Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 04-02-2013, 12:48 AM

Did I mention that Price is trying to start up the Journal of Higher Criticism? If anyone has any ideas for articles you should send them to him. Of course, one has to have an original idea. But where do ideas come from? From what magical place do we find inspiration? I remember seeing Lionel Richie being interviewed by Barbara Walters and she asked him 'where does your talent come from?' And you know what he said, 'I think God gave me a gift.' I think he's right. The Spirit directs everything we do. We just have to get in touch with our core being. And these discussions are a great way to start. I just want to say thank you to everyone at the board for making this such an inspirational place of learning. Thank you, thank you very much.

UPDATE - I think found the interview. Maybe it will inspire other people at the forum:

The discussion about inspiration begins at 7:17. 'We are the World' 10:33. 'All Night Long' 12:15.

spin · 04-02-2013, 12:58 AM

Can people put their excitement meters away, so I can put away my micrometer?

aa5874 · 04-02-2013, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

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

Please, state the date of the manuscripts for writings of EZNIK before you proceed any further.

stephan huller · 04-02-2013, 10:28 AM

This is why I consider you such a good friend Jake. You always push me that much farther, that much higher upwards toward perfection. I wish you could see me in the same light - the way you used to. Two athletes pushing each other to race faster and better. I have found the coup de grace (I hope I can use that expression too). Game over. From Adamantius's Dialogue between (MK =) Mark the Marcionite and (AD=) Adamantius the Catholic:

Quote:

825f AD:The spirit of Man: does it come from the Creator God or from the Good God?
MK. From the Good God.
AD. In that case, the Creator God and the Good God created man together.
MK. How is that?
826a AD. You said that the soul and the body come from the Creator God, but the spirit from the Good God, did you not?
MK. When the Creator God formed man and breathed into him, he could not bring him to perfection; but the Good God (74) above saw the figure turning about and palpitating: He therefore sent some of His own spirit and gave man life. This, then, is the spirit that we claim is saved.
AD. Do all humans have some of this spirit, or only those who believe in the Good God?
MK. He comes at the giving of thanks
AD. How is it then that you asserted that He had come down for humankind's salvation? Now, it appears, He no longer came to save Man, but His own spirit; now, the spirit of the Good God needs salvation! b What shameless presumption! Was the spirit of the Good God condemned by the Creator God along with man?
[MK. No. AD. Then He came to save that which had not been condemned?
EUTR. Either the spirit sent from the Good God was condemned along with man] and it is better to obey the Creator God because he is more powerful (for he who is strong enough to condemn the spirit of the Good God will the more certainly condemn the human beings made by himself, because they are not obedient to him); or the spirit was not condemned, and it is absurd to declare that the Good God came for humanity's salvation.
MEG. The Good God, when He saw that the soul had been condemned, had mercy and came, but the Creator God decided to plot against Him, hence he resolved to crucify Him.
AD. Did He choose Himself to die for the salvation of mankind, or was He compelled by someone else?
MEG. When the Creator God saw that the Good God was annulling his law, he plotted against Him, not realizing that the death of the Good God would be the salvation of humankind.
AD. Did He choose Himself to die for the salvation of mankind, or was He compelled by someone else?
MEG. He chose it Himself, for He was not injured by death. AD. Therefore the Creator God no longer plotted against Him! d
EUTR. Who would be so foolish as to say. If He Himself chose death, it is absurd to speak of a plot, but if the Creator God (76) compelled Him, then the Creator God himself was the cause of mankind's salvation, and not the Good God.
10 MK. Our party maintain from the Scriptures that the Christ who has come is not from the Creator God, but from the Good God, for He also abrogated the law of the Creator God. AD. From what Scriptures do you propose to prove this?
MK. From the Gospel and the Apostle, for I do not trust Jewish utterances, which belong to another God.
e AD. So if I take my proofs from the Gospel and the Apostle, will you stop speaking blasphemy?
MK. I do not recognize either Law or Prophets. [Pretty translation p. 86, 87]

The emboldened section is clearly a retelling of the switch from Lord to God in the Genesis account in some manuscripts available to the Marcionites. How else can that be explained given what we have already seen from Irenaeus? I have found something very significant, Jake, thanks to you. Ignore it at the imperilment of your own integrity.

