Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 02-04-2010, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

You mean as in flesh and blood historical figure?

I think this is where the disconnect is at. It's true that Marcion didn't believe his Jesus was a flesh and blood entity, but it does not mean that he thought his Jesus did not exist in history.

I'm getting the impression that you think Marcion is a 21st century human being born and raised in a highly secular culture. A modern mind who thinks that if an entity isn't flesh and blood then it must be imaginary and thus has to be a Boy Who Cried Wolf type mythological construct or Karen Armstrong-esque story meant to explain some religious truth.

Perhaps Genesis will help.

It was claimed in Genesis that the Creator God or Gods had the image or likeness of man.

Ge 1:26-27 -

Quote:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness....... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

It would appear that people in antiquity believed it was not necessary to have human flesh to appear human or seem to have the likeness of an human.

maryhelena · 02-04-2010, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

I think this is where the disconnect is at. It's true that Marcion didn't believe his Jesus was a flesh and blood entity, but it does not mean that he thought his Jesus did not exist in history.

I'm getting the impression that you think Marcion is a 21st century human being born and raised in a highly secular culture. A modern mind who thinks that if an entity isn't flesh and blood then it must be imaginary and thus has to be a Boy Who Cried Wolf type mythological construct or Karen Armstrong-esque story meant to explain some religious truth.

Perhaps Genesis will help.

It was claimed in Genesis that the Creator God or Gods had the image or likeness of man.

Ge 1:26-27 -

Quote:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness....... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

It would appear that people in antiquity believed it was not necessary to have human flesh to appear human or seem to have the likeness of an human.

aa5874

Theology does not interest me - I don't give a damn what strange and wonderful ideas some people had either now or so very long ago...I'm trying to look past the theology and seek whatever historical core might be relevant to the gospel storyline...ie the early, actual, historical - non-supernatural - on the ground, happenings, events, that might have contributed towards the NT spirituality, its theological superstructure. It's the earthly foundation, not the theological contraption - that is the only real component in all of this...And in that endeavor - methinks, that the heresy of Marcion could well be a stepping stone towards a more clear picture of what went on back then...

aa5874 · 02-05-2010, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Perhaps Genesis will help.

It was claimed in Genesis that the Creator God or Gods had the image or likeness of man.

Ge 1:26-27 - It would appear that people in antiquity believed it was not necessary to have human flesh to appear human or seem to have the likeness of an human.

aa5874

Theology does not interest me - I don't give a damn what strange and wonderful ideas some people had either now or so very long ago...I'm trying to look past the theology and seek whatever historical core might be relevant to the gospel storyline...ie the early, actual, historical - non-supernatural - on the ground, happenings, events, that might have contributed towards the NT spirituality, its theological superstructure. It's the earthly foundation, not the theological contraption - that is the only real component in all of this...And in that endeavor - methinks, that the heresy of Marcion could well be a stepping stone towards a more clear picture of what went on back then...

But, is not the "heresy" of Marcion theological.? Was not the "heresy" of Marcion considered a "theological contraption"?

I am afraid that you cannot look past the theology of others and refuse to look past the theology of Marcion, you cannot look past the "strange and wonderful ideas" of the people of antiquity or else you will inevitably LOOK PAST their HISTORY.

The Jesus story may have very well been a "strange and wonderful theological idea".

maryhelena · 02-05-2010, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

aa5874

Theology does not interest me - I don't give a damn what strange and wonderful ideas some people had either now or so very long ago...I'm trying to look past the theology and seek whatever historical core might be relevant to the gospel storyline...ie the early, actual, historical - non-supernatural - on the ground, happenings, events, that might have contributed towards the NT spirituality, its theological superstructure. It's the earthly foundation, not the theological contraption - that is the only real component in all of this...And in that endeavor - methinks, that the heresy of Marcion could well be a stepping stone towards a more clear picture of what went on back then...

