stephan huller

i don't understand how this contradicts my thesis here

aa5874

From the same link it is claimed Marcion REJECTED the Canon and does not believe in the resurrection of the body.

1. Eznik's Marcion
Paul got his gospel from the resurrected JESUS.
Galatians 1:9 KJV2. Eznik's Marcion: THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY (4.15)
Paul believes in the resurrection of the body.
1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV

stephan huller

I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides me there is no God. [Isa 45.5]
I am the Lord, and there is no one else [ibid 45:18]

'The Creator made the world together with Matter that functioned as a female and wife. When the Creator saw that the world he had created with Matter was good, he planned to make man. He descended to the earth to Matter and said to her: give me from your earth and I will give spirit and let us make man after our likeness (cf. Gen. 1,26). Matter gave of her earth and the Creator formed man and breathed his spirit in him (cf. Gen. 2,7) and man became a living soul. The Creator formed Adam and Eva and put them in paradise and there the Creator and Matter together gave him their commands and rejoiced in him as their common son, The God of the Law, the kosmokrator, however, saw that Adam was good and tried to steal him from Matter. He said: "Adam I am God, and there is no one else, and you shall have no other god before me. When you will have other gods before me, know that you will die" (cf. Ex. 20, 1-5; Gen. 2, 17). Thereupon Adam separated from Matter and did not listen to her orders. Matter knew then that the Creator had deceived her and had broken the treaty. In revenge Matter created many gods and filled with them the earth completely, so that Adam could no longer find his Creator when he looked for him. And she created many idols and filled the world with them and the name of the Lord of of creatures disappeared and was not be found any more' [Eznik Against the Heresies, IV,1 ; J. M. Schmid, Des Wardapet Eznik von Kolb Wider die Sekten, I74ff]

he censures of course these who fail to keep even words in the clarity of their proper meaning, that soul should be no other than the soul which is so called, and flesh no other than the flesh which is visible, and God no other than he who is preached. Consequently, this time with an eye to Marcion, he says, I am God, and other apart from me there is not. And when he repeats this in other terms, Before me there was no god, he is having a knock at those I know not what genealogies of aeons, of the Valentinians. [Tertullian Flesh of Christ 24]

Justly, therefore, do we convict them of having departed far and wide from the truth. For if the Saviour formed the things which have been made, by means of him (the Demiurge), he is proved in that case not to be inferior but superior to them, since he is found to have been the former even of themselves; for they, too, have a place among created things. How, then, can it be argued that these men indeed are spiritual, but that he by whom they were created is of an animal nature? Or, again, if (which is indeed the only true supposition, as I have shown by numerous arguments of the very clearest nature) He (the Creator) made all things freely, and by His own power, and arranged and finished them, and His will is the substance of all things, then He is discovered to be the one only God who created all things, who alone is Omnipotent, and who is the only Father rounding and forming all things, visible and invisible, such as may be perceived by our senses and such as cannot, heavenly and earthly, "by the word of His power;" and He has fitted and arranged all things by His wisdom, while He contains all things, but He Himself can be contained by no one: He is the Former, He the Builder, He the Discoverer, He the Creator, He the Lord of all; and there is no one besides Him, or above Him, neither has He any mother, as they falsely ascribe to Him; nor is there a second God, as Marcion has imagined; nor is there a Pleroma of thirty Aeons, which has been shown a vain supposition; nor is there any such being as Bythus or Proarche; nor are there a series of heavens [Irenaeus Against Heresies 2.29.9]

This God, then, being acknowledged, as I have said, and receiving testimony from all to the fact of His existence, that Father whom they conjure into existence is beyond doubt untenable, and has no witnesses. Simon Magus was the first who said that he himself was God over all, and that the world was formed by his angels. Then those who succeeded him, as I have shown in the first book, by their several opinions, still further depraved [his teaching] through their impious and irreligious doctrines against the Creator. These [heretics now referred to], being the disciples of those mentioned, render such as assent to them worse than the heathen. For the former "serve the creature rather than the Creator," and "those which are not gods," notwithstanding that they ascribe the first place in Deity to that God who was the Maker of this universe. But the latter maintain that He, is the fruit of a defect, and describe Him as being of an animal nature, and as not knowing that Power which is above Him, while He also exclaims, "I am God, and besides Me there is no other God." Affirming that He lies, they are themselves liars, attributing all sorts of wickedness to Him; and conceiving of one who is not above this Being as really having an existence, they are thus convicted by their own views of blasphemy against that God who really exists, while they conjure into existence a god who has no existence, to their own condemnation. And thus those who declare themselves "perfect," and as being possessed of the knowledge of all things, are found to be worse than the heathen, and to entertain more blasphemous opinions even against their own Creator. [Against Heresies 2.9.2]

