Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 08-28-2013, 01:55 PM

There are almost 100 references to the idea that the Marcionite god 'stole the property' belonging to the god of the Catholic Church. Here are some of them:

Quote:

But also, when He spoke of the devil as strong, not absolutely so, but as in comparison with us, the Lord showed Himself under every aspect and truly to be the strong man, saying that one can in no other way "spoil the goods of a strong man, if he do not first bind the strong man himself, and then he will spoil his house."(5) Now we were the vessels and the house of this [strong man] when we were in a state of apostasy; for he put us to whatever use he pleased, and the unclean spirit dwelt within us. For he was not strong, as opposed to Him who bound him, and spoiled his house; but as against those persons who were his tools, inasmuch as he caused their thought to wander away from God: these did the Lord snatch from his grasp. As also Jeremiah declares, "The LORD hath redeemed Jacob, and has snatched him from the hand of him that was stronger than he."(6) If, then, he had not pointed out Him who binds and spoils his goods, but had merely spoken of him as being strong, the strong man should have been unconquered. But he also subjoined Him who obtains and retains possession; for he holds who binds, but he is held who is bound. And this he did without any comparison, so that, apostate slave as he was, he might not be compared to the Lord: for not he alone, but not one of created and subject things, shall ever be compared to the Word of God, by whom all things were made, who is our Lord Jesus Christ. [AH 3.8.2]

John, however, does himself put this matter beyond all controversy on our part, when he says, "He was in this world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own [things], and His own [people] received Him not."(8) But according to Marcion, and those like him, neither was the world made by Him; nor did He come to His own things, but to those of another. [Irenaeus AH 3.11.2]

But inasmuch as God is invincible and long- suffering, He did indeed show Himself to be long-suffering in the matter of the correction of man and the probation of all, as I have already observed; and by means of the second man did He bind the strong man, and spoiled his goods,(1) and abolished death, vivifying that man who had been in a state of death. For at the first Adam became a vessel in his (Satan's) possession, whom he did also hold under his power, that is, by bringing sin on him iniquitously, and under colour of immortality entailing death upon him. For, while promising that they should be as gods, which was in no way possible for him to be, he wrought death in them: wherefore he who had led man captive, was justly captured in his turn by God; but man, who had been led captive, was loosed from the bonds of condemnation. [ibid 3.23.1]

And the Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, offering to Him, with giving of thanks, [the things taken] from His creation. But the Jews do not offer thus: for their hands are full of blood; for they have not received the Word, through whom it is offered to God.(1) Nor, again, do any of the conventicles (synagogoe) of the heretics [offer this]. For some, by maintaining that the Father is different from the Creator, do, when they offer to Him what belongs to this creation of ours, set Him forth as being covetous of another's property, and desirous of what is not His own. [ibid 4.18.4]

In accordance with this, too, does the apostle say, "There is one God, the Father, who is above all, and in us all."(4) Likewise does the Lord also say: "All things are delivered to Me by My Father;"(5) manifestly by Him who made all things; for He did not deliver to Him the things of another, but His own. But in all things [it is implied that] nothing has been kept back [from Him], [ibid 4.20.2]

I ignore 4.27.1 - 30.4 because I deal what that extensively in my book

And since the apostasy tyrannized over us unjustly, and, though we were by nature the property of the omnipotent God, alienated us contrary to nature, rendering us its own disciples, the Word of God, powerful in all things, and not defective with regard to His own justice, did righteously turn against that apostasy, and redeem from it His own property, not by violent means, as the [apostasy] had obtained dominion over us at the beginning, when it insatiably snatched away what was not its own, but by means of persuasion, as became a God of counsel, who does not use violent means to obtain what He desires; so that neither should justice be infringed upon, nor the ancient handiwork of God go to destruction. Since the Lord thus has redeemed us through His own blood, giving His soul for our souls, and His flesh for our flesh,(2) and has also poured out the Spirit of the Father for the union and communion of God and man, imparting indeed God to men by means of the Spirit, and, on the other hand, attaching man to God by His own incarnation, and bestowing upon us at His coming immortality durably and truly, by means of communion with God,--all the doctrines of the heretics fall to ruin. [ibid 5.1.1]

