what had reference to the matter of the question. Accordingly, the Scribes exclaimed, Master, You have well said. Luke 20:39 For He had affirmed the resurrection, by describing the form thereof in opposition to the opinion of the Sadducees. Now, He did not reject the attestation of those who had assumed His answer to bear this meaning. If, however, the Scribes thought Christ was David's Son, whereas (David) himself calls Him Lord, Luke 20:41-44 what relation has this to Christ? David did not literally confute an error of the Scribes, yet David asserted the honour of Christ, when he more prominently affirmed that He was his Lord than his Son, - an attribute which was hardly suitable to the destroyer of the Creator. But how consistent is the interpretation on our side of the question! For He, who had been a little while ago invoked by the blind man as the Son of David, Luke 18:38 then made no remark on the subject, not having the Scribes in His presence; whereas He now purposely moots the point before them, and that of His own accord, Luke 20:41 in order that He might show Himself whom the blind man, following the doctrine of the Scribes, had simply declared to be the Son of David, to be also his Lord. He thus honoured the blind man's faith which had acknowledged His Sonship to David; but at the same time He struck a blow at the tradition of the Scribes, which prevented them from knowing that He was also (David's) Lord. Whatever had relation to the glory of the Creator's Christ, no other would thus guard and maintain but Himself the Creator's Christ.
20. Tertullian, On Baptism, 5.7 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 116
21. Tertullian, Apology, 48.7 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 116
48.7. in testimonium vobis.
22. Tertullian, On The Resurrection of The Flesh, 9.1, 36.5, 41.6, 42.1-42.3, 42.6-42.8, 42.11, 42.13, 47.15, 50.2, 50.4-50.6, 53.7, 53.18-53.19 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 110, 116, 126, 129
23. Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, 33, 7 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 100
24. Tertullian, On Monogamy, 5, 3 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 129
25. Tertullian, Exhortation To Chastity, 13 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 129
26. Irenaeus, Refutation of All Heresies, 1.6.1, 1.10.1, 1.23.5, 2.2.4, 2.9.1, 2.25.2, 2.26.1, 2.29.3, 2.30.2-2.30.3, 2.31.2, 2.33.5, 2.34.3, 3.11.8, 3.16.6, 3.19.1, 4.6.6, 4.8.2, 4.9.3, 4.11.4, 4.12.2, 4.13.3, 4.14.1, 4.15.2, 4.17.1, 4.18, 4.20.2, 4.20.5-4.20.7, 4.24.2, 4.33.8, 4.37.1, 4.37.7, 4.38.1, 4.38.4, 4.39.1, 4.39.3-4.39.4, 5.2.3, 5.4.1, 5.6.1, 5.7.1, 5.12.2, 5.13.3, 5.15.1, 5.31.1, 5.32.1-5.32.2, 5.33.3, 5.34.2, 5.35.1, 5.36.1-5.36.2 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 52, 61, 67, 73, 75, 83, 88, 91, 92, 93
4.18. Those born in Cancer are of the following description: size not large, hair like a dog, of a reddish color, small mouth, round head, pointed forehead, grey eyes, sufficiently beautiful, limbs somewhat varying. The same by nature are wicked, crafty, proficients in plans, insatiable, stingy, ungracious, illiberal, useless, forgetful; they neither restore what is another's, nor do they ask back what is their own; as regards friendship, useful.