Quote:

Genesis 2:7 - Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

stephan huller · 04-02-2013, 12:33 PM

This is actually a fascinating section of the Dialogues where the text jumps between having Marcionitism represented by Megethius and Markus - the former representing what I consider to be authentic Marcionitism, the latter the radicalized dualism. Here is the Dialogue in full where after Mark is being asked to respond to the statements of the gospel that Jesus has come as a judge:

Quote:

Meg: will explain this statement of the Apostle more clearly: "Seeing it is a just thing with God to repay tribulation to those who afflict you: and to you who are afflicted, rest": You must remember that I postulated three Principles: Good, Intermediate and Evil. Now then, the Intermediate Principle, when it obeys the Good Principle, gives rest, e but when it obeys the Evil One, gives tribulation.
AD. So the Intermediate Principle is servant to both the Good and the Evil Principle; it has no power of its own, because it is subject to both the others. Presumably it does nothing by its own inclination, but only what the Good or the Evil Principle desires. Please tell us then, by whose will the Intermediate Principle created mankind.
MEG. He created mankind by His own will: "I regret," He said, "that I made made." He repented then of making bad people, and wanted to condemn and destroy them. However, the Good Principle did not permit it, f but had mercy on the human race.
EUTR. This refusal to permit the destruction of what is bad does not belong to a good God. When the Creator God planned to destroy it, the Good God had mercy on the bad! Thus the Good God will be the author of evil. But we claim God to be good who destroys what is bad. He who does not desire the bad to exist is better by far than he who wants 825a to keep and save it.
MEG. Although they were bad, the Good God rescued humankind from the Evil One, and then changed and made good those who had believed in Him.
AD. Since you claim that the Good God rescued and changed mankind into goodness, tell us, then, what it was the Good God came to save: soul and body, or only the soul? God?
MEG. Only the soul.
AD. Does the soul belong to the Good God, or to the Creator God?
MEG. The soul is a breath of the Creator God; so when He had created it, He saw that it was evil and disobedient, and cast it out. But the Evil One noticed the soul cast out, and brought it back to himself. However, the Good God had mercy b and rescued the soul from the Evil One.
AD. After He had rescued the soul from the Evil One, did the Good God give it to the Creator God, or retain it himself? [MEG. He retained it.]
EUTR. Oh what great goodness — or rather, godlessness! Megethius says the Good God took the soul from the Evil One, so that He might rob the Creator God of His own "Breath"!
AD. Ask Megethius to demonstrate how it was that the Creator God cast the soul out and condemned it.
MEG. When man ate of the tree from which the Creator God had commanded him not to eat, then the soul fell under judgement, condemnation and destruction.
AD. Please read, Megethius, how the Creator God condemned the soul.
MEG. Read yourself what is written in Genesis.
AD. I will read the decree of the Creator God, which shows what it is that was condemned, the soul or the body. He speaks in this way, "Because you have harkened to your wife, and have eaten of the tree concerning which I commanded that from this tree only you were not to eat — since you have eaten from it, cursed is the earth in your labours: with sorrow you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles shall it (72) bring forth to you; and you shall eat the grass of the field. By the sweat of your brow you shall eat your bread d till I return you to the earth out of which you were taken: for earth you are, and unto earth shall you return". Is this decree a condemnation of the soul or the body?
EUTR. The decree shows a condemnation of the body and not the soul, for it says, "Until you shall return to the earth out of which you were taken: for earth you are, and unto earth shall you return".
AD. What the Creator God condemned, this, Megethius says, the Good God saved! MEG. He put a curse upon him: surely this was condemning him?
