Layman

And why would the apologists distort their teachings so radically? If Marcionites saw it all as an allegory, that's all the more ammunition for Tertullian and the others to show how wrong they are. Afterall, christians would have no reason to change the position they were attacking to something less offensive. And since Marcionites were so numerous and widespread when Tertullian and the others were writing, how could they have honestly missed the mark so badly? That seems unlikely. And it seems even less likely that two psuedo-scholars could uncover such a gross mistake 2000 years later. And if it's all allegory, why remove the birth narrative?

Dropping an unsupported reference to Freke and Gandy on something that goes so against the grain is not very perusausive.

Ted Hoffman

Just to put this where it rightly belongs:

About Marcion believing in a HJ, its incorrect to argue that Marcion's belief Jesus was historical makes Jesus historical or that the fact that Marcion believed Jesus visited places actually means Marcion believed Jesus literally existed and literally visited the places.
It implies everything Marcion believed to have happened did happen. Which is arrant nonsense.

Its like arguing that since someone believed that a certain mermaid called Janet went to Miami and said hello to everyone, Janet is historical.
Mermaids are not actual, they are mythical and have never existed. Irrespective of whether someone believes they sat on chairs.
In the same manner, historical people do not step from heaven (as adults) even when its argued that they proceeded to talk to people in cities - like the Marcionite Jesus.
Worse still, the existence of historical people cannot be an illusion (as per docetic beliefs regarding Jesus' existence). In fact, their existence is the very opposite of illusion.

It is also inconsistent with Marcionism to equate a flesh and blood man (one from God, the Demiurge who revealed himself in the OT) - a HJ; and a being from the God of love - who remained completely hidden - a spiritual Jesus.

Marcion accounts for the inconsistency by implying that the existence of a HJ was an illusion.

According to Marcion, even as people saw Jesus as a flesh and blood man, Jesus NEVER was flesh and blood. Because flesh and blood was filthy and evil.
He just appeared as such just in order to save historical people from a historical God - the Demuigre (Yahweh?).

And Jesus was pre-existent - thus cannot be considered historical. He is just a guy from the other non-fleshly, unseen side of the universe who got tired of seeing fleshly people suffer and decided to step in and save them from the Demuigre (who is the judge at the parousia).

Link

MysteryProf

This might be a bit off-topic, but I figured this was a split from a thread about Paul and one discussing Gnosticism, so...

I would recommend a reading of Elaine Pagels' The Gnostic Paul . It's a Gnostic exegesis of Paul's decidedly legitimate letters, including the one Layman's original debate began with. Here's her analysis of Rom. 1:3-4 from the Gnostic viewpoint:

Basically, Pagels argues that Paul is preaching in two different ways: to the psychics (an outer group of believers) and to the initiated pneumatics.

So, by the same interpretation, the next phrase about the God in power according to the spirit would be a reference to the power beyond the demiurge, the ultimate creator. According to Gnostic exegetes, these statements aren't meant to be read in the literal fashion.

Was Paul a Gnostic? I have no idea. But if he was, then that's even less we can say about Jesus as a historical figure.

~MysteryProf

Amaleq13

Good points!

I don't think we can ever hope to answer this question definitively but we can say with confidence that those who were gnostics embraced his letters and embraced him as though he was one as well.

Toto

Pagels in Gnostic Paul makes it clear that she is discussing the use that later Gnostics made of Paul's letters, not whether Paul himself could be considered a Gnostic.

MysteryProf

Of course. My post wasn't designed to say that Paul was a Gnostic, although I've heard people claim that (not credible ones... haha). My point was that for Gnostic theologians, seemingly straightforward phrases could be interpreted in increasingly complex ways. That is a point that I think should be taken into consideration when discussing Marcion's ideas, as he is associated with Gnosticism.

Apparently I'm still getting used to self-expression in a forum setting.

~MysteryProf

Toto

There is a lot of language in Paul's letters that makes him sound like a Gnostic. Apologists like to claim that Paul was just appropriating the Gnostics' terminology to use against them, but it is possible that language was added by Gnostics, or by Marcion in particular.

See the recent thread on Interpolations in the Pauline Epistles. Given the likelihood of interpolations, it seems hard to say what Paul was with any certainty.