Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 03-30-2013, 07:51 PM

Eznik was a fifth century Armenian bishop who wrote a long work against the influential sects in the region. The Marcionites have an entire section to themselves. But because I used to rely only on a photocopied French translation that Daniel Mahar sent to me twenty years ago, I missed two important references to the Marcionites that come in the pages that precede that section. In that section it is clear that the radical dualism foisted upon the sect by the Church Fathers is a lie. The Marcionites are consistently represented in Eznik as developing arguments out of the Pentateuch. In this case the Marcionites clearly understood that the Good God (= 'Beneficence') did not partake in the creation of creatures (= man). I am almost certain this derives from the consistent representation of Yahweh in the Hebrew MS of Genesis which Eznik says the Marcionites preferred over the LXX.

In other words, the Just God (= Yahweh) made man but because the Good God (= Elohim) was not involved it was an imperfect creation. We can assume that Jesus (= the Good God, Elohim) coming down to earth from heaven was understood to rectify that miserable creation with the power of love, kindness and mercy. I am certain of it. That's the original Marcionite understanding:

Quote:

But thus, here we see not only the former, but also dragons and wild beasts and darkness and thunderbolts, which they posit from an evil one, called by the same Spirit to the same glorification which it addresses to them both through David (Ps 148:2,8) and through the three youths in the furnace (cf. Dan 3:57), which proves that rightly are they called to the glorification of the same One by those He created. And not as that Marcion, whose insipidity we will shortly disclose, hallucinates, that it is necessary for the Just One's creatures to render worship to the good Stranger, by reason of his goodness. [Eznik p. 153]

And He does not have anyone as an associate with himself, as a brother, or as a friend, or as a stranger who is a partner, but only His power and His wisdom, who is offspring of His own essence and is coeternal (1 Cor 1:24) and the Spirit of his own nature (1 Cor 2:10-11), who is from that very same one, and is always beside Him indestructible and undivided.

And from all of this it is clear that there was no hyle, which is matter, beside God, from which, so say the Greek sages, He created creatures. Nor from that same did evil enter the world, as the heretics say (= Marcionites), who, regarding hyle, they took from those ones reasons for making a god, so as to posit a god opposite to God. And furthermore, there was no creator of evil; the Magians are deceived that Xaraman created evil. 352. But rather only one God was creator, and the same one creator of good and not of evil, and creator eternal. Because even before He had created the creatures, He had in His thought by means of foreknowledge that measure for preparation of creatures. And there never was when He was not Creator, inasmuch as He was holding in Himself the power sufficient for all to come into being. 353. And God had many principles by which He came to create His creatures. First, it was not right to leave idle that capacity for skilfulness like a vanquished weakling lest there be discovered something for not being able to create, the capacity for which He was containing in Himself by means of ancient knowledge.

Second, because He is beneficent by nature, it would not be right to store His beneficence unused. Moreover, many principles similar to these were with God, by which He created a beginning of the furnishing of the world. Just as when someone, who is skilled in certain matters, whether music or medicine or carpentry, does not demonstrate skill by performing it, in vain does he possess the state of that skill in which he himself does not delight, nor to others does he demonstrate the knowledge of that art. Likewise too for God, who had in Himself every skill for artful knowledge. If He had not created creatures, in vain would one think that He had the skill, when there were none visible thence from that skill. So too that beneficence would not beneficence if He had not created creatures who would enjoy that beneficence. But, likewise He is beneficent not only because He gave them "existence", but also because He gave them the joy of those superior things. [p. 177 - 178]

The translation derives from the recent Peeter's work http://books.google.com/books?id=3yP...ans%22&f=false

aa5874 · 03-30-2013, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Eznik was a fifth century Armenian bishop who wrote a long work against the influential sects in the region. The Marcionites have an entire section to themselves. But because I used to rely only on a photocopied French translation that Daniel Mahar sent to me twenty years ago, I missed two important references to the Marcionites that come in the pages that precede that section. In that section it is clear that the radical dualism foisted upon the sect by the Church Fathers is a lie. The Marcionites are consistently represented in Eznik as developing arguments out of the Pentateuch. In this case the Marcionites clearly understood that the Good God (= 'Beneficence') did not partake in the creation of creatures (= man). I am almost certain this derives from the consistent representation of Yahweh in the Hebrew MS of Genesis which Eznik says the Marcionites preferred over the LXX.

