dog-on

The Paulines are Marcionite and, again, Marcion's Jesus was NOT human at all.

aa5874

But, you have a dilemma. It is the source that dismissed Marcion, the christian church, that provided information about Marcion.

Church writers claimed Marcion was a heretic but also admitted that they were called atheists. So much for orthodoxy.

You seem not to understand that it was likely more unusual for non-Jewish people of antiquity to worship a known Jewish character as a God and equally unusual for Jewish people to worship a known Jewish man as a God.

Please look at the doctrine of Valentinus as featured in "Against Heresies" who was called a Christian. His assortments of Gods are non-Jewish and PRE-DATE Marcion.

This an excerpt on the production of the JESUS CHRIST of Valentinus from "Against Heresies"

And this is the Supercelestial Jesus of Marcus in "Against Heresies" 15. Now, Basilides claimed Christ came to destroy the God of the Jews in "Against Heresies" 24

So, there were Christians in antiquity who believed Christ came to destroy the God of the Jews.

You must begin to realise that, even from Church sources of antiquity, that Christians were already believing in a MULTIPLICITY of non-Jewish Jesus since the early 1st century or before Marcion.

Even Justin admitted that his belief in a Jewish Jesus made him a laughing stock by MARCION and the Marcionites.

"First Apology" There is nothing unusual about Christians worshiping a non-Jewish Jesus.

maryhelena

But is that not a secondary issue - what did Jesus teach. First one tries to establish the question re Jesus - ie mythological or historical. If one goes for a mythological Jesus - then it's not a case of what did Jesus teach - its a case of what words, what 'sayings', are being put in his mouth. These 'sayings' are often attributed to a Q source. Some argue that this Q source reflects an earlier layer of the gospel storyline - a cynic Sage Jesus.

Now, if we go along with the mythological idea - then these 'sayings' come from somewhere other than the gospel mythological Jesus. We can postulate a historical figure or we can postulate that the 'sayings' come from any Tom, Dick, and Harry that happened to be passing by. The 'sayings' - in or out of the Q hypothetical idea - need to be addressed. It could be that the 'sayings' have come from a historical figure (or the Tom, Dick and Harry idea) and have been 'fused' with the mythological figure that is the gospel Jesus.

For Marcion, Jesus of the gospel storyline was most probably viewed as some sort of spiritual reflection, figurative or symbolic, of his non-Jewish Jesus. (perhaps he was the very first mythicist...)If that is so, it does not change the fact that the gospel 'sayings' can be viewed as something separate from the mythological or spiritual elements. Its not a question of what did Jesus teach - its a question of what somebody else taught (or if you want the Tom, Dick and Harry idea...) - and whether that somebody else happened to be either a non-Jewish or a Jewish figure. Marcion, by all accounts, opted for a non-Jewish source. The prophetic, cut and paste, overlay is Jewish - but that brought its own problems....

Which is most probable - a committee getting together and deciding on some new revelation, some new gospel or message - or, as is usually the case, that committees are pretty useless in producing original ideas - and as for a consensus - they often can't take notice of ideas that might have some forward going momentum...And as for a mixture of 'sayings' from every Tom, Dick and Harry - another committee, another consensus - to decide which 'sayings' have merit....

(remember, Wells has his itinerant, non-crucified, Galilean preacher - bottom line is that a mythological Jesus storyboard is not going to get any 'legs' without first putting down its 'feet' squarely on terra firma....)

OK, guys - just reading posts above this one. Let me repeat this....Jesus in the gospel storyline is not human.....repeat.....Jesus in the gospel storyline is not human. However, that fact does not negate the very real possibility that a historical figure was relevant to the beginning of early christianity...

dog-on

It also does not negate the equal possibility that there wasn't.

So, whatever floats your boat, at least until someone comes up with definitive proof, one way or the other.

show_no_mercy

This is just not true. Marcion thought that his Jesus looked human, but was in fact a manifestation of the Good God. His Jesus wasn't some platonic archetype that "represented" anything. There wasn't any symbolism, thus Marcion in no way thought that his Jesus was a religious myth that explained some esoteric (i.e. gnostic) truth. Marcion's Jesus was just as real as Marcion.

maryhelena

Well, I did say 'probably' - so who knows for sure - it all interpretation of his position anyway... My interest is really in the idea - which Marcion seems to have had - about a non-Jewish Jesus.....and where that idea can take one in trying to understand the early beginnings of Christianity...

You mean as in flesh and blood historical figure? Marcion's non-Jewish Jesus was just as real as Marcion - but did you not just say that his Jesus 'looked human' but was really "a manifestation of the Good God" - I'm afraid I don't get your point here....

aa5874

But, virtually all God believers believe their Gods are real and can see, hear, talk, walk and do things that appear to be humanly possible.

Marcion's Jesus did not have any human flesh or was not born through human sexual reproduction so Marcion's Jesus was as real as an angel or any other supernatural body that can appear and disappear at will.

The angel Gabriel and the Devil, based on the Bible, were real.

aa5874

But, again Marcion, even based on Church writings, was late. Marcion was not regarded as the originator of the non-Jewish Jesus and there were people called Christians about 100 years before Marcion who believed in a non-Jewish Christ.

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.

maryhelena

OK - what Marcion actually thought re the nature of his non-Jewish Jesus - whether this figure was a manifestation of something from the spirit world and only appeared to be human - or whatever in that line of thought he might have had - is of secondary concern. That 'theology' does not remove the fact that Marcion 'saw' his Jesus as a non-Jewish Jesus. So, for the sake of argument, whether Marcion understood that there was a non-Jewish historical core to the gospel Jesus storyline - or he just wanted to insist that his Jesus, who was a manifestation of some spiritual entity, was not Jewish - really amounts to the same idea - Marcion's storyline was that the Jesus in his gospel of Luke was a non-Jewish Jesus.

I don't think there is any controversy re that basic position. Marcion's Jesus was a non-Jewish Jesus. I am simply taking that idea a step further - and seeing how far one can go with it in trying to understand the early beginnings of christianity. What Marcion did, his heresy, was a huge affront to the christianity of his day - and, from our perspective today, needs to be further investigated....

(my formatting)