27. Tertullian, On The Soul, 24.2 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 52, 100, 115
28. Origen, On First Principles, 2.3.2, 2.10.1 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 171
2.3.2. That it may appear more clearly, then, whether bodily matter can exist during intervals of time, and whether, as it did not exist before it was made, so it may again be resolved into non-existence, let us see, first of all, whether it is possible for any one to live without a body. For if one person can live without a body, all things also may dispense with them; seeing our former treatise has shown that all things tend towards one end. Now, if all things may exist without bodies, there will undoubtedly be no bodily substance, seeing there will be no use for it. But how shall we understand the words of the apostle in those passages, in which, discussing the resurrection of the dead, he says, This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. When this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying which is written, Death is swallowed up in victory! Where, O death, is your victory? O death, your sting has been swallowed up: the sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. Some such meaning, then, as this, seems to be suggested by the apostle. For can the expression which he employs, this corruptible, and this mortal, with the gesture, as it were, of one who touches or points out, apply to anything else than to bodily matter? This matter of the body, then, which is now corruptible shall put on incorruption when a perfect soul, and one furnished with the marks of incorruption, shall have begun to inhabit it. And do not be surprised if we speak of a perfect soul as the clothing of the body (which, on account of the Word of God and His wisdom, is now named incorruption), when Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Lord and Creator of the soul, is said to be the clothing of the saints, according to the language of the apostle, Put on the Lord Jesus Christ. As Christ, then, is the clothing of the soul, so for a kind of reason sufficiently intelligible is the soul said to be the clothing of the body, seeing it is an ornament to it, covering and concealing its mortal nature. The expression, then, This corruptible must put on incorruption, is as if the apostle had said, This corruptible nature of the body must receive the clothing of incorruption — a soul possessing in itself incorruptibility, because it has been clothed with Christ, who is the Wisdom and Word of God. But when this body, which at some future period we shall possess in a more glorious state, shall have become a partaker of life, it will then, in addition to being immortal, become also incorruptible. For whatever is mortal is necessarily also corruptible; but whatever is corruptible cannot also be said to be mortal. We say of a stone or a piece of wood that it is corruptible, but we do not say that it follows that it is also mortal. But as the body partakes of life, then because life may be, and is, separated from it, we consequently name it mortal, and according to another sense also we speak of it as corruptible. The holy apostle therefore, with remarkable insight, referring to the general first cause of bodily matter, of which (matter), whatever be the qualities with which it is endowed (now indeed carnal, but by and by more refined and pure, which are termed spiritual), the soul makes constant use, says, This corruptible must put on incorruption. And in the second place, looking to the special cause of the body, he says, This mortal must put on immortality. Now, what else will incorruption and immortality be, save the wisdom, and the word, and the righteousness of God, which mould, and clothe, and adorn the soul? And hence it happens that it is said, The corruptible will put on incorruption, and the mortal immortality. For although we may now make great proficiency, yet as we only know in part, and prophesy in part, and see through a glass, darkly, those very things which we seem to understand, this corruptible does not yet put on incorruption, nor is this mortal yet clothed with immorality; and as this training of ours in the body is protracted doubtless to a longer period, up to the time, viz., when those very bodies of ours with which we are enveloped may, on account of the word of God, and His wisdom and perfect righteousness, earn incorruptibility and immortality, therefore is it said, This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 2.10.1. But since the discourse has reminded us of the subjects of a future judgment and of retribution, and of the punishments of sinners, according to the threatenings of holy Scripture and the contents of the Church's teaching — viz., that when the time of judgment comes, everlasting fire, and outer darkness, and a prison, and a furnace, and other punishments of like nature, have been prepared for sinners — let us see what our opinions on these points ought to be. But that these subjects may be arrived at in proper order, it seems to me that we ought first to consider the nature of the resurrection, that we may know what that (body) is which shall come either to punishment, or to rest, or to happiness; which question in other treatises which we have composed regarding the resurrection we have discussed at greater length, and have shown what our opinions were regarding it. But now, also, for the sake of logical order in our treatise, there will be no absurdity in restating a few points from such works, especially since some take offense at the creed of the Church, as if our belief in the resurrection were foolish, and altogether devoid of sense; and these are principally heretics, who, I think, are to be answered in the following manner. If they also admit that there is a resurrection of the dead, let them answer us this, What is that which died? Was it not a body? It is of the body, then, that there will be a resurrection. Let them next tell us if they think that we are to make use of bodies or not. I think that when the Apostle Paul says, that it is sown a natural body, it will arise a spiritual body, they cannot deny that it is a body which arises, or that in the resurrection we are to make use of bodies. What then? If it is certain that we are to make use of bodies, and if the bodies which have fallen are declared to rise again (for only that which before has fallen can be properly said to rise again), it can be a matter of doubt to no one that they rise again, in order that we may be clothed with them a second time at the resurrection. The one thing is closely connected with the other. For if bodies rise again, they undoubtedly rise to be coverings for us; and if it is necessary for us to be invested with bodies, as it is certainly necessary, we ought to be invested with no other than our own. But if it is true that these rise again, and that they arise spiritual bodies, there can be no doubt that they are said to rise from the dead, after casting away corruption and laying aside mortality; otherwise it will appear vain and superfluous for any one to arise from the dead in order to die a second time. And this, finally, may be more distinctly comprehended thus, if one carefully consider what are the qualities of an animal body, which, when sown into the earth, recovers the qualities of a spiritual body. For it is out of the animal body that the very power and grace of the resurrection educe the spiritual body, when it transmutes it from a condition of indignity to one of glory.