In other words, the Just God (= Yahweh) made man but because the Good God (= Elohim) was not involved it was an imperfect creation. We can assume that Jesus (= the Good God, Elohim) coming down to earth from heaven was understood to rectify that miserable creation with the power of love, kindness and mercy. I am certain of it. That's the original Marcionite understanding....

According to Ephraim, Jesus was not the creator or from the creator.

Ephraim's Against Marcion III

Quote:

... These are two things from which the Marcionites have deflected, for they are not willing to call our Lord 'the Maker,' nor (do they admit) that He was (sent) by the Maker...

According to Justin Marcion preached another God and another son.

Marcion did not preach about Jesus.

Justin's First Apology

Quote:

...And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son....

Now, that you have introduced the Armenian bishop we now have more apologetic sources that contradict "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian and "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

stephan huller · 03-30-2013, 11:14 PM

Neither of these sources contradict what I am suggesting. If you look at the Masoretic text for instance there is a strange coupling of both divine names throughout the section - 'Lord God,' 'Lord God,' 'Lord God.' It is very unusual. If you look at Philo he makes clear that these are two different divine powers - exactly as Ephrem, Eznik and our other sources - even Irenaeus at certain places - put it. Eznik's suggestion now is that Marcionites held that it was the Lord (Yahweh) alone who made creatures. God (= Chrestos) was beneficent and absent from the creation process only to appear later. That's Jesus.

aa5874 · 03-31-2013, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Neither of these sources contradict what I am suggesting. If you look at the Masoretic text for instance there is a strange coupling of both divine names throughout the section - 'Lord God,' 'Lord God,' 'Lord God.' It is very unusual. If you look at Philo he makes clear that these are two different divine powers - exactly as Ephrem, Eznik and our other sources - even Irenaeus at certain places - put it. Eznik's suggestion now is that Marcionites held that it was the Lord (Yahweh) alone who made creatures. God (= Chrestos) was beneficent and absent from the creation process only to appear later. That's Jesus.

Chrestos is NOT Jesus. That is so basic. Once Marcion preached about Chrestos he did preach ANOTHER Son.

I expected that you would at least know the difference between Chrestos and Jesus Christus.

When dealing with identity it is extremely important that you know the name of the character to be identified.

Please, can't you understand the contradiction?

We have multiple sources that mentioned Marcion and the Marcionites and they contradict one another.

Justin was a CONTEMPORARY of Marcion NOT Eznik.

Justin is corroborated by Ephraim.

Ephraim's Against Marcion III

Quote:

... These are two things from which the Marcionites have deflected, for they are not willing to call our Lord 'the Maker,' nor (do they admit) that He was (sent) by the Maker...

According to Justin Marcion preached another God and another son.

Justin's First Apology

Quote:

...And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son....

Based on Justin, a contemporary source, Marcion taught that God was NOT the maker of All things in heaven and earth.

jgreen44 · 03-31-2013, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Chrestos is NOT Jesus. That is so basic. Once Marcion preached about Chrestos he did preach ANOTHER Son.

I expected that you would at least know the difference between Chrestos and Jesus Christus.

But what about the Codex Sinaitucus?

"As to the ancient manuscripts, they all have the word in all three places and their testimony is identical – with one critical exception. The best and earliest codex of all, Sinaiticus, has instead of Christianoi (Xristianoi/), Chrestianoi (Xrhstianoi/) – and it has this reading in all three places where the word occurs. Therefore it is impossible, in spite of the Nestle-Aland tentative suggestion for Acts 26:28, for it to be an itacism (i.e., a popular misspelling based on third/fourth century shifts in pronunciation, something of which this manuscript is, it is true, replete). For one thing, I find no parallel for changing a long "i" (iota) to a long "e" (eta) in this manuscript (and the unusual spelling would not have happened three times by mistake). Equally interesting is the fact that in all three cases, the right vertical stroke and the horizontal stroke of the ETA have been erased to produce an IOTA (yielding the traditional spelling). This is very unusual. Sinaiticus was corrected many times, and each generation of correctors had their own discernible "tics". But simple erasure without further comment seems to be unprecedented. Moreover, the empty space left by the erasure is, in all three cases, not filled up. This shows that without any question the scribe of Sinaiticus deliberately meant to write "Chrestian" in all three instances; it was not a mistake. The plot thickens when we consider that two of the earliest secular references to Christianity, Tacitus, Annales 15.4, where Tacitus talks about the Christians being persecuted by Nero as "Chrestians", and Suetonius, Claudius 25, referring to Claudius' expulsion of the Jews mentions a certain "Chrestus" as responsible, we find precisely the spellings one would predict if these authors (or their sources) were deriving their information from the same tradition which the spelling of Sinaiticus suggests.

