Freethought & Rationalism Archive

avi · 12-07-2010, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

They do not derail the topic and do actually answer your question.

Well, ok, then, let's start again. We are seeking to learn this business of omniscience. The question is whether or not the old testament supports or repudiates the hypothesis that Jews (like Marcion and Paul), reading the old testament, would have encountered the notion of omniscience.

I don't know whether or not all Jews, or even those two in particular, considered Yahweh infallible, I simply believe, having found four different quotes from the OT, that the concept of the God, the one and only God, being omniscient, prevailed in Jewish thinking, prior to the arrival of Christianity, i.e. that this notion of omniscience was carried over into the Christian faith, having arisen in Judaism.

The property of divine omniscience, in my opinion, based upon those four quotes, is one described before the four Gospels, or the letters of Paul appeared. I would profit from your explanation of why those four quotes are unconvincing.

avi

avi · 12-07-2010, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

This is incomprehensible to me.
Sorry to be so dense.
How could Marcion have accepted any part of Luke, and also be a practicing Jew?
How could he believe in Judaism, and also believe in a second god, with power comparable to Yahweh?

Sorry, that's the best pun I could come up with :blush:

Marcion realized that the Jewish Bible was "true" (of course, any Christian would), but had to reconcile this with the Jesus presented in Mark and/or Paul who is incompatible with the Jewish god. Marcion probably realized that the Jewish bible did not predict someone like Jesus coming and being the Jewish messiah (the same argument that Jews make) but he still wanted to keep his Jesus. So the only logical thing to do was to make the obvious divorce between the two.

Marcion believe that the messiah promised to the Jews had not come yet, and the god that penned the Hebrew bible would eventually deliver. But Jesus was not the messiah of this god. {emphasis by avi}

I am thoroughly confused, not too unexpected, I suppose.

So here is this chap, Marcion, who only likes Luke and Paul. (But, Luke is not a dualist, right?)
On the one hand, you write that Marcion considered JC to be NOT the Messiah, but on the other hand, you write, that Marcion wanted to keep JC, implying considerable respect.

Well, if JC is NOT related to Yahweh, as the Christians, including Paul, have argued, unless I have misunderstood his epistles (quite probable!), then why would Marcion seek to keep JC? If Marcion believed in TWO gods, and felt that JC was NOT related to Yahweh, the "evil" god, then JC should have been related to the "good" god, right? So, if he is related to the "good" god, why wouldn't he have been the messiah?

Very mysterious.....

avi

dog-on · 12-07-2010, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

They do not derail the topic and do actually answer your question.

Well, ok, then, let's start again. We are seeking to learn this business of omniscience. The question is whether or not the old testament supports or repudiates the hypothesis that Jews (like Marcion and Paul), reading the old testament, would have encountered the notion of omniscience.

I don't know whether or not all Jews, or even those two in particular, considered Yahweh infallible, I simply believe, having found four different quotes from the OT, that the concept of the God, the one and only God, being omniscient, prevailed in Jewish thinking, prior to the arrival of Christianity, i.e. that this notion of omniscience was carried over into the Christian faith, having arisen in Judaism.

The property of divine omniscience, in my opinion, based upon those four quotes, is one described before the four Gospels, or the letters of Paul appeared. I would profit from your explanation of why those four quotes are unconvincing.

avi

Until you put down the Christian glasses, this will continue to allude you.

Maybe this will help.

Quote:

No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.

maryhelena · 12-07-2010, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Sorry, that's the best pun I could come up with :blush:

Marcion realized that the Jewish Bible was "true" (of course, any Christian would), but had to reconcile this with the Jesus presented in Mark and/or Paul who is incompatible with the Jewish god. Marcion probably realized that the Jewish bible did not predict someone like Jesus coming and being the Jewish messiah (the same argument that Jews make) but he still wanted to keep his Jesus. So the only logical thing to do was to make the obvious divorce between the two.

Marcion believe that the messiah promised to the Jews had not come yet, and the god that penned the Hebrew bible would eventually deliver. But Jesus was not the messiah of this god. {emphasis by avi}

I am thoroughly confused, not too unexpected, I suppose.

So here is this chap, Marcion, who only likes Luke and Paul. (But, Luke is not a dualist, right?)
On the one hand, you write that Marcion considered JC to be NOT the Messiah, but on the other hand, you write, that Marcion wanted to keep JC, implying considerable respect.

Well, if JC is NOT related to Yahweh, as the Christians, including Paul, have argued, unless I have misunderstood his epistles (quite probable!), then why would Marcion seek to keep JC? If Marcion believed in TWO gods, and felt that JC was NOT related to Yahweh, the "evil" god, then JC should have been related to the "good" god, right? So, if he is related to the "good" god, why wouldn't he have been the messiah?

