jakejonesiv

Bart Ehrman coined the term proto-orthodox, and I find it very useful, even though Ehrman has retreated from implications of his studies.

I would suggest that anything you find to be nonsense, you don't read it. Add to the ignore list, like this ....

jakejonesiv

The third, and definitive version, contains AM 1.1.

Iskander

And the pope coined the term transubstantiation and he finds it very useful.

How would I know if it is nonsense unless I read it? Please do not suggest anything to me because it is useless.

jakejonesiv

Yes, there is some back channel connection. The Duetero-Paulines indicate an encounter of Marcionism with full blown gnosticism. It is clear that the figure‚ of Paul arose and held the ascendency in heretical‚ circles, and was only‚ grudgingly accepted by the catholics after massive‚ changes. It is interesting to note that all of the Heretics that the Church fathers identified as tracing their doctrines back to Simon the Samaritan had a high regard for "Paul"!

Marcion with perhaps the aid of Valentinus, wrote his own Psalms to be used in litugury rather than the Davidic psalms of the OT.

Basilides the heretic (about 138 CE) was the first to elevate any Christian‚ text (in this case the Pauline epistles 1 Corinthians‚and Ephesians) to the level of Scripture (Hippolytus, Refutatio, 7,13-14)

Jake

aa5874

Our knowledge of what Valentinus supposedly knew comes from writings attributed to Irenaeus who did NOT know when Jesus was crucified, did NOT know when Pilate was governor of Judea, did NOT know who really wrote the Canonised Gospels, did NOT who wrote all the so-called Pauline letters, did NOT know when Acts of the Apostles was composed, did NOT know that all the authors of the Canon were Fakes and did NOT know when Paul really lived.

Writings attributed to Irenaeus are sources of fiction.

Even Origen did NOT know the authors of the Canon and even claimed Paul wrote the Epistle to Hebrews.

It is hardly likely that Origen could have presented reliable information about Marcion when he seemed to have NO or very little knowledge of his own Canon.

Origen spouted the same rejected and erroneous information about the Canon.

1. In "De Principiis" Origen claimed or implied Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews.

2. In "Commentary on John" Origen claimed or implied an apostle called John composed that Gospel.

3. In "Commentary on Matthew" Origen claimed Matthew wrote the first gospel, Mark the second, Luke the third and John the fourth.

Scholars have UNIVERSALLY REJECTED Origen's claims.

Origen is NOT a credible source.

It cannot be assumed that a source which is virtually 100% in error about the Canon of the Church is magically credible when talking about so-called Heretics.

aa5874

What!!! Please supply the source that corroborates you. It is clear to me that you are now relying on faith rather than facts

You have no evidence at all that "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian is the third version.

You have ZERO evidence that "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian was composed in the 3rd century.

Please, do you NOT understand that NOT a single author in the History of the Church made reference to Tertullian's "Against Marcion" even when they listed books written by Tertullian??

All of a sudden you seem not interested in evidence that exposes that "Against Marcion" is a forgery.

When the History of the Church was composed there is NO mention of "Against Marcion" by Tertullian.

We have a most blatant forgery in "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian.

jakejonesiv

Which sects held these Christological doctrines?

stephan huller

Thank you for the complement but you still haven't answered the question. How to do reconcile the lack of reference to the title Chrestos in Irenaeus's account of the Marcionites?

MrMacSon

I only know about them in a abstract way: thought they were there own sects.

I thought Arianism was a significant 'force' that was discussed and countered at the Council of Nicea.

I thought Docetism was a preliminary phase about a non-corporeal Christ

MrMacSon

I wasn't questioning what you said, just seeking understand the specifics; in correct context or correct [past] tense. Regards.
.