http://ichthys.com/mail-the-name-Christian.htm

The two titles "Chrestus" or "Chrestian" are referred to in the following written sources: Tertullian (AD 210), The Eighth Sibyl (AD 200), Theophilos of Antioch (AD 170), Marcus (AD 145), Apocalypse of Elijah (AD 100), Suetonius (AD 124) and Tacitus (AD 116). There is even a disputed inscription (now lost) from Pompei (AD 79) that is believed to have contained a reference to this lost title of Jesus.

Again, Christians like to play off the spelling of "Chrestus" as an insignificant misunderstanding on the part of pagan Romans. But "Chrestus" appears in the earliest Bible we have so "Chrestus" cannot be an early pagan Roman misunderstanding. "Chrestus" is the word early "Christians" (Chrestians) used to refer to their god.

Why is this important?

"Firstly the hero of Marcion's Bible was called Isu Chrestos - not Jesus. An important point here is you don't see "Jesus Christ" in second century texts. So in the Bible of Marcion of Sinope "Isu Chrestos" appears instead of "Christ" and "Jesus". Also in the archaeological fragments mentioned earlier the scribes used the letters "IS" wherever Jesus Christ now appears. The inscription "Isu Chrestos" can still be seen on the oldest surviving Christian "Synagogue" in Syria.

http://www.marcion.info/

The earliest date we have for Marcion is Polycarp's comment that Marcion was teaching in 115 AD. But use of the word "Chrestus" precedes Marcion by 65 to 75 years. It would seem, therefore, that the above set of dogma was the original set of orthodox beliefs. How else can we explain the widespread popularity of Marcionism just 23 years after 115 AD, the date Polycarp was willing to admit Marcion arrived on the scene?

Writing in 138 AD, Justin Martyr said that Marcionites could be found in "every nation." Could someone just make up a theological system in his head and 23 years later threaten the primacy of the supposedly established orthodoxy of Catholicism? Marcion must have piggy-backed off of a pre-existing theology, the dogma accompanying belief in Chrestus, the god of the Chrestians as long ago as 40 AD...just seven years after the alleged crucifixion of Christ and a good two decades before Paul arrived in Rome.

"Nobody knows how the Church of Rome was established. Neither the Book of Acts nor the writings of the early Fathers explain how Christianity arrived in Rome. As has been discovered, Suetonius, the Roman historian, mentions the expulsion of followers of Chrestus from Rome, during the time of Emperor Claudius c. AD 40-50. This indicates that a flourishing Christian community existed in Rome, even before Paul went to Corinth or Ephesus in AD 49. By the time of Nero (AD 54-68), the Christian community in Rome was already of a considerable size."

http://www.firstnewtestament.com/ori..._christian.htm

It would seem that the earliest expression of what we call "Christianity" was not what we know it to be today. It would appear that once the Catholics gained supremacy, the earliest orthodoxy was repainted as heresy and the heresy of Catholicism was declared to be the original orthodoxy.

Later Christian scribes literally erased the "e" from "Chrestus" and "Chrestianos" and replaced it with an "i". And, as we know, later editions of the Bible replaced "Chrestus" with "Christus" and "Chrestianos" with "Christianos".

But, as we have seen, the Catholic church failed to cover all of it's tracks. Catholic scribes failed to erase all evidence of the original god of Christianity, Chrestos, the God of Marcion.

Duvduv · 03-31-2013, 06:08 AM

Ironically, "Marcion" the bogeyman never has a chance to defend himself since everything alleged about him is from his enemies. This type of one-sided academic analysis would never stand up in court.

stephan huller · 03-31-2013, 12:05 PM

From Marcion's Antitheses?

