Attonitus

No. Is your problem. I limit myself to show the texts, I don't try to know the mind of Marcion (that is not the only one neither the first docete), and I believe that nobody can make it, but in the docetism Jesus was not a historical figure.

Layman

He was a being who acted in history, on earth, in specific places and times with specific places and people. He was a historical figure in the mind of Marcion. That you do not believe that such a person could have existed is irrelevantg to the issue. Marcion believed that just such a person did exist on earth and interacted with regular human beings.

Layman

No, but heretics generally start out as orthodox.

Rome kicked Marcion out and returned his large monetary gift to that church once his heresy became clear. They were fine so long as they were orthodox or pretending to be. Once their heresy became apparent, they were rejected. Luther was a good Catholic for many years. Even a monk. Even after he started to stray he stayed in the Catholic Church. But their reached a point where he became a heretic to them. It would be ridiculous to argue that the Catholic Church at the time was a nice Protestant organization because Luther was a good Catholic and accepted into one of the Catholic Church's religious orders.

Which is precisely what you are arguing.

I do not think the question has any relevance to establishing Rome as a bastion of docetism. In any event, the evidence we do have is clear. The Roman Church was held in high regard by HJ Christians. For example, 1 Clement, a letter written on behalf of the Roman Church, shows that the Roman Church had the moxy to intervene in a dispute in another church about church authority. Indeed, it is clear that the Church in Corinth actually turned to Rome and asked it for assistance. This letter became very influential in the HJ Church:

ed. Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Father, Greek Texts and English Translations, page 25.


Also, that obvious Historical Jesus type Ignatius had this to say about the Roman Church:

Of course, that Iranaeus includes the church of Rome as part of "the Church" also makes your assertion ridiculous. A part of the HJ Church that was really a JM Church? But no one sought to attack the Church of Rome itself? Instead they pretended that Rome was orthodox but only some of its prominent former members were heretics?

And how about Justin Martyr? Who settled down in Rome as a Christian teacher? Perhaps you think he too was a Jesus Mythicist? Or a Docetists? Or that he is not a "Church Father"? None of which have any support whatsoever. Even Early Doherty has to concede this:

Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle, page 284.

And then we have Iraneus saying that Rome was part of "the Church" if they were JM or Docetists?

You assertion that the Roman Church was not important, or somehow disfavored, lacks persuasive effect.

Nothing about Marcion becoming a heretic after being orthodox requires that he changed his theology overnight. This is a strawman. Did Luther become a heretic overnight? Why did he remain a Catholic for so many years if the Catholic Church was not Protestant to start with? Or how about Charles Russell? Who was a Presybterian for several years. And then an Adventist member in good standing for several years before creating the "heretical" Jehovah's Witnesses? He only did so after he could not convince other Adventists to go along with him. King Henry VII was a good Catholic for decades before he split England and founded the Anglican Church.

See the pattern? Many, if not most, heretics start out as members of orthodox or almost orthodox groups and then eventually are forced out or have to leave because of their heresy.

Attonitus

Seriously, do you believe what you are saying? Have you read the mutilated texts of Marcion? Let us see the beginning of their Gospel: "In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, Jesus descended [out of heaven] into Capernaum, a city in Galilee, and was teaching [in the synagogue] on the Sabbath days; And they were astonished at his doctrine".

Is this the description of a historical man, or of a myth that Marcion makes descend to the earth? The marcionite Jesus doesn't have flesh, neither blood, it doesn't suffer in the cross, it is only appearance, a ghost. It is this the prototype of a historical man for you, even for Marcion?

Vinnie

This looks like a double standard in light of your apparent reading of the author of Luke's mind based upon the mere prominenece of women theiren. Surely you can agree that Luke was written by someone who apparently esteemed woman more than the other Gospel authors. Nothing more than that can be known with certainty. ALk or ALuke is the appropriate terminology.

Yes, Tatian only uses very vague bits in AGreeks--most prominently GJohn. But it does appear they originated from an HJ position [GJohn] with a heavy philosophical bent similar in some ways to Tatians.

The problem you have is that these early Christians were not contemporary rationalists. The things thry believe are trully mindboggling. Docetism is certainly one of them. Imagine in 2,000 years from now people looking back saying no way, Christians weren't monotheists, they believed in three Gods.

This sounds very similar to how apologists try to defend errancy. For what reason does Tatian decide to harmonize the ever increasingly popular canonical Gospels then?

Sure and in defense of your view I note that many place the Diatessaron roughly sometime during the 170s into the early 180s at the maximum (not at 170 which is literally only a couple of years after AGreeks is placed.