But, is not the "heresy" of Marcion theological.? Was not the "heresy" of Marcion considered a "theological contraption"?

I am afraid that you cannot look past the theology of others and refuse to look past the theology of Marcion, you cannot look past the "strange and wonderful ideas" of the people of antiquity or else you will inevitably LOOK PAST their HISTORY.

The Jesus story may have very well been a "strange and wonderful theological idea".

Marcion's idea - a non-Jewish Jesus - taken at face value - not whatever theological contraption he built upon that idea - is an idea that could well have implications for understanding early christianity. That christianity, so very early in its history, had to face such a backlash as Marcion's heresy - does suggest, at the very least, that there is no smoke without a fire...

On the one hand we have the gospels with their cut and paste effort of linking Jesus to OT prophecy - and on the other hand we have Marcion who wants nothing to do with that effort...

Christianity could not have sprung from a Jewish root - Marcion was right here. Monotheism is inherently sterile - the Jewish god could not produce a spiritual 'son'. A Jewish messiah, a flesh and blood historical figure - that was what the Jewish god could send to his people.

Marcion's Jesus was without Jewish roots. And, by all accounts, it was the attempt to give Jesus Jewish roots - even, for the sake of argument, 'spiritual' Jewish roots - that he would not accept. The very thing that the gospel storyline is so insistent upon - fulfilled prophecy regarding Jesus - Marcoin rejected.

So, two versions of Jesus - Jewish and non-Jewish - both versions, for some time, acceptable as 'christian' - until the big heresy hunt. The winning side - those who went with the cut and paste OT prophetic model.

The gnostic leaning theology of Marcoin's non-Jewish Jesus lost out to the prophetic Jewish Jesus model. The monotheistic Jewish christians had a reply to Marcion - the monotheistic god might not be able to produce a son - but he damn well could adopt one....albeit from a non-Jewish source......

aa5874 · 02-05-2010, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, is not the "heresy" of Marcion theological.? Was not the "heresy" of Marcion considered a "theological contraption"?

I am afraid that you cannot look past the theology of others and refuse to look past the theology of Marcion, you cannot look past the "strange and wonderful ideas" of the people of antiquity or else you will inevitably LOOK PAST their HISTORY.

The Jesus story may have very well been a "strange and wonderful theological idea".

Marcion's idea - a non-Jewish Jesus - taken at face value - not whatever theological contraption he built upon that idea - is an idea that could well have implications for understanding early christianity. That christianity, so very early in its history, had to face such a backlash as Marcion's heresy - does suggest, at the very least, that there is no smoke without a fire...

Again, you seem not to understand that it may have been the Jewish Jesus that was built from some non-Jewish idea. Marcion was NOT the first Christian to worship a non-Jewish entity.

The virgin births of Gods predated Jesus.

Mythraism predated Jesus of the NT.

There were probably thousands of Christians before Marcion, or almost all of Samaria and some from other nations that were called Christians who worshiped Simon Magus and Menander before one single word was written about an entity called Jesus Christ.

The Jewish Jesus appears to be a late invention for Christians. And further it would appear that there were Christians who only believed in a God [u][b] without a begotten son called Jesus. The Christians called Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras and Octavius just simply believe in one God alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

On the one hand we have the gospels with their cut and paste effort of linking Jesus to OT prophecy - and on the other hand we have Marcion who wants nothing to do with that effort...

But, was it not the same cut and paste writers who presented Marcion as a heretic of their cut and paste Jesus of whom their is no known external credible historical source?

It is very likely that Marcion was just simply used by writers to historicise their cut and paste Jewish Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Christianity could not have sprung from a Jewish root - Marcion was right here. Monotheism is inherently sterile - the Jewish god could not produce a spiritual 'son'. A Jewish messiah, a flesh and blood historical figure - that was what the Jewish god could send to his people.