Now man is a mixed organization of soul and flesh, who was formed after the likeness of God, and moulded by His hands, that is, by the Son and Holy Spirit, to whom also He said, "Let Us make man." This, then, is the aim of him who envies our life, to render men disbelievers in their own salvation, and blasphemous against God the Creator. For whatsoever all the heretics may have advanced with the utmost solemnity, they come to this at last, that they blaspheme the Creator, and disallow the salvation of God's workmanship, which the flesh truly is; on behalf of which I have proved, in a variety of ways, that the Son of God accomplished the whole dispensation [of mercy], and have shown that there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption. Since, therefore, this is sure and stedfast, that no other God or Lord was announced by the Spirit, except Him who, as God, rules over all, together with His Word, and those who receive the Spirit of adoption, that is, those who believe in the one and true God, and in Jesus Christ the Son of God; and likewise that the apostles did Of themselves term no one else as God, or name as Lord; and, what is much more important, [since it is true] that our Lord [acted likewise], who did also command us to confess no one as Father, except Him who is in the heavens, who is the one God and the one Father;--those things are clearly shown to be false which these deceivers and most perverse sophists advance, maintaining that the being whom they have themselves invented is by nature both God and Father; but that the I Demiurge is naturally neither God nor Father, but is so termed merely by courtesy (verbo tenus), because of his ruling the creation, these perverse mythologists state, setting their thoughts against God; and, putting aside the doctrine of Christ, and of themselves divining falsehoods, they dispute against the entire dispensation of God. For they maintain that their Aeons, and gods, and fathers, and lords, are also still further termed heavens, together with their Mother, whom they do also call "the Earth," and "Jerusalem," while they also style her many other names. [ibid 4.1.1]

And besides this Being there is no other God; otherwise He would not be termed by the Lord either "God" or" the great King;" for a Being who can be so described admits neither of any other being compared with nor set above Him. For he who has any superior over him, and is under the power of another, this being never can be called either "God" or "the great King." But neither will these men be able to maintain that such words were uttered in an ironical manner, since it is proved to them by the words themselves that they were in earnest. [ibid 4.2.5,6]

How much safer and more accurate a course is it, then, to confess at once that which is true: that this God, the Creator, who formed the world, is the only God, and that there is no other God besides Him--He Himself receiving from Himself the model and figure of those things which have been made-- than that, after wearying ourselves with such an impious and circuitous description, we should be compelled, at some point or another, to fix the mind on some One, and to confess that from Him proceeded the configuration of things created. [2.163]

"Now the archon who is weak has three names. The first name is Yaltabaoth, the second is Saklas, and the third is Samael. And he is impious in his arrogance which is in him. For he said, 'I am God and there is no other God beside me,' for he is ignorant of his strength, the place from which he had come." [Apocryphon of John]

And when he saw the creation which surrounds him, and the multitude of the angels around him which had come forth from him, he said to them, 'I am a jealous God, and there is no other God beside me.' But by announcing this he indicated to the angels who attended him that there exists another God. For if there were no other one, of whom would he be jealous? [ibid]

Then the Powers answered, saying, "We too are at loss about it, since we did not know what was responsible for it. But arise, let us go up to the Archgenitor and ask him." And the powers all gathered and went up to the Archgenitor. They said to him, "Where is your boasting in which you boast? Did we not hear you say, "I am God, and I am your Father, and it is I who begot you. and there is none beside me"? Now behold, there has appeared a Voice belonging to that invisible Speech of the Aeon which we know not. And we ourselves did not recognize to whom we belong, for that Voice which we listened to is foreign to us, and we did not recognize it; we did not know whence it was. It came and put fear in our midst and weakening in the members of our arms. So now let us weep and mourn most bitterly! [Trimorphic Protennoia]

And then a voice - of the Cosmocrator - came to the angels: "I am God and there is no other beside me." But I laughed joyfully when I examined his empty glory. But he went on to say, "Who is man?" And the entire host of his angels, who had seen Adam and his dwelling, were laughing at his smallness. And thus did their Ennoia come to be removed outside the Majesty of the heavens, i.e.,the Man of Truth, whose name they saw since he is in a small dwelling place, since they are small (and) senseless in their empty Ennoia, namely their laughter. It was contagion for them. [Second Treatise of Seth]

Meanwhile you must believe that Sophia has the surnames of earth and of Mother--"Mother-Earth," of course--and (what may excite your laughter still more heartily) even Holy Spirit. In this way they have conferred all honour on that female, I suppose even a beard, not to say other things. Besides, the Demiurge had so little mastery over things, on the score, you must know, of his inability to approach spiritual essences, (constituted as he was) of animal elements, that, imagining himself to be the only being, he uttered this soliloquy: "I am God, and beside me there is none else." But for all that, he at least was aware that he had not himself existed before. He understood, therefore, that he had been created, and that there must be a creator of a creature of some sort or other. How happens it, then, that he seemed to himself to be the only being, notwithstanding his uncertainty, and although he had, at any rate, some suspicion of the existence of some creator? [Tertullian Against the Valentinians 21]