And vain likewise are those who say that God came to those things which did not belong to Him, as if covetous of another's property; in order that He might deliver up that man who had been created by another, to that God who had neither made nor formed anything, but who also was deprived from the beginning of His own proper formation of men. The advent, therefore, of Him whom these men represent as coming to the things of others, was not righteous; nor did He truly redeem us by His own blood, if He did not really become man, restoring to His own handiwork what was said [of it] in the beginning, that man was made after the image and likeness of God; not snatching away by stratagem the property of another, but taking possession of His own in a righteous and gracious manner. As far as concerned the apostasy, indeed, He redeems us righteously from it by His own blood; but as regards us who have been redeemed, [He does this] graciously. For we have given nothing to Him previously, nor does He desire anything from us, as if He stood in need of it; but we do stand in need of fellowship with Him. And for this reason it was that He graciously poured Himself out, that He might gather us into the bosom of the Father. [ibid 5.2.1]

Rightly then does His Word say to man, "Thy sins are forgiven thee;"(2) He, the same against whom we had sinned in the beginning, grants forgiveness of sins in the end. But if indeed we had disobeyed the command of any other, while it was a different being who said, "Thy sins are forgiven thee;"(2) such an one is neither good, nor true, nor just. For how can he be good, who does not give from what belongs to himself? Or how can he be just, who snatches away the goods of another? And in what way can sins be truly remitted, unless that He against whom we have sinned has Himself granted remission "through the bowels of mercy of our God," in which "He has visited us"(3) through His Son? [ibid 5.17.1]

And such or so important a dispensation He did not bring about by means of the creations of others, but by His own; neither by those things which were created out of ignorance and defect, but by those which had their substance from the wisdom and power of His Father. For He was neither unrighteous, so that He should covet the property of another; nor needy, that He could not by His own means impart life to His own, and make use of His own creation for the salvation of man. For indeed the creation could not have sustained Him [on the cross], if He had sent forth [simply by commission] what was the fruit of ignorance and defect. Now we have repeatedly shown that the incarnate Word of God was suspended upon a tree, and even the very heretics do acknowledge that He was crucified. How, then, could the fruit of ignorance and defect sustain Him who contains the knowledge of all things, and is true and perfect? [ibid 5.18.1]

For as in the beginning he enticed man to transgress his Maker's law, and thereby got him into his power; yet his power consists in transgression and apostasy, and with these he bound man [to himself]; so again, on the other hand, it was necessary that through man himself he should, when conquered, be bound with the same chains with which he had bound man, in order that man, being set free, might return to his Lord, leaving to him (Satan) those bonds by which he himself had been fettered, that is, sin. For when Satan is bound, man is set free; since "none can enter a strong man's house and spoil his goods, unless he first bind the strong man himself." [ibid 5.21.3]

for God is not ruler and Lord over the things of another, but over His own;12 and all things are God's; and therefore God is Almighty, and all things are of God. [Irenaeus Demon 3]

If indeed Matter shall prove not even to belong to God at all, as being evil, it follows,87 that when He made use of what belonged to another, He used it either on a precarious title88 because He was in need of it, or else by violent possession because He was stronger than it. For by three methods is the property of others obtained,-by right, by permission, by violence; in other words, by lordship, by a title derived from the will of another,89 by force. Now, as lordship is out of the question, Hermogenes must choose which (of the other methods) is suitable to God. Did He, then, make all things out of Matter, by permission, or by force? But, in truth, would not God have more wisely determined that nothing at all should be created, than that it should be created by the mere sufferance of another, or by violence, and that, too, with90 a substance which was evil? Even if Matter had been the perfection of good,91 would it not have been equally indecorous in Him to have thought of the property of another, however good, (to effect His purpose by the help of it)? It was, therefore, absurd enough for Him, in the interest of His own glory, to have created the world in such a way as to betray His own obligation to a substance which belonged to another-and that even not good. Was He then, asks (Hermogenes), to make all things out of nothing, that so evil things themselves might be attributed to His will? Great, in all conscience,92 must be the blindness of our heretics which leaves them to argue in such a way that they either insist on the belief of another God supremely good, on the ground of their thinking the Creator to be the author of evil, or else they set up Matter with the Creator, in order that they may derive evil from Matter, not from the Creator [Tertullian Against Hermogenes 9,10]