AD. He did not curse man, but the ground. That is what it says: "cursed is the earth in your labors."
MEG: So then, man did not come from the ground?
EUTR. A moment ago you stated that the soul is a part, a "breath" of the Creator God; e now, however, you seem to have forgotten this, and claim that man was taken from the ground.
AD. So the Good God came to save the soul, although it had not been condemned?
EUTR. Therefore, if the body was condemned, yet according to Megethius and his party, it was not this that was to be saved, but the "breath" of him who condemned — that is, as they say, the soul — it is evident that He saved that which came from God and was part of Him, but gave no assistance at all to that which had been condemned and came from the ground!
8 MK. Your argument seems to have been well stated against Megethius, but it is no proof against our teaching. We do not speak of either "body" or "soul", but of "spirit", in harmony with what the Apostle says, "I have delivered such a one over to the destruction of the flesh, in order that the spirit may be saved"
AD. The spirit of Man: does it come from the Creator God or from the Good God?
MK. From the Good God.
AD. In that case, the Creator God and the Good God created man together.
MK. How is that?
826a AD. You said that the soul and the body come from the Creator God, but the spirit from the Good God, did you not?
826a AD. You said that the soul and the body come from the Creator God, but the spirit from the Good God, did you not?
MK. When the Creator God formed man and breathed into him, he could not bring him to perfection; but the Good God (74) above saw the figure turning about and palpitating: He therefore sent some of His own spirit and gave man life. This, then, is the spirit that we claim is saved.
AD. Do all humans have some of this spirit, or only those who believe in the Good God?
MK. He comes at the giving of thanks
AD. How is it then that you asserted that He had come down for humankind's salvation? Now, it appears, He no longer came to save Man, but His own spirit; now, the spirit of the Good God needs salvation! b What shameless presumption! Was the spirit of the Good God condemned by the Creator God along with man?
[MK. No. AD. Then He came to save that which had not been condemned?
EUTR. Either the spirit sent from the Good God was condemned along with man] and it is better to obey the Creator God because he is more powerful (for he who is strong enough to condemn the spirit of the Good God will the more certainly condemn the human beings made by himself, because they are not obedient to him); or the spirit was not condemned, and it is absurd to declare that the Good God came for humanity's salvation.
MEG. The Good God, when He saw that the soul had been condemned, had mercy and came, but the Creator God decided to plot against Him, hence he resolved to crucify Him.
AD. Did He choose Himself to die for the salvation of mankind, or was He compelled by someone else?
MEG. When the Creator God saw that the Good God was annulling his law, he plotted against Him, not realizing that the death of the Good God would be the salvation of humankind.
AD. Did He choose Himself to die for the salvation of mankind, or was He compelled by someone else?
MEG. He chose it Himself, for He was not injured by death. AD. Therefore the Creator God no longer plotted against Him! d
EUTR. Who would be so foolish as to say. If He Himself chose death, it is absurd to speak of a plot, but if the Creator God (76) compelled Him, then the Creator God himself was the cause of mankind's salvation, and not the Good God.
10 MK. Our party maintain from the Scriptures that the Christ who has come is not from the Creator God, but from the Good God, for He also abrogated the law of the Creator God. AD. From what Scriptures do you propose to prove this?
MK. From the Gospel and the Apostle, for I do not trust Jewish utterances, which belong to another God.
e AD. So if I take my proofs from the Gospel and the Apostle, will you stop speaking blasphemy?
MK. I do not recognize either Law or Prophets. [Pretty translation p. 86, 87]

stephan huller · 04-02-2013, 12:50 PM

Another section;

Quote:

