dog-on

And all this means what, AA? That the Catholics disapproved of Marcion?

Why do you prefer Foxnews?

dog-on

I do not think that Marcion took the atheist position, however I do think, based on the information we have, that Marcion took a hyper-literalist position. In other words, he did not deny the "truth" of the LXX, he simply determined that this "truth" stood in direct opposition to the revealed "truth" of Jesus Christ, or whatever he called the new god.

And yes, I think that it is likely that the problem of evil was the clincher.

avi

Thank you dog-on, for a detailed response, much appreciated.

So, you propose that:
a. Marcion may have interpreted the Septuagint literally;
b. hence, the evil god, ......
BUT, here's my first stumbling block:
how can anyone accept LITERALLY the LXX, AND concurrently believe in TWO Gods, one evil, the other beneficial?

If one is permitted to acknowledge only one message, only one brief phrase, only one thought, derived from the ancient Hebrew texts, a thought which serves to differentiate Judaism from all other religions, then that thought is, in my uneducated opinion, this:

there exists but one god, only one god, not more than one.

So, how can Marcion, if a loyal, devout, true believer, then posit belief in TWO gods? Even I can appreciate the distinction between one and two.

My second problem, associated with understanding what you and show_no_mercy have explained, is related to Paul. Until the present time, I had never thought of Paul as a dualist, that takes a bit of time to digest. I read that quote, which does seem to support your contention.

Since I do not know when Paul's letters were first written, (I know Trobisch claims first century, but I think, mid second century is more reasonable), I am uncertain about who is on first, and who on second: Did Marcion precede or follow Paul? I don't know the answer.

In my very inexpert opinion, there is ammunition present in Mark, of quantity sufficient for Marcion to reach his conclusions about evil god -->presumably Yahweh, and good god --> presumably JC, without recourse to any of Paul's epistles.

avi

dog-on

Because he also believed in the God revealed, perhaps by Paul, by Jesus Christ. The Antithesis, I think he said.

Unless that one God was somehow unaware that there was, indeed, another greater God. In other words, Yahweh didn't lie, he was simply misinformed.

Very easily, imo. Actually, any current Christian does pretty much the same.

Perhaps, though I also think that Mark draws upon the Pauline doctrine. Of course, whether or not there actually was a Paul is a bit besides the point, as I use the name simply because it makes it easier to identify which writings/doctrines I am referring to.

Could Marcion, or someone within his circle either before or after been the actual author of these works? I suppose so, but I have no evidence for this one way or another. That said, as I alluded to earlier, I do think that it is not unreasonable to view the Epistle to the Galatians as a fictionalized retelling of Marcion's dealings with the Catholics. In some ways, this understanding simply makes much more sense than reading the Epistle at face value. However, for this as well, I have no real evidence that I could produce to support the contention, other than it kinda makes sense, especially in light of Luke/Acts and the Pastorals.

avi

Thank you dog-on, I invariably learn something useful and productive from your posts (ditto for show_no_mercy and maryhelena)

Perhaps I have misunderstood: doesn't ὅτι κύριος ὁ θεός imply that kurios is simply a synonym for theos, i.e. not two separate entities?

here is First Corinthians 8:6, from Codex Sinaiticus:

αλλ ημιν ειϲ ┬ ο πα τηρ εξ ου τα παντα και ημιϲ ειϲ αυτο

και ειϲ κϲ ιϲ χϲ δι ου τα παντα και ημιϲ δι αυτου

So, in this case, the two words (I use the term loosely, since they are now simply abbreviations) now represent distinct entities, as all of you were attempting to explain to me, previously.

Omniscience does not permit such an explanation.

What remains very puzzling (apart from chronology) is this:
How can Marcion be regarded as a heretic, if he is simply massaging and restating Paul? How can either of them regard themselves as "true believers--loyal to LXX", and also consider JC to be a second god?

It strikes me as being so internally inconsistent, I just have a difficult time imagining that folks back then would have flocked to Marcion's defense (his congregations continued up to the fifth century CE). What seems to me, far more likely, is that the documents we rely upon, to evaluate Marcion (and Paul!) are filled up with distortions, lies, and exaggerations, i.e. FRAUD.