But if we take these five things in tandem:

Justin HJer uses Gospel Harmonies.
Tatian a few years later writes his own harmony.
Docetism and Marcion and other views deemed "heretical".
Gospel of John. Much of the serenely transcendental and pre-existent Jesus in the Gospel of John is philosohically close on, a prima facie reading, to what I see in Tatian here. Though John certainly has a "human Jesus".
Irenaeus comments.

I am also told that Clement was a pupil of Tatian? Or at least scholars assume he was on the basis of one of his comments. Collectively this all works out.

But to "buy the stories" you have to believe in an "HJ" so it still shows how one can write in a way mythicists read as belief in a mythical Jesus which is really belief in an HJ--even if a docetist variety.

And an HJ occurs early. The non-PN portions of Mark (ca 70 c.e.) demonstrate this. But this is all besides the point. We already know people can believe in an HJ and not mention many details. We have the entire first stratum Pauline corpus as proof of this.

I personally don't claim to be able to understand or rationalizee it. I would require evidence and arguments, not philosophical babblings. But I am not an ancient person living 2000 years ago. I also don't knoiw the background arguments and what was going on behind the scenes (and Paul at least was writing to Christians, not skeptics so this is moot). According to F&G as quoted by Toto, maybe I just aint as smart as these ancient people

Vinnie

spin

Rubbish. The church defines itself by cutting itself up.

Beside the information about money, the rest is unsupported speculation, though it is difficult to get at the real situation because we only have the people who didn't like him writing about him because of his success.

Bad analogy. The church in Lex Luther's time had been established for well over a thousand years. Try finding an analogy from the beginning of the religion when it was defining itself by saying what it was not.

While I think here we have become a little at different purposes and it is not worthwhile trying to pick up the pieces, I have to say that this term "HJ Christians" is a fascinatingly inappropriate retrojection.

My comments in this thread were about a number of people who were in la-la-land with their understanding of the church of Rome. (I'm not too interested in the myth v. historical debacle.)

Valentinus, who was a candidate for the bishopry of Rome, wasn't thrown out during his stay, he chose to leave of his own volition. There were no indications that the church at the time had problems with him. Perhaps he too, like your version of Marcion, changed his view overnight after leaving the church.

This like much of your argument doesn't follow. You know nothing much about the state of the church and you retroject those bits that please you from later writers.

Oh, no!

If you have read anything I have written on Justin, you'll notice I say that he's the first writer who shows clear knowledge of gospel material.

You've still missed the point. We are looking at a period when things were defining themselves. The fact that Rome eventually split with Marcion and that Justin moved there were good signs for Irenaeus. We can say little more about him.

That's because you don't deal with the fact that the church had no problem with those who would become "heretics", at least for a long time. Marcion was in Rome for very many years. He was in favour with Anecitus who was pope from 155-166 according to Irenaeus. When did Justin die?? (~165 CE)

This is your fiction about Marcion. He was in his late 50s and still in the church of Rome after over 25 years there, yet still was able to set up a heresy which lasted for several hundred years.

The early church consistently defined itself in its creation of heresies, moving from heterodoxy to orthodoxy. Your thought is anachronistic.


spin

Layman

I believe Marcion believed what he wrote. That Jesus "descesnded into Capernaum." It would not be too different than a Greek saying Zeus came to earth and did x, y, and z, but was not really a human being. Would such a Greek have believed Zues was really on earth? Yes. Was Zeus a flesh and blood human? No.

In fact, the idea is so Greek it's obviously a Greek inspired reaction to the Jewish elements of Christianity.

Doherty teaches that there was no Jesus on earth--either as a full human being or as a spirit being. Marcion believes that there was a Jesus on earth. Marcion is no Jesus Myther.

Vinnie

I suppose AMatthew and ALuke are not HJers as well since Jesus was not conceived through naturalistic means and worked many miracles? I suppose since Jesus was pre-existent in John and is ALWAYS in control (Jesus is in control of Pilate, not vice versa: Jesus lets himself be arrested when Judas brings the gang with him: Jesus lets his followers leave when the arrest party comes, not they run off and escape: Jesus doesn't pray like the human Jesus in Gethsemane in Mark, the transcendental Jesus in John scoffs at the notion of him asking his cup be taken from him: it is Jesus who decides when to die). This Jesus also knowns the future to an extents. Does then GJohn also not have an HJ?

Marcion falls into the modern HJ camp since he believes an "entity" (for the sake of being neutral) walked ( or floated around ) around in appearance as a man and interacted with other humans regularly in Palestine ca. 30 c.e.

Vinnie

Kosh

IT seems to me that you are missing an important distinction here, GD. In the case of Paul, the Gospels were as yet unwritten, and so it is more reasonable to have expected Paul to provide details to inform his readers. In this case, the Gospels were well known enough for him to write a harmonization, and so it is easy to believe that he might not have thought it necessary to recant the details.

Attonitus

This comparison doesn't make sense. For this reason was Zeus a historical figure? No