23. Another rule I bring into action against him, that in a god all <attributes and activities> ought to be no less rational than natural. I demand reason in his goodness, because nothing ought to be accounted good which is not rationally good: far less should goodness itself be found irrational. It will be easier for evil, vouched for by some manner of reason, to be mistaken for good, than for good abandoned by reason to escape condemnation as evil. I submit that the goodness of Marcion's god is not rational, on this account first, that it has brought itself into action for the salvation of man, who belonged to someone else.1 I know they will object that primary and perfect goodness is precisely this, when without any obligation of kinship it is willingly and liberally expended upon strangers;1 just as we are ordered to love even our enemies, in which reckoning strangers are included. When then he did not from the beginning have regard for man, who from the beginning was a stranger, by this delay he established the principle that with the stranger he has no concern. Now the rule about loving the stranger or the enemy comes after that command to love your neighbour as yourself, which, though taken from the Creator's law, you also will have to adopt, since by Christ it has not been overthrown but more firmly established.a To cause you to love your neighbour the more, you are told to love the enemy and the stranger. The exaction of a kindness not due, is an emphasizing of that which is due. Now the kindness which is due comes before that which is not due, as primary, as of more dignity, as prior to its attendant and companion, that which is not due. Therefore, since the primary rationality of goodness is for it to be put in evidence in respect of its own possessions, as a matter of justice, while its secondary <rationality> is in respect of the possessions of others, as of the overflowing of such a righteousness as exceeds that of the scribes and pharisees, how can that secondary rationality be credited to a goodness which lacks the primary, having no man of its own, and on this account again is even defective? And being defective through having no man of its own, how can it have overflowed into a man not its own? Put in evidence that primary rationality, and then you may lay claim to the secondary. No object, outside its due order, can be claimed as rational: far less can rationality itself in any person be deprived of its due order. Even suppose there could be a rationality of goodness, which began at the second degree, that in respect of the stranger, not even this second degree could be firmly based upon rationality: there is another means of casting it down. Not even secondary goodness, towards the stranger, can be considered rational unless it functions without injustice to him to whom the property belongs. any goodness whatsoever is in first instance made rational by its justice. Even as in the primary degree the goodness, if it is just, will be rational when it is exercised in respect of its own belongings, so also towards the stranger it will be seen to be rational if it is not unjust. Otherwise, what sort of goodness is this, which comes to exist by means of an injustice, and even that on behalf of a stranger? Perhaps on behalf of one of the household an unjust goodness may be conceived of as to some extent rational: but on behalf of a stranger, to whom not even honest goodness was lawfully due, by what reasoning can goodness so unjust be defended as rational? For what is more unjust, more iniquitous, more dishonest, than to confer such benefits on another man's slave that he is stolen from his master, is claimed as belonging to another, is bribed to act against his master's life and honour, and, to make matters worse, all this while still under his master's roof, still living on his provisions, still in fear of his chastisement? Even in the secular sphere there would be disapproval of that sort of pretendant, of a kidnapper still more. No better is Marcion's god, breaking his way into a world not his own, stealing man from God, son from father, foster-son from nursing-father, servant from master, so as to make him undutiful to God, disrespectful to his Father, ungrateful to his foster Father, worthless to his Master. I ask you: if rational goodness has this effect on him, what effect would irrational goodness have? I should reckon no man more presumptuous than the one who in one God's water is baptized for another god, who towards one God's sky spreads out his hands to a different god, bows down upon one God's soil to a god whose soil it is not, over one God's bread celebrates thanksgivings to another, of one God's possessions does for another god's credit works which claim the name of almsgiving and charily. Who is this god, so good that by him a man is made bad, so kindly disposed to that man that he causes another God, the man's own Master, to be incensed against him? [against marcion 2.23]

