Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jakejonesiv · 03-13-2013, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

I guess that's one of the biggest questions in this whole thing. Did the writers set out to intentionally deceive? Or did their immediate circle and audience know that they were writing in a genre, sacred narrative, whose purpose was to use historical-seeming events in order to teach higher spiritual "truths"?

These guys were like modern political spin doctors who believed so fiercely in the rightness of their cause, and wanted to win the battle so badly, that they would make any distortion or lie to gain the upper hand.

jakejonesiv · 03-13-2013, 07:13 PM

:worried:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

All writings attributed to Church writers that claimed Marcion mutilated the Pauline letters are historically bogus.

They must have had too much time on their hands. It would be like if you invented me so you could argue with yourself, and then lost the argument.

aa5874 · 03-13-2013, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

All the talk about "Marcion" and Marcionites is so far fetched, and is so surprising when it comes from academics who otherwise would always be demanding empirical evidence for everything.

It's far fetched and useless because there is NOT A SHRED of evidence or remnant of a single thing purported to have been written by either Marcion or Marcionites. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The oldest extant dated church inscription is Marcionite.

That there is an extant dated 4TH CENTURY church inscription of the Marcionites does not in any way suggest that it was built during the time of Marcion, that the doctrine of the Marcionite was the same in the 2nd century or that Marcion was in possession of Pauline letters when he lived.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejones

...The Marcionites rivaled the Catholics in most areas of the Roman Empire, and outnumbered them in many in the mid second century CE. Justin, who lived at the same time as Marcion, wrote that his teachings were universal throughout the empire, "Marcion ... has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies." Yet even Justin admitted that Marcion was a Christian. "All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians." Apology 1.58.

Jake

There is really no evidence that the Marcionites alone outnumbered the Catholics in the Roman Empire.

There was no such thing as a Catholic [Universal] Christian cult in the 2nd century. All Christian cults outnumbered the non-existing Catholics in the 2nd century.

The word "Catholic" is derived from the Greek word meaning "Universal".

There was NO "universal" Christian belief up to the mid third century.

Up to the mid 3rd century or later Origen Admitted the diversity of Christian cults in "De Principiis".

Origen's Preface to De Principiis

Quote:

...many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as, e.g., regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit; and not only regarding these, but also regarding others which are created existences, viz., the powers and the holy virtues...

There were MULTIPLE Christians cults with many diverse teachings in antiquity.

Origen corroborated Justin Martyr.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

Quote:

There are, therefore, and there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things; and these are called by us after the name of the men from whom each doctrine and opinion had its origin.

(For some in one way, others in another, teach to blaspheme the Maker of all things, and Christ, who was foretold by Him as coming, and the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, with whom we have nothing in common, since we know them to be atheists, impious, unrighteous, and sinful, and confessors of Jesus in name only, instead of worshippers of Him.

Yet they style themselves Christians, just as certain among the Gentiles inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands, and partake in nefarious and impious rites.)

Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names...

There was NO Pauline letters to Churches which Marcion had in his possesssion--None.

Hippolytus claimed Marcion used the writings of Empedocles.

Refutation Against ALL Heresies

Quote:

The principal heresy of Marcion, and (the one of his) which is most free from admixture (with other heresies), is that which has its system formed out of the theory concerning the good and bad (God).

Now this, it has been manifested by us, belongs to Empedocles.

The Pauline writings have absolutely NOTHING about the Good and the Bad God.
Marcion was ALREADY dead when the Pauline letters to Churches were composed sometime AFTER 180 CE.

maryhelena · 03-13-2013, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

I guess that's one of the biggest questions in this whole thing. Did the writers set out to intentionally deceive? Or did their immediate circle and audience know that they were writing in a genre, sacred narrative, whose purpose was to use historical-seeming events in order to teach higher spiritual "truths"?

My opinion is that there was no deception intended by the original writers of the Jesus story. i.e. they were not writing history but prophetic history. That the Jesus story became viewed as history says more about the readers of that story than about the creator/creators of that story.

One can ask similar questions about the OT. Modern scholarship has questioned all these stories. However, I don't think, even when the OT accounts have been shown to have no historical evidence, that there was deception involved by the creators of the OT stories.

Whether it's 'salvation history' that is being created; whether it's some spiritual 'truth' that is being articulated in mythological or allegorical format, deception does not feature in my approach to the biblical material.

aa5874 · 03-13-2013, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

I guess that's one of the biggest questions in this whole thing. Did the writers set out to intentionally deceive? Or did their immediate circle and audience know that they were writing in a genre, sacred narrative, whose purpose was to use historical-seeming events in order to teach higher spiritual "truths"?

My opinion is that there was no deception indented by the original writers of the Jesus story. i.e. they were not writing history but prophetic history. That the Jesus story became viewed as history says more about the readers of that story than about the creator/creators of that story.

One can ask similar questions about the OT. Modern scholarship has questioned all these stories. However, I don't think, even when the OT accounts have been shown to have no historical evidence, that there was deception involved by the creators of the OT stories.

Whether it's 'salvation history' that is being created; whether it's some spiritual 'truth' that is being articulated in mythological or allegorical format, deception does not feature in my approach to the biblical material.

In an investigation nothing can be ruled out. We have 100% false attribution in the Canon or authors who were unknown and were never identified.

It cannot be mere coincidence that all the authors of the Canon were never properly identified.

mountainman · 03-13-2013, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

They must have had too much time on their hands. It would be like if you invented me so you could argue with yourself, and then lost the argument.

Historia Augusta.

Quote:

Among the many games that are played in the Historia Augusta is the invention of no less than 130 fake documents, most charmingly introduced in the introduction of the Life of Aurelian. Fake sources were not a new practice (cf. the invented letters in Plutarch's Life of Alexander). What is new, however, is that the author the Historia Augusta invents sources to disagree with them.