Very mysterious.....

avi

Probably because the messiah idea is related to Jewish expectations re their political or national circumstances. Sure, Marcion could have had his own messiah concept re whatever took his fancy - but, seemingly, he was more interested in separating his JC from any Jewish messiah notions than developing his own.

Marcionism

Quote:

.....the Christology of the Marcionites is thought to have been primarily Docetic, denying the human nature of Christ.

From that starting point Marcion had no need for any birth narratives - especially Jewish ones...

Quote:

The Arch-Heretic Marcion by Sebastian Moll
Page 83

The Conspiracy Theory

They (the Marcionites) say that by separating the Law and the Gospel Marcion has not so much innovated the rule (of faith) but rather returned to the one previously adulterated. (Adv.Marc.I.20,1)

This fundamental conviction was at the very heart of the Marcionite movement, the idea of re-establishing what had been falsified. Marcion was convinced that there had been a great Judaising conspiracy going on in the world aiming at perverting the Gospel by pretending that Christ belonged to the Creator. Responsible for this perversion are the representatives (assertoribus) of the Creator. Who exactly are these representatives” The Jews are certainly not envisaged. For what possible reason could they have for linking Christ to their God, given that they so vigorously attempt to distinguish themselves from the Christians? Marcion relies on the testimony of Paul in order to identify his opponents. He refers to the Apostle’s Letter to the Galations, in which Peter and the other pillars of the Apostleship (that is, John and James) were reprehended by Paul for not walking uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel. This rebuke of Peter by Paul seems to have been of great importance to Marcion, as not only does Tertullian refer to it four times in his works against him, but it already had been discussed in Irenaeus. Furthermore, the general ignorance of Peter apparently also was an issue Marcion frequently referred to. Marcion supposed that when Jesus, after Peter’s exclamation ‘You are the Christ of God’ (Lk.9.20), ordered him and the other Apostles to tell this to no one, he did so because Peter erroneously regarded him as the Messiah of the Creator. Likewise, when Peter intended to put up three shelters for Jesus, Moses and Elijah (Lk 9.33), he again erroneously believed that Jesus was their Messiah. According to Marcion, it was due to this ignorance and insincerity of Peter and the other Apostles that Christ felt necessitated to choose Paul as a new Apostle who would take action against his ‘predecessors’.

However, the former Apostles are, although contributing to it by their ignorance and weakness, not initially responsible for the falsification of the texts. For Marcion, this heavy guilt lies with the ‘false brothers’ who, according to Paul, “had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves”. It was this (anonymous) group of people that attempted to pervert the Gospel through ‘interpolations of Scripture by which they portrayed a Christ of the Creator”. Therefore, Marcion considered it his duty to free the New Testament from these interpolations. Tertulian sums up: “He erased those things that contradict his view, those that are in accordance with the Creator, as if they had been woven in by his representatives, but he has retained those that agree with his view”.
Based upon the above mentioned conspiracy theory, Marcion felt entitled to change the text of the Epistles back to their ‘original’ form. .......

my bolding

All very interesting: on the one hand we have the gospel writers doing their utmost to make JC a Jewish messiah figure - and on the other hand we have Marcion who is having none of it....

Methinks this is a more important point for research into early christianity than Marcion's dualism re his two gods...

dog-on · 12-08-2010, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

I am thoroughly confused, not too unexpected, I suppose.

So here is this chap, Marcion, who only likes Luke and Paul. (But, Luke is not a dualist, right?)
On the one hand, you write that Marcion considered JC to be NOT the Messiah, but on the other hand, you write, that Marcion wanted to keep JC, implying considerable respect.

Well, if JC is NOT related to Yahweh, as the Christians, including Paul, have argued, unless I have misunderstood his epistles (quite probable!), then why would Marcion seek to keep JC? If Marcion believed in TWO gods, and felt that JC was NOT related to Yahweh, the "evil" god, then JC should have been related to the "good" god, right? So, if he is related to the "good" god, why wouldn't he have been the messiah?

Very mysterious.....

avi

Probably because the messiah idea is related to Jewish expectations re their political or national circumstances. Sure, Marcion could have had his own messiah concept re whatever took his fancy - but, seemingly, he was more interested in separating his JC from any Jewish messiah notions than developing his own.

Marcionism

From that starting point Marcion had no need for any birth narratives - especially Jewish ones...

Quote:

The Arch-Heretic Marcion by Sebastian Moll
Page 83

The Conspiracy Theory

They (the Marcionites) say that by separating the Law and the Gospel Marcion has not so much innovated the rule (of faith) but rather returned to the one previously adulterated. (Adv.Marc.I.20,1)

This fundamental conviction was at the very heart of the Marcionite movement, the idea of re-establishing what had been falsified. Marcion was convinced that there had been a great Judaising conspiracy going on in the world aiming at perverting the Gospel by pretending that Christ belonged to the Creator. Responsible for this perversion are the representatives (assertoribus) of the Creator. Who exactly are these representatives” The Jews are certainly not envisaged. For what possible reason could they have for linking Christ to their God, given that they so vigorously attempt to distinguish themselves from the Christians? Marcion relies on the testimony of Paul in order to identify his opponents. He refers to the Apostle’s Letter to the Galations, in which Peter and the other pillars of the Apostleship (that is, John and James) were reprehended by Paul for not walking uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel. This rebuke of Peter by Paul seems to have been of great importance to Marcion, as not only does Tertullian refer to it four times in his works against him, but it already had been discussed in Irenaeus. Furthermore, the general ignorance of Peter apparently also was an issue Marcion frequently referred to. Marcion supposed that when Jesus, after Peter’s exclamation ‘You are the Christ of God’ (Lk.9.20), ordered him and the other Apostles to tell this to no one, he did so because Peter erroneously regarded him as the Messiah of the Creator. Likewise, when Peter intended to put up three shelters for Jesus, Moses and Elijah (Lk 9.33), he again erroneously believed that Jesus was their Messiah. According to Marcion, it was due to this ignorance and insincerity of Peter and the other Apostles that Christ felt necessitated to choose Paul as a new Apostle who would take action against his ‘predecessors’.

However, the former Apostles are, although contributing to it by their ignorance and weakness, not initially responsible for the falsification of the texts. For Marcion, this heavy guilt lies with the ‘false brothers’ who, according to Paul, “had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves”. It was this (anonymous) group of people that attempted to pervert the Gospel through ‘interpolations of Scripture by which they portrayed a Christ of the Creator”. Therefore, Marcion considered it his duty to free the New Testament from these interpolations. Tertulian sums up: “He erased those things that contradict his view, those that are in accordance with the Creator, as if they had been woven in by his representatives, but he has retained those that agree with his view”.
Based upon the above mentioned conspiracy theory, Marcion felt entitled to change the text of the Epistles back to their ‘original’ form. .......

my bolding

All very interesting: on the one hand we have the gospel writers doing their utmost to make JC a Jewish messiah figure - and on the other hand we have Marcion who is having none of it....

Methinks this is a more important point for research into early christianity than Marcion's dualism re his two gods...

Indeed, however this also depends on how, exactly, one reads the gospels, especially Mark.

avi · 12-08-2010, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Indeed, however this also depends on how, exactly, one reads the gospels, especially Mark

Very obscure.
Why should "Mark" play a role, since Marcion accepted as valid only Luke (see MaryHelena's quotes from Moll, above)?
What does Mark have to do with Marcion? Is Mark also interpreted by someone as a dualist?

avi

dog-on · 12-09-2010, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Indeed, however this also depends on how, exactly, one reads the gospels, especially Mark

Very obscure.
Why should "Mark" play a role, since Marcion accepted as valid only Luke (see MaryHelena's quotes from Moll, above)?
What does Mark have to do with Marcion? Is Mark also interpreted by someone as a dualist?

avi

I doubt that Marcion ever heard of anyone named Luke, with regards to the gospel he preferred.

Step back from the propaganda...

avi · 12-09-2010, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Step back from the propaganda...

Thanks. Do you mean to write then, that Moll erred?

avi

dog-on · 12-10-2010, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Step back from the propaganda...

Thanks. Do you mean to write then, that Moll erred?

avi

More accurately, I would say that I believe his sources "erred".

My position is that Gospel Luke and Acts, along with the Pastorals are post Marcion and were, in part, a response to Marcion and other "heresies".

avi · 12-10-2010, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

My position is that Gospel Luke and Acts, along with the Pastorals are post Marcion and were, in part, a response to Marcion and other "heresies".

Thank you dog-on. Very interesting.

What is of some slight concern to me, with respect to this provocative notion, is the fact that we don't know with much confidence, exactly what Marcion wrote, or when... We rely, as I understand it, (not well), upon Justin Martyr, and "Irenaeus", and the ubiquitous Eusebius, to grasp some ideas about Marcion's thoughts. If Marcion's ideas have been as badly mutilated by any/all of the above authors, as Mani's writings were mutilated by Eusebius, then, it seems reasonable to conclude nothing at all about Marcion's life.

avi

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.