Quote:

for the Lord said, Behold Adam is become as one of us,c referring no doubt to the future promotion of man to divinity. In fact, what is it that follows? And now, lest perchance he stretch forth his hand and take of the tree of life and live for ever. [Tertullian Against Marcion 2.26]

Masoretic Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

stephan huller · 03-31-2013, 03:38 PM

More variants with Lord instead of God. Theophilus of Antioch:

Quote:

He has made us after another pattern, [it is His purpose] that we should possess the soul of children, inasmuch as He has created us anew by His Spirit. For the Scripture says concerning us, while He speaks to the Son, Let Us make man after Our image, and after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the beasts of the earth, and the fowls of heaven, and the fishes of the sea. Genesis 1:26 And the Lord said, on beholding the fair creature man, Increase, and multiply, and replenish the earth. Genesis 1:28 These things [were spoken] to the Son. [Autolycus 2.19]

In LXX and Masoretic 'God' says these words

stephan huller · 03-31-2013, 03:49 PM

Irenaeus Against Heresies:

Quote:

For, as the Scripture says, He made [man] by a kind of process: And the Lord took clay from the earth, and formed man. Genesis 2:7 Wherefore also the Lord spat on the ground and made clay, and smeared it upon the eyes, pointing out the original fashioning [of man], how it was effected, and manifesting the hand of God to those who can understand by what [hand] man was formed out of the dust. [5.15.2]

LXX = God

stephan huller · 03-31-2013, 04:12 PM

Clement of Alexandria Exhortation (very significant)

Quote:

The Word, who in the beginning bestowed on us life as Creator when He formed us, taught us to live well when He appeared as our Teacher; that as God He might afterwards conduct us to the life which never ends. [5.4]

The Maker of the universe alone; the Great Artist and Father has formed us, such a living image as man is. [98.2]

Clement also makes clear we are not yet after the image of God, to be made after the image of God is the purpose of Christian initiation:

Quote:

but God in everything is greater than man; if, then, the greater pities the less, it is God alone that will pity us. For a man is made to communicate by righteousness, and bestows what he received from God, in consequence of his natural benevolence and relation, and the commands which he obeys. But God has no natural relation to us, as the authors of the heresies will have it; neither on the supposition of His having made us of nothing, nor on that of having formed us from matter; since the former did not exist at all, and the latter is totally distinct from God unless we shall dare to say that we are a part of Him, and of the same essence as God. And I know not how one, who knows God, can bear to hear this when he looks to our life, and sees in what evils we are involved. For thus it would turn out, which it were impiety to utter, that God sinned in [certain] portions, if the portions are parts of the whole and complementary of the whole; and if not complementary, neither can they be parts. But God being by nature rich in pity, in consequence of His own goodness, cares for us, though neither portions of Himself, nor by nature His children. And this is the greatest proof of the goodness of God: that such being our relation to Him, and being by nature wholly estranged, He nevertheless cares for us. For the affection in animals to their progeny is natural, and the friendship of kindred minds is the result of intimacy. But the mercy of God is rich toward us, who are in no respect related to Him; I say either in our essence or nature, or in the peculiar energy of our essence, but only in our being the work of His will. And him who willingly, with discipline and teaching, accepts the knowledge of the truth, He calls to adoption, which is the greatest advancement of all. [2.16]

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

03-30-2013, 11:14 PM	#3
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Neither of these sources contradict what I am suggesting. If you look at the Masoretic text for instance there is a strange coupling of both divine names throughout the section - 'Lord God,' 'Lord God,' 'Lord God.' It is very unusual. If you look at Philo he makes clear that these are two different divine powers - exactly as Ephrem, Eznik and our other sources - even Irenaeus at certain places - put it. Eznik's suggestion now is that Marcionites held that it was the Lord (Yahweh) alone who made creatures. God (= Chrestos) was beneficent and absent from the creation process only to appear later. That's Jesus.

03-31-2013, 06:08 AM	#6
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Ironically, "Marcion" the bogeyman never has a chance to defend himself since everything alleged about him is from his enemies. This type of one-sided academic analysis would never stand up in court.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.