29. Origen, Against Celsus, 1.31, 3.41 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 171, 184
1.31. And besides this, one may well wonder how it happened that the disciples- if, as the calumniators of Jesus say, they did not see Him after His resurrection from the dead, and were not persuaded of His divinity - were not afraid to endure the same sufferings with their Master, and to expose themselves to danger, and to leave their native country to teach, according to the desire of Jesus, the doctrine delivered to them by Him. For I think that no one who candidly examines the facts would say that these men devoted themselves to a life of danger for the sake of the doctrine of Jesus, without profound belief which He had wrought in their minds of its truth, not only teaching them to conform to His precepts, but others also, and to conform, moreover, when manifest destruction to life impended over him who ventured to introduce these new opinions into all places and before all audiences, and who could retain as his friend no human being who adhered to the former opinions and usages. For did not the disciples of Jesus see, when they ventured to prove not only to the Jews from their prophetic Scriptures that this is He who was spoken of by the prophets, but also to the other heathen nations, that He who was crucified yesterday or the day before underwent this death voluntarily on behalf of the human race - that this was analogous to the case of those who have died for their country in order to remove pestilence, or barrenness, or tempests? For it is probable that there is in the nature of things, for certain mysterious reasons which are difficult to be understood by the multitude, such a virtue that one just man, dying a voluntary death for the common good, might be the means of removing wicked spirits, which are the cause of plagues, or barrenness, or tempests, or similar calamities. Let those, therefore, who would disbelieve the statement that Jesus died on the cross on behalf of men, say whether they also refuse to accept the many accounts current both among Greeks and Barbarians, of persons who have laid down their lives for the public advantage, in order to remove those evils which had fallen upon cities and countries? Or will they say that such events actually happened, but that no credit is to be attached to that account which makes this so-called man to have died to ensure the destruction of a mighty evil spirit, the ruler of evil spirits, who had held in subjection the souls of all men upon earth? And the disciples of Jesus, seeing this and much more (which, it is probable, they learned from Jesus in private), and being filled, moreover, with a divine power (since it was no mere poetical virgin that endowed them with strength and courage, but the true wisdom and understanding of God), exerted all their efforts to become distinguished among all men, not only among the Argives, but among all the Greeks and Barbarians alike, and so bear away for themselves a glorious renown. 3.41. But since he has charged us, I know not how often already, with regarding this Jesus, who was but a mortal body, as a God, and with supposing that we act piously in so doing, it is superfluous to say any more in answer to this, as a great deal has been said in the preceding pages. And yet let those who make this charge understand that He whom we regard and believe to have been from the beginning God, and the Son of God, is the very Logos, and the very Wisdom, and the very Truth; and with respect to His mortal body, and the human soul which it contained, we assert that not by their communion merely with Him, but by their unity and intermixture, they received the highest powers, and after participating in His divinity, were changed into God. And if any one should feel a difficulty at our saying this regarding His body, let him attend to what is said by the Greeks regarding matter, which, properly speaking, being without qualities, receives such as the Creator desires to invest it with, and which frequently divests itself of those which it formerly possessed, and assumes others of a different and higher kind. And if these opinions be correct, what is there wonderful in this, that the mortal quality of the body of Jesus, if the providence of God has so willed it, should have been changed into one that was ethereal and divine?
30. Origen, Commentary On Romans, 4.11.4, 5.1.21, 5.3.3, 5.9.8 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 184
31. Origen, Commentary On Romans, 4.11.4, 5.1.21, 5.3.3, 5.9.8 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 184
32. Pseudo-Justinus, On The Resurrection, 8 (3rd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 92
33. Origen, Commentary On Romans, 4.11.4, 5.1.21, 5.3.3, 5.9.8 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 184
34. Origen, Commentary On John, 6.273-6.283 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 184
35. Methodius of Olympus, Symposium, 1.1-1.5, 2.1, 2.4-2.5, 3.5-3.8, 4.5, 5.3-5.4, 6.1, 8.1-8.2, 8.4, 8.6, 8.13, 9.2-9.5 (4th cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 227, 229, 230, 232, 237, 246, 250, 252
36. Methodius of Olympus, De Resurrectione, 1.5, 1.34.2-1.34.3, 1.39.5-1.39.6, 1.41, 1.41.4, 1.42.1, 1.43, 1.43.2, 1.43.5, 1.59.1, 1.60-1.61, 3.23.4, 3.23.7-3.23.9 (4th cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 252
37. Methodius of Olympus, On Foods, 13.3  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 246
38. Naevius, Danae, None  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 237
39. Pseudo-Tertullian, To His Wife, 1.1, 1.4  Tagged with subjects: •homonymy, immortality Found in books: Mcglothlin (2018) 129