This mother they also call Ogdoad, Sophia; Terra, Jerusalem, Holy Spirit, and, with a masculine reference, Lord. Her place of habitation is an intermediate one, above the Demiurge indeed, but below and outside of the Pleroma, even to the end. As, then, they represent all material substance to be formed from three passions, viz., fear, grief, and perplexity, the account they give is as follows: Animal substances originated from fear and from conversion; the Demiurge they also describe as owing his origin to conversion; but the existence of all the other animal substances they ascribe to fear, such as the souls of irrational animals, and of wild beasts, and men. And on this account, he (the Demiurge), being incapable of recognising any spiritual essences, imagined himself to be God alone, and declared through the prophets, "I am God, and besides me there is none else." [Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.5.4]

But in him, while thus in a state of ignorance that even he is producing, Sophia wrought all sorts of energy, and infused vigour (into him). And (although Sophia) was really the operating cause, he himself imagines that he evolves the creation of the world out of himself: whence he commenced, saying, "I am God, and beside me there is no other." [Philosophumena 6.28]

Against Tatian, who says that the words, "Let there be light," are supplicatory. If, then, He is supplicating the supreme God, how does He say, "I am God, and beside me there is none else?" We have said that there are punishments for blasphemies, for nonsense. for outrageous expressions; which are punished and chastised by reason. [Theodotos Prophetic 35]

The words, moreover, Have you not read what was spoken by God to Moses: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; He is not a God of the dead, but of the living, most clearly teach us, that He called the God of the patriarchs (because they were holy, and were alive) the God of the living, the same, viz., who had said in the prophets, I am God, and besides Me there is no God. For if the Saviour, knowing that He who is written in the law is the God of Abraham, and that it is the same who says, I am God, and besides Me there is no God, acknowledges that very one to be His Father who is ignorant of the existence of any other God above Himself, as the heretics suppose, He absurdly declares Him to be His Father who does not know of a greater God. But if it is not from ignorance, but from deceit, that He says there is no other God than Himself, then it is a much greater absurdity to confess that His Father is guilty of falsehood. From all which this conclusion is arrived at, that He knows of no other Father than God, the Founder and Creator of all things. [De Principiis 2.4.2]

I am the LORD God: there is none beside Me [Eusebius Preparation 7.11.6]

He is God, to be sure. God shall also attest the same; but He has also sworn sometimes by Himself, that there is no other God like Him [Tertullian, Against Hermogenes 6]

stephan huller

First a note on the link at Roger Pearse's site. You should take note of this on the very first page:

This is NOT the original Armenian work of Eznik but a loose paraphrase of the original material as the editor's acknowledge:

jakejonesiv

Dear aa5874,

Justin is known from a single manuscript (Codex Parisinus Graecus 450) which dates to 1364.

stephan huller

I know. aa's position is absurd. How on earth is Justin more reliable than Clement of Alexandria or any sources known to us by a single exemplar? I used to think that aa was a big joke being perpetrated by someone like J Holding. Now I just think he has some sort of condition.

jakejonesiv

Another uninformative post. Let's strike everything that is NOT EZNIK and see what is left.

jakejonesiv

Even your snippet from Salmon's summary of Eznik above is selective and unreferenced, i.e. where is the rest of it? You could at least have pointed the readers to G.R.S. Mead's summary of Salmon's summary.

http://gnosis.org/library/grs-mead/f...tten/fff38.htm

We can read the text for ourselves.

stephan huller

Let's repeat the same point over and over again. For Marcion no less than his Jewish contemporaries:

In short then, this understanding of two powers was true not only for Marcion, no less than Philo, the earliest rabbinic authorities, Hermogenes and the author of Against Hermogenes and many other Christians. Irenaeus stands virtually alone in his radical Sabellianism. The difficulty however is that we share Irenaeus's prejudices. When we read the Jewish accounts we see it as involving a single deity Yahweh (= the Lord) and that all references to 'God' are 'another way of saying Yahweh.

But this is not how Marcion and his contemporaries whether Jewish or Christian (save for Irenaeus) read the Jewish scriptures. It is mind boggling to see the blindness of people in this regard. Thus when Tertullian reports that Marcion slights 'the Lord' in his Antitheses, when Irenaeus mentions Marcion's interest in 'another God' beside the Lord, and when this point is repeated over and over again in patristic writings there can be no doubt who the 'unknown God' of the Marcionites is - elohim/theos of the Genesis scriptures who goes unmentioned in any of these same accounts which say that Marcion 'divided' the godhead along Lord/God lines. The god Clement of Alexandria and Philo identify as 'Chrestos.'


I don't understand why it isn't obvious that for early Christianity the 'blind' (= those blind to Christ) are Yahwehists (= Pharisees and other 'bad' Jews). Clearly there must have been 'good Jews' for these Christians (they are never identified but Marcion is said to have appealed his message to proselytes from Judaism so it couldn't be a 'Jew-hating' message per se). The Marcionite message wasn't Mein Kampf. The blind act like 'the Lord' in the scriptures and fail to see that 'God' was present as a saving force then and throughout the history of the Patriarchs.

How do you explain Irenaeus's statement about Marcion dividing Lord and God according to the traditional Jewish manner but only attacking one god (= the punishing Lord)?

stephan huller

No, unlike you I corrected the citation with the original German translation into English by Drijvers. You put this:

We can see how interested you are in getting to the bottom of things.