But he became tired of all that patience, for we see that he has not waited until the end of the Creator's activities. There is no point in his having borne with the Creator's Christ being announced in advance, when he has not waited for his actual appearance. Either he was unjustified in breaking into another's course of events, or he was unjustified in so long abstaining from breaking into it. What was it that delayed him?
or what that shook his patience? [Against Marcion 3:4]

But the name of Christ, which comes not from nature but from revelation, becomes the peculiar property of him by whom it is known to have been fore-ordained: nor is it subject to sharing with another god, especially one who is hostile, and has a dispensation of his own, for which he will need to provide specific names. How ridiculous it is that when they have invented the idea of two gods with hostile dispensations, they admit a partnership of names into this discord of dispensations, although they could have to hand no more cogent proof of two hostile gods than that in their dispensation there should also be found diversity of names. For there exists no case of opposing attributes which is not marked
off by its own particular terminology: and when a particular terminology is lacking, if it ever is, then the Greek catachresis—of the improper use of a term which does not belong—comes to one's rescue. But with a god, I imagine, there can be no possibility of anything lacking, or of his needing to furnish his own dispensations with property which belongs to another. What sort of a god is yours, who even for his own son lays claim to names from the Creator—names that are not only not his own, but are ancient and well known, and even on that account ought to be
unsuitable for a god who is new and unknown ? In fact how can he tell us that a new patch is not sewn on to an old garment, nor new wine entrusted to old wineskins,b if he is himself patched on to, and dressed up in, names that are old? [Against Marcion 3.16]

One however of whom there had been no announcement—if of course he wished to be recognized, for his coming was to no purpose if he did not—would not have rejected the testimony of an alien substance of any sort whatever, if he had no testimony of any substance of his own, and had come down on to another's property. [Against Marcion 4:8]

Then those are good things which the Father has delivered to the Son, and good too is that Creator whose 'all things' are good, and that other one is not good who has broken in upon another's goods so as to deliver them to his son. If he teaches men to keep their hands off what is another's, he is certainly in extreme poverty in having nothing to enrich a son with except what is another's. Or, if nothing of the Creator's
has been delivered to him by his father, by what right does he lay claim to the Creator's man? [4.25]

Again, from whom shall I ask, that I may receive? On whose property shall I seek, that I may find? At whose door shall I knock, that it may
be opened to me? Who is it has anything to give to him that asks, except him whose are all things, whose also am I who am asking? What is there I have lost on the ground of that other god, that of him I should seek it and find it? [4.26]

And so when Peter asks whether he has spoken this parable to them, or even to all, with reference to them and to all who should ever be in charge of churches he sets out the similitude of the stewards, of whom the one who in his lord's absence has treated his fellow servants well will on his return be put in charge of all his goods: but the one who has acted otherwise will when his lord returns, on a day he has not reckoned for and at an hour he was not aware of,—and the lord is that Son of man, the Creator's Christ, not a thief but a judge—be set on one side, and his portion will be appointed with the unbelievers [4.29]

Now when he declared these things necessary for man, he at once affirmed their goodness: for nothing that is evil is necessary. So he cannot be taken for a disparager of the works of the Creator or of his bounties—and with this I complete the argument I just now deferred. But if it is another who has both made provision for, and now supplies, the things he knows are necessary for man, how is it that Christ himself promises them? Or perhaps he is generous with another's property: for he says, Seek ye the kingdom of God, and these things shall be added unto you.
Added by himself, he means. But if by himself, of what sort is he, who proposes to supply us with what is another's? If by the Creator, whose of course they are, who is this that promises what another will give? If these are additions to the kingdom, to be administered as a second step, then the second step belongs to him to whom the first belongs, and the food and raiment belong to him whose is the kingdom. [4.29]