MEG. The Creator God did not know where Adam was, when He asked, "Where are you"? Christ, however, knew even men's thoughts
AD. How is it then that Christ said concerning Lazarus, "Where have you laid him?" Perhaps He was ignorant where he lay?
MEG. This is not written in our Gospel.
AD. You know that you undertook to make your proof from our Gospel, d But since you do not want this, what is meant when Christ inquired from the chief of the demons, "What is your name?" and he replied, "Legion"? So according to your Gospel He was ignorant and therefore asked the question.
MEG. This is not a similar case.
EUTR. Both cases seem to me to be instances of ignorance: "Where are you?" and "What is your name?
AD. God did not ask Adam, "Where are you?" because he wanted to make enquiry, but rather to recall something to his mind. By asking "Where are you?" He reminded him who at first had lived in happiness, but soon afterwards had disobeyed the command and was now naked: Behold in what condition you once lived, and note your present state, deprived of the pleasures of Paradise!
MEG. What then does it mean in the Law when it (38) says, "Cloak for cloak"115, while the good Lord says, "If anyone should take your cloak, give him your tunic also"? [p. 61]

stephan huller · 04-02-2013, 12:55 PM

It is very curious that Adamantius brings up the Lazarus resurrection knowing full well that the Marcionite has already said that he will only answer questions from his gospel. I wonder if the reference is to the Lazarus story being in the Marcionite gospel. Compare Secret Mark:

Quote:

And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb.

with John:

Quote:

When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. “Where have you laid him?” he asked. “Come and see, Lord,” they replied. Jesus wept. Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him!” But some of them said, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?” Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. “Take away the stone,” he said.

In other words, he doesn't ask the woman where the tomb is hence Megethius's statement "this (= 'where have you laid him?') is not written in our Gospel" as opposed to "this story is not in our gospel"

Chili · 04-02-2013, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

With respect to Marcion attention paid to 'the Lord' rather the 'Lord God' of the manuscripts:

Quote:

For if he (= the Lord) had intervened he would have cancelled that freedom of choice which in reason and goodness he had granted. In fact, suppose him to have intervened, suppose him to have cancelled that freedom of choice, by calling the man away from the tree, by keeping that deceiver the serpent away from converse with the woman, would not Marcion call out, 'Look at that Lord and Master, so unstable, so inconsistent and untrustworthy, cancelling appointments he himself has made.'" [Against Marcion 2.7]

Genesis 3:9 "And the Lord God called Adam and said to him, Adam, where art thou?" (LXX and Masoretic)

Nono, and God said: "Adam where are you."

stephan huller · 04-02-2013, 02:46 PM

Daniel Mahar's translation (from one of the two versions of the Dialogue I forget which):

Quote:

Meg. Such is not written in our Gospel, and you understand that it was promised that from our gospel you would speak to prove.

Ad. In such a manner you would not wish, in the case where Jesus interrogates the demon,"What is your name"? And he responded, "Legion". Which according to you he was ignorant and interrogated for this reason.

stephan huller · 04-02-2013, 02:59 PM

Notice also that this notion of 'cursing the earth' (= matter) is consistent with what is reported in Ephrem and Eznik about the role of this Being in the Marcionite tradition. The Dialogues are vague about its significance though;

Quote:

MEG. He put a curse upon him: surely this was condemning him?
AD. He did not curse man, but the ground. That is what it says: "cursed is the earth in your labors."
MEG: So then, man did not come from the ground?

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

04-02-2013, 12:48 AM	#61
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Did I mention that Price is trying to start up the Journal of Higher Criticism? If anyone has any ideas for articles you should send them to him. Of course, one has to have an original idea. But where do ideas come from? From what magical place do we find inspiration? I remember seeing Lionel Richie being interviewed by Barbara Walters and she asked him 'where does your talent come from?' And you know what he said, 'I think God gave me a gift.' I think he's right. The Spirit directs everything we do. We just have to get in touch with our core being. And these discussions are a great way to start. I just want to say thank you to everyone at the board for making this such an inspirational place of learning. Thank you, thank you very much. UPDATE - I think found the interview. Maybe it will inspire other people at the forum: The discussion about inspiration begins at 7:17. 'We are the World' 10:33. 'All Night Long' 12:15.

04-02-2013, 12:58 AM	#62
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Can people put their excitement meters away, so I can put away my micrometer?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.