Marcion's Jesus was without Jewish roots. And, by all accounts, it was the attempt to give Jesus Jewish roots - even, for the sake of argument, 'spiritual' Jewish roots - that he would not accept. The very thing that the gospel storyline is so insistent upon - fulfilled prophecy regarding Jesus - Marcoin rejected.

But, there were other Christians before Marcion who worshiped non-Jewish entities. The Christian Valentinus and his Christian followers worshiped non Jewish entities even before Marcion.

It must be becoming obvious by now that the information coming from some Church writers about Marcion may indeed be bogus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

So, two versions of Jesus - Jewish and non-Jewish - both versions, for some time, acceptable as 'christian' - until the big heresy hunt. The winning side - those who went with the cut and paste OT prophetic model.

The gnostic leaning theology of Marcoin's non-Jewish Jesus lost out to the prophetic Jewish Jesus model. The monotheistic Jewish christians had a reply to Marcion - the monotheistic god might not be able to produce a son - but he damn well could adopt one....albeit from a non-Jewish source......)

No, there were not two versions of Jesus, there were multiple versions of Jesus. Please read "Against Heresies" under the name of Irenaeus. I have already mentioned versions of Jesus from Valentinus, Marcus and Balisides.

And based on historical records, it is not the cut and paste job that caused one side to win. It was Constantine who made a political decision and perhaps with some luck that Julian did not last long as Emperor.

It is very likely that the cut and paste Jewish Jesus would have been rubbished and dumped as garbage and a monstrous lie if Julian did not die so soon.

This is Julian on the cut and paste job in Against the Galileans.

Quote:

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth......

See http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files
/julian_apostate_galileans_1_text.htm

It cannot be over emphasized that the information about Marcion coming from some of the Church writers may indeed be bogus. It has already been deduced that the information supplied by the Church writers about their own Canon is bogus or filled with errors.

Loomis · 02-15-2010, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Now fast-forward to the New Testament and look at 2 Peter 1:19

We have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

Bingo. There’s a morning star. We have a morning star.

Now the icing on the cake (Revelation 22:16).

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

See?

Jesus said that he was a morning star. He was identifying himself with the group of divinities who sang together in Job 38:7. They were sons of God, and so was Jesus.

My point is that you don’t need an external source (astrology) to explain the fascination with the stars. All you need is an Old Testament and an understanding of Canaanite mythology.

It’s all ‘Jewish’.

Now, fast forward to Simon BarCochebas the Messiah.

We have another star.

This is Eusebius on the "star" in Church History 4.6.2

Quote:

2. The leader of the Jews at this time was a man by the name of Barcocheba (which signifies a star), who possessed the character of a robber and a murderer, but nevertheless, relying upon his name, boasted to them, as if they were slaves, that he possessed wonderful powers; and he pretended that he was a star that had come down to them out of heaven to bring them light in the midst of their misfortunes.

And to view picture with coin of Simon BarCocheba with the "star" See http://www.livius.org/ja-jn/jewish_wars/jwar07.html

Ha! I didn’t know about that. Thanks. Interesting.

It seems very unlikely that Eusebius knew anything about Canaanite mythology, but the basic concept of the stars of El seems to have propagated anyhow.

Fwiw there’s also Psalm 82:1, 6-7

God stands in the assembly of El, he judges among the gods ... I said "You are gods, and all of you are children of Elyon, but you shall die like Adam and fall like one of the Shining Ones."

In that episode God (presumably Yahweh) is an outsider; He’s dissing the stars of El.

The Old Testament has a bipolar thing going on; sometimes Yahweh is in opposition the Canaanite religion, and other times he’s virtually identical to Baal or El.

Loomis · 02-15-2010, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

There's nothing in Jewish scripture that says that YHWH is love. If anything, he's the god of justice:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isaiah 30:18

YHWH is a God of justice.

Oh come on.

Yahweh waits to show you mercy, and therefore he is exalted to have compassion on you. Indeed, Yahweh is a just God; Blessed are all who wait for him.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.