stephan huller · 08-28-2013, 02:05 PM

Also we must have our lamps burning, that is, our minds alight with faith and resplendent with works of truth, and so be waiting for the Lord, that is, for Christ. When he returns, where from? If from the wedding, he must be the Creator's Christ, for the Creator approves of marriage: if he is not the Creator's, not even would Marcion when invited have gone to the wedding, out of regard for his own god who disapproves of marriage. So the parable has broken down in that lord and whom he stands for—or would do, if he had not been one to whom marriage is no offence. Again in the parable which follows one is badly astray who identifies with the person of the Creator that thief by whom, if the householder had known the hour of his coming, he would not have suffered his house to be broken through. How can the Creator be taken for a thief, when he is the Lord of every man? No one becomes a thief, or a breaker-up, of his own property: the one who does that, is he who has come down into another's property and is taking man away from his Lord. But he means that the thief, in our case, is the devil, and that If at the beginning the man had known the hour of his coming he would never have been broken in on by him: and therefore he tells us to be prepared, because at an hour we think not the Son of man will come—not that he is himself the thief, but the judge, certainly, of those who will not have prepared themselves nor have taken precautions against the thief. So then if he himself is the Son of man, I take him to be a judge, and in the judge I lay claim to the Creator. If however it is the Creator's Christ he refers to here under the name of Son of man, so as to suggest that he is that thief the time of whose coming we know not, you have the rule I recently laid down, that no one becomes a thief of his own property—saving always this, that in so far as he represents the Creator as one to be feared, to that extent he acts as his representative and belongs to the Creator. And so when Peter asks whether he has spoken this parable to them, or even to all, with reference to them and to all who should ever be in charge of churches he sets out the similitude of the stewards, of whom the one who in his lord's absence has treated his fellow servants well will on his return be put in charge of all his goods: but the one who has acted otherwise will when his lord returns, on a day he has not reckoned for and at an hour he was not aware of,—and the lord is that Son of man, the Creator's Christ, not a thief but a judge—be set on one side, and his portion will be appointed with the unbelievers. It follows then either that he is here setting before us the Lord as judge, and is instructing us on his behalf: or else, if he means that supremely good god, he here affirms that he too is a judge—much as the heretic dislikes it. [4.29]

But since he has said in his own garden, while neither the world nor that human being belongs to Marcion's god, but to the Creator, it follows that he who has sown the seed on his own property is proved to be the Creator. Otherwise if for the sake of escaping this noose they divert the person of the man away from Christ and apply it to a man who takes the seed of the kingdom and sows it in the garden of his own heart, not even so can this matter apply to anyone but the Creator. For how can it be that the kingdom belongs to that most gentle god, when it is immediately followed by the fire of judgement with its sternness and tears? [4.30]

Who is it that seeks for a lost sheep and a lost coin? Surely he who has lost them. And who is it has lost them? He who had them in possession. And who was it had them? Their owner, of course. If then man is the property of none other than the Creator, then the man's owner had him in possession, he who had him lost him, he who lost him sought for him, he who sought for him found him, and he who found him rejoiced. [4.32]

So if the appearance of fruit on small trees gives the sign for the summer season, because it precedes it, no less do the collisions of the world, by going before it, mark beforehand the sign for the kingdom. Now every sign belongs to him to whom belongs the property of which it is the sign, and upon every property the sign is set by him to whom the property belongs. [4.40]

Because the Creator has given judgement, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree,h it will not follow from that that Christ belongs to another god and for that reason was already in the law made accursed by the Creator. How can the Creator have put a curse beforehand upon him he does not know exists? Yet is it not more reasonable for the Creator to have surrendered his own Son to his own malediction, than to have sub-
jected him for malediction to that god of yours, and that for the benefit of man who belonged to another? [5.3]

Also if that parable of the strong man armed, whom another stronger than he has overcome, and has taken possession of his goods,e is, as Marcion has it, taken for a parable of the Creator, in that case the Creator could no longer have remained in ignorance of your god of glory while he was being overcome by him: nor could he have hanged upon a cross that one against whom his strength was of no avail [5.6]