If the author(s) of the Historia Augusta could engage in such blatant games of forgery (with multiple levels) then it appears to be obvious that the author(s) of the Historia Ecclesiastica could do precisely the same fucking thing.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Toto · 03-14-2013, 12:41 AM

Duvduv's questioning of the historical Marcion has been split off here

jakejonesiv · 03-14-2013, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

All the talk about "Marcion" and Marcionites is so far fetched, and is so surprising when it comes from academics who otherwise would always be demanding empirical evidence for everything.

It's far fetched and useless because there is NOT A SHRED of evidence or remnant of a single thing purported to have been written by either Marcion or Marcionites. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The oldest extant dated church inscription is Marcionite.

That there is an extant dated 4TH CENTURY church inscription of the Marcionites does not in any way suggest that it was built during the time of Marcion, that the doctrine of the Marcionite was the same in the 2nd century or that Marcion was in possession of Pauline letters when he lived.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejones

...The Marcionites rivaled the Catholics in most areas of the Roman Empire, and outnumbered them in many in the mid second century CE. Justin, who lived at the same time as Marcion, wrote that his teachings were universal throughout the empire, "Marcion ... has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies." Yet even Justin admitted that Marcion was a Christian. "All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians." Apology 1.58.

Jake

There is really no evidence that the Marcionites alone outnumbered the Catholics in the Roman Empire.

There was no such thing as a Catholic [Universal] Christian cult in the 2nd century. All Christian cults outnumbered the non-existing Catholics in the 2nd century.

The word "Catholic" is derived from the Greek word meaning "Universal".

There was NO "universal" Christian belief up to the mid third century.

Up to the mid 3rd century or later Origen Admitted the diversity of Christian cults in "De Principiis".

Origen's Preface to De Principiis

Quote:

...many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as, e.g., regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit; and not only regarding these, but also regarding others which are created existences, viz., the powers and the holy virtues...

There were MULTIPLE Christians cults with many diverse teachings in antiquity.

Origen corroborated Justin Martyr.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

Quote:

There are, therefore, and there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things; and these are called by us after the name of the men from whom each doctrine and opinion had its origin.

(For some in one way, others in another, teach to blaspheme the Maker of all things, and Christ, who was foretold by Him as coming, and the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, with whom we have nothing in common, since we know them to be atheists, impious, unrighteous, and sinful, and confessors of Jesus in name only, instead of worshippers of Him.

Yet they style themselves Christians, just as certain among the Gentiles inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands, and partake in nefarious and impious rites.)

Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names...

There was NO Pauline letters to Churches which Marcion had in his possesssion--None.

Hippolytus claimed Marcion used the writings of Empedocles.

Refutation Against ALL Heresies

Quote:

The principal heresy of Marcion, and (the one of his) which is most free from admixture (with other heresies), is that which has its system formed out of the theory concerning the good and bad (God).

Now this, it has been manifested by us, belongs to Empedocles.

The Pauline writings have absolutely NOTHING about the Good and the Bad God.
Marcion was ALREADY dead when the Pauline letters to Churches were composed sometime AFTER 180 CE.

Every time the name of Marcion is mentioned, you supply a very timely response. I think it is important that I acknowlege your contribution.

jakejonesiv · 03-14-2013, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Hope this doesn't repeat too much what others might have said.

Let's try this ...

"Luke-Acts-Pauline Epistles" was originally conceived as a two part book by the Marcionites, entitled "Evagelion-Apostolikon." It purported to tell the "history" of the Christian movement from it's supposed beginning up until the cataclysmic events of the 60s, when ALL of the apostles were martyred or mysteriously disappeared.

Paul had not been part of the myth that Mark and Matthew's circles had crafted. He had to be invented by the Marcionites in order to justify their authority and ideology. Marcion conceived of the idea of apostles writing philosophical letters explaining the meaning of the religion to churches that didn't exist. Mark and Matthew's circles had never thought of this.

So there is some truth (accidentally) in the "high context culture" theory regarding the silence of the historic Jesus in Paul's letters. Marcion didn't repeat himself in the Apostolikon because you were supposed to read it as a supplement to the Evangelion. The "high context" was the same book, not the same culture.

Marcion was deliberately vague about people, places, and events in the Apostolikon because he was writing in the early 100s but wanted his readers to think the letters dated from the 30s and 40s. Occasionally he slipped up and wrote anachronisms like, "God's wrath has come upon the Jews at last."

This vagueness backfired when the Catholics acquired a copy of the Apostolikon and used it to preach against Marcion. They then re-wrote "Acts" to harmonize Paul and Peter, whereas Marcion's version showed them in conflict, or didn't include Peter at all. They then claimed that their "Luke-Acts-Pauline Epistles" were the originals and Marcion had ripped them off. And they started writing letters of their own.

Too far fetched?

Your post is totally unsubstantiated. Not even the fiction stories fabricated attributed to Tertullian support your claims about Marcion.

Up to 150 CE there is no corroboration that Marcion wrote anything.

Justin Martyr was a contemporary of Marcion and merely claimed Marcion preached another God and another son--but never said he wrote any books.

All writings attributed to Church writers that claimed Marcion mutilated the Pauline letters are historically bogus.

Every time the name of Marcion is mentioned, you supply a very timely response. I think it is important that I acknowlege your contribution.

Bingo the Clown-O · 03-14-2013, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

:worried:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

All writings attributed to Church writers that claimed Marcion mutilated the Pauline letters are historically bogus.

They must have had too much time on their hands. It would be like if you invented me so you could argue with yourself, and then lost the argument.

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

03-14-2013, 12:41 AM	#367
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Duvduv's questioning of the historical Marcion has been split off here

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.