I can understand how Jews would appreciate a more sensitive, more caring guy than the fire and brimstone old testament. I cannot envision any Jews accepting two gods, not today, not 2000 years ago. Simply not something that I can understand.

I can understand polytheists following Marcion, if he really taught the existence of two gods, as his enemies two centuries later wrote about him, but how could he attract those polytheists with all that Jewish law stuff thrown into the mix? Everything I have read (all ten seconds worth) about Marcion, suggests that he REJECTED the whole of the old testament.

That may explain why he rejected Mark and Matthew as legitimate apostolic authors, and, if John had not yet been written, in the middle of the second century, that would explain why Marcion found only Luke, among the four gospels, acceptable. But, still, I cannot fathom, based upon the explanations thus far, why anyone would have been attracted to his movement? He seems to offer the same hellfire and damnation business of the other Christians, and the same salvation fantasy as the other Christians....He is not a guy professing turn the other cheek, and so on. He doesn't seem to be a utopian dreamer....I think we have been fed a diet rich in baloney, and poor in genuine glucose (authentic papyrus, written by Marcion, himself)

avi

dog-on

I wouldn't call the OT God omniscient, or any of the other omni's, in fact. That is more of a later Christian understanding reflected back into the OT.

A heretic is simply someone at odds with your own dogma, having once been part of your dogma. The funny thing here is that I actually think it is the other way around. I think the Catholics were the real heretics, but they were, of course, the historical victors.

Since when have documents filled with distortion, lies and exaggerations been detrimental to religion? In fact, aren't these some of the basic requirements?

Why do you think the Jews accepted such a thing? I, for one, doubt they, as a group, ever did. In fact, I'm pretty sure of it.

Wasn't the majority of the Roman world, in fact, polytheistic at that time? Marcion rejected the OT as being from the same God that sent Jesus Christ. Like I said, he did not view the OT as a fiction, as far as I can see.

However, the OT did have one very important thing going for it. That thing was recognized antiquity, even in Rome.

I would take the polemics with a grain of salt. The security of any of these texts is, in my mind, an open question and, finally, I would also be careful when interpreting the gospels through the 2000 year old glasses of the church.

Chili

And rightfully so and no amount of historic evidence will change the fact that freedom in Christ must include freedom the law! The false Gospels are those wherein Jesus returns to Galilee to do some more 'suffering,' or preaching as it may be called to purify the world around him instead of his own mind wherein this all takes place by way of perception as a Christ, . . . and for Marcion this was in anticipation of the real messiah to come which so obviously was not him (Gal. 5:1-4)

show_no_mercy

I actually think that Marcion realized that the Tanakh (or LXX) did not point to Jesus being the messiah promised to the Jews. This was the underlying reason for the rest of his theology. So Jesus had to have been [from] some other God and that the messiah promised to the Jews had not come yet.

Everything else that forms Marcion's beliefs flows from this.

Marcion was not the first Luther. Marcion was the first Christian-turned-Jew.

aa5874

What do you suppose, now?

avi

Thank you very much dog-on. I appreciate your clarification on this point.

Here are a couple of references, which may contain an argument to the contrary, i.e. that omniscience, (by definition, perhaps, rather than by singular word usage) can be readily apparent, and is easily found in the traditional LXX.

Here I am using only English, ignoring the Greek, for convenience.

1. omnipresence of cognition (which is really the definition of omniscience, isn't it?): Jeremiah 23:23--> gist of it: am I {merely--> implied} a god nearby, and not a god far off?

2. knowing everything about one's daily life: Psalms 139:3
to be aware of everything, sounds to me like omniscience....

3. knowledge independent of temporal constraints: Isaiah 43:9
(i.e. foretell, see into the future)

4. Why do you suppose he has no need to "investigate"?
That was from Job 11:11.

5. And this, from Proverbs 5:21
How could every man's "ways" be "in full view" of God, (in real time, implicitly) unless he were omniscient?

avi