If man is both the property and the work and the image and the likeness of the Creator, and is flesh by virtue of the Creator's earth, and soul by virtue of his breathing, then Marcion's god is dwelling entirely on someone else's property, if it is not the Creator whose temple we are. [5.7]

That which is alleged as an attribute is <in logical terms> an accident, and accidents are preceded by evidence of the object to which they occur,—and especially so when someone else is already in possession of that which is being ascribed to him of whose existence there has been no previous evidence. There will be the more cause for denying his existence, the more that which is adduced as proof of his existence is the property of one already shown to exist. [5.11]

Yet know that the Good One also was pleased by this deception, that He should come and pay our debt by a fraud. Yet He who is just and mighty is not mocked, for in virtue of His justice He does not act wrongly and in virtue of His might He is not mocked. For the Just One would not act [P. 132.] wrongly so as to come, when our debt has been paid, and demand the paid debt afresh, nor again would the Mighty One be mocked, so to allow His real possessions to be snatched from Him, without receiving anything real in exchange for His real possessions. "But," it is said, "though the Just One is mighty, the Good One is nevertheless mightier than He." If therefore He overcame Him by might, how 7 do they bring in the term 'purchase'? [Call] Him therefore a doer of violence and not a purchaser. But if He made a real purchase, as one who acted humbly, how was 'might' involved in the affair ? For either let them choose for themselves that He purchased as a humble and true (Being), or else let them choose for themselves that He did violence, as one who is mighty and tyrannical. And if they say that that root [P. 100.] also is changed, then how did He (i.e. the Stranger) not exert Himself in the case of the root as in the case of the fruits, that the perfect goodness of the Stranger might be proclaimed ? But the Apostle says,36 'Eve shall live on account of her children' : then the Maker will have lived on account of the souls which (came) from Him. Or did the Maker not wish to live thus ? And how did the souls which (came) from Him consent to live ? But if the nature of the souls is the same, their will also is the |lxvi same. And if their will is different, their nature also is strange, and they are not from the Maker. And let them tell us whence are those souls ; for it is probable that they are not from the Maker. For He would not sell them (if they were really His), because He would not hate His own nature and love a nature which was not His own. " And if He was selling His nature for something which was not akin to His nature, there is a great kinship between Him and the Stranger, for lo ! one affection is found in both of them ; and moreover one will belongs to both [P. 101.] of them, namely that the Just One should love the nature of the Stranger and sell some of His possessions to Him, and that the Stranger should love the nature of the Just One and purchase from Him. And it will also be (considered) that that nature of the Just One, which is bought as being something precious, surpasses (the other) ; for if the nature of the Just One were not more excellent than that of the Stranger, the Stranger would not have actually purchased it. But what did the Stranger give to those whom He purchased ? And if He gave them a kingdom, can it be that He gave them one greater than that of Elijah and Enoch ? And why then did He not bring with Him some of His good things hither also ? Or (was it) because our domain is not worthy of them, (and) did He on that account not even introduce them into our domain ? In that case they are greater than the aforesaid Isu, inasmuch as our domain is worthy of Isu and unworthy of His (i.e. the Stranger's) good things. And if (it was) in order that they might not be denied, then he (i.e. Isu) was denied when he entered our domain. . . . [ephrem against marcion 1]

