Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 10-24-2012, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

....We have evidence that later Christian writers spent a lot of time denouncing him. That's all we need. Maybe he existed, or maybe he was a personification of a movement. Who cares?

Who cares if Marcion existed?? Toto, you cannot be serious. This is BC&H and you ask "Who cares about the actual history of Marcion?"

The existence of Marcion is EXTREMELY important. Virtually all ancient Jesus cult writers argued that Jesus was the actual Son of a Ghost and a virgin and argued against Marcion that the Son of God only appeared to have Flesh.

It would appear that the NT is fundamentally an anti-Marcionite compilation.

In gJohn, Jesus was the Logos that became Flesh.

The Son of God of Marcion only appeared to have Flesh.

The Son of God of Marcion had NO birth.

gJohn is an anti-Marcionite writing and was not from the Jewish community.

outhouse · 10-24-2012, 11:30 AM

Quote:

This overriding dogma could not have emerged from all over the place along with the differing teachings about the Christ.

But it did. and its evident in the different books we have today, that all have different spins on the topic, because the movement early on was wide and varied

Iskander · 10-24-2012, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

....We have evidence that later Christian writers spent a lot of time denouncing him. That's all we need. Maybe he existed, or maybe he was a personification of a movement. Who cares?

Who cares if Marcion existed?? Toto, you cannot be serious. This is BC&H and you ask "Who cares about the actual history of Marcion?"

The existence of Marcion is EXTREMELY important. Virtually all ancient Jesus cult writers argued that Jesus was the actual Son of a Ghost and a virgin and argued against Marcion that the Son of God only appeared to have Flesh.

It would appear that the NT is fundamentally an anti-Marcionite compilation.

In gJohn, Jesus was the Logos that became Flesh.

The Son of God of Marcion only appeared to have Flesh.

The Son of God of Marcion had NO birth.

gJohn is an anti-Marcionite writing and was not from the Jewish community.

I think that the ‘final’ understanding of Jesus, as it is declared dogma by the ecclesiastical authorities , is that of a Gnostic/marcionite variant.

A woman was used for the heavenly entity to acquire human form, but this method should be seen as one of several Gnostic options.

The expression ‘the logos was made flesh’ is a Gnostic statement and it says nothing about the nature of the human-logos.

The vast majority of the many early heresies are best seen as diverse Gnostic ideas which are competing with each other.

Duvduv · 10-24-2012, 12:11 PM

"But it did"?? Or it did BECAUSE it was already a central pillar of the Bible-friendly Roman gentile regime that established the new religion even BEFORE it managed to work out all the details of the Christ himself - meaning that regardless of the competing views of the Christ himself, WHOEVER he was, he now replaced the Law and Israel with his salvic role and the gentile believers......

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

This overriding dogma could not have emerged from all over the place along with the differing teachings about the Christ.

But it did. and its evident in the different books we have today, that all have different spins on the topic, because the movement early on was wide and varied

Duvduv · 10-24-2012, 12:14 PM

Toto, I look forward to your impatience and fatherly moralizing and patronizing attitude in relation to all the foolishness wasting space on this Forum from a few other posters. Funny thing is, I rarely see any comments from you about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

How is it that the successionist or replacement theology became so UNIFORM among writers who on these other essential issues allegedly had very different opinions? How did ithis successionist theology become so firmly entrenched among Romans/gentiles if it wasn't even more significant than the particular nature of the Christ as promised messiah, Logos, heavenly priest, etc. etc.??!

This is about the third time you have repeated this question. Evidently no one else sees a problem or cares to discuss this. Or perhaps you need to learn more about the subject matter and rephrase the question so it makes sense.

In any case, I don't understand your puzzlement. What is called proto-orthodox Christianity defined itself by the beliefs that the Jewish scriptures were part of their canon, but that the Jews were no longer chosen.

In this, they differed from Marcionites, who believed that the Jewish scriptures were valid for Jews, but that there was a larger god than the Jewish god who had sent his son Jesus to redeem gentiles.

So the heresiologists made sure that only literature that agreed with their anti-Marcionite point of view survived.

What is unclear about this?

outhouse · 10-24-2012, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

"But it did"?? Or it did BECAUSE it was already a central pillar of the Bible-friendly Roman gentile regime that established the new religion even BEFORE it managed to work out all the details of the Christ himself - meaning that regardless of the competing views of the Christ himself, WHOEVER he was, he now replaced the Law and Israel with his salvic role and the gentile believers......

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

But it did. and its evident in the different books we have today, that all have different spins on the topic, because the movement early on was wide and varied

woah down, to big a bite there dont you think.?

it could not ave been part of a bible friendly enviroment, because we see different views developping in different places, that dont pull from a simular written source.

its obvious we see the development of a wide and varied movement stemming from a murder at a crowded passover

you do understand a old man was trampled at one passover, not even murdered by romans, and he is remembered in history.

Duvduv · 10-24-2012, 01:12 PM

Anyone looking for his proofs in the Old Testament can be deemed to be "bible-friendly". It doesn't mean Jewish friendly, only bible-friendly.

Iskander · 10-24-2012, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Anyone looking for his proofs in the Old Testament can be deemed to be "bible-friendly". It doesn't mean Jewish friendly, only bible-friendly.

Some enterprising early Christians thought they had enough material to provide bones and flesh for the new church “founded “ by Jesus.

But they found that the coming down to earth of the omniscient god had left them only with a very few pages in Greek. They multiplied those few pages X4, but still wasn’t near enough.

They added the writings of Tom, Dick and Harry and gave those writings the same value as the’words’ of the incarnate god.

But the little Greek Testament looked rather ridiculous with Tom, Dick, Jesus, Harry, and others candidates to legitimacy and they were forced to raid the Hebrew Bible: “Nothing was what it seemed, but was only the symbol of something invisible. On every page of that book Christ and the Christian Church must be found."

outhouse · 10-24-2012, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Anyone looking for his proofs in the Old Testament can be deemed to be "bible-friendly". It doesn't mean Jewish friendly, only bible-friendly.

since the movement branched from judaism, we had better see OT influence and lot sof it.

and we do, that and someone deified and remembered

aa5874 · 10-24-2012, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

...you do understand a old man was trampled at one passover, not even murdered by romans, and he is remembered in history.

What?? Another invention!!! Where do you get your stories from??

Who trampled an old man?? Please, we had enough of your myth fables.

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

10-24-2012, 01:12 PM	#107
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Anyone looking for his proofs in the Old Testament can be deemed to be "bible-friendly". It doesn't mean Jewish friendly, only bible-friendly.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.