But if they say that the heavens of the Stranger hang by the power of the Stranger, we also will deal frowardly with the froward, (and say) that he who is above the heavens cannot support the heavens, but (only) if he were beneath them. But if he is the same person who is above the heavens and below them, it is clear that the place of his possessions is the same, and in the midst of it are collected those Souls whom ISU brought up hence. For a Supporter is required for those heavy Souls whom he brought up thence . . . [ inasmuch as when his possessions are found enfolded within his bosom there is required for them another power which supports them.] For we cannot accept from them just as they do not accept from us I that there should be anything set up without a foundation.[ephrem three discourses hypatius But since the followers of Marcion were ashamed to be sponsors for the term 'violent robbery' (as applicable) in the case of the Stranger, they have used with reference to Him the term 'purchase in humble fashion,' and because they are refuted in |lxi the matter of the purchase, they have used with reference to Him the term 'might,' so that when it is asserted against them that He did violence they say that He merely purchased, and when again it is asserted against them that the Maker did not wish to sell his possessions they say that He (i.e. the Stranger) is mightier than He (i.e. the Maker). Each of the (two) assertions [P. 133.] therefore annuls the other. For if it is a 'purchase in humble fashion,' consent (lit. will) and not compulsion is involved, but if the purchaser overcomes by force he does not really purchase but seizes by violence. If therefore they introduce (the mention of) His might, which is a plausible term, (the notion of) violent robbery comes in with it . . . [Ephrem Against Marcion 3]

stephan huller · 08-28-2013, 04:18 PM

ww

stephan huller · 08-28-2013, 06:33 PM

Πυθαγόρειος, πυθαγορείων = http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...wn0&prior=tw=n
Ὀρφεῖος, Ὀρφείων = http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...8:page=829&i=1

Solo · 08-28-2013, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I think at bottom Mark = Paul for the Marcionites in the same manner as Saul = Paul for the Catholics. The Marcionites denied Acts and denied the name Saul. Since Paul was not the original name of the apostle, the ignored question in the study of Marcionitism is who was Paul originally? The Marcionites denied the name of Paul but their gospel was 'according to Mark' (Philosoph 7.18)

Hi stephan,

have you seen this ?

https://sites.google.com/site/inglis...-based-on-mark

Best,
Jiri

aa5874 · 08-28-2013, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

....In other words the material was forged to prove primacy. The Catholics did need to prove to their idiotic followers anything. They would have believed anything because the body of the church never saw any of the sacred documents. The massive forgery which is the New Testament is arranged in an interconnected way in order to prove monarchia from the beginning under Peter.

It is now seen clearly that Stephan Huller also claims and admits that the New Testament is a MASSIVE Forgery.

It is most frightening that Stephan who ridicules other for arguing the NT is a compilation of fiction, false attribution and forgery is now putting forward that the NT is a MASSIVE forgery in order to show that Marcion was Mark.

stephan huller · 08-28-2013, 09:21 PM

Jiri,

That is extremely cool. Thanks for pointing that out. I sometimes feel like we are all groping in the dark, feeling different parts of the same elephant.

Stephan

stephan huller · 08-28-2013, 09:28 PM

Apparently there is a Μιθραιος but I can't see whether it is a name of a person or description of a person or thing.

stephan huller · 08-28-2013, 09:30 PM

Not only is there Ὀρφεῖος, Ὀρφείων = of or belonging to Orpheus but also

Ἡρακλείτειος = of Heraclitus, ἥλιος Pl.R.498b; Η., οἱ, his disciples, Id.Tht.179e, D.L.9.6.
I also see Hesychius of Miletus use the specific form Ἡρακλείτείων http://books.google.com/books?id=231...%CE%BD&f=false

stephan huller · 08-28-2013, 09:42 PM

It is strange that so many of the heresies are identified in the specific Latinized -ianos form. I wonder whether the -ειος, -είων form sounded 'philosophical' hence the name 'heresies'

Itacism is the thing that turned around the theory and made it sensible.

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

08-28-2013, 02:05 PM	#12
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Also we must have our lamps burning, that is, our minds alight with faith and resplendent with works of truth, and so be waiting for the Lord, that is, for Christ. When he returns, where from? If from the wedding, he must be the Creator's Christ, for the Creator approves of marriage: if he is not the Creator's, not even would Marcion when invited have gone to the wedding, out of regard for his own god who disapproves of marriage. So the parable has broken down in that lord and whom he stands for—or would do, if he had not been one to whom marriage is no offence. Again in the parable which follows one is badly astray who identifies with the person of the Creator that thief by whom, if the householder had known the hour of his coming, he would not have suffered his house to be broken through. How can the Creator be taken for a thief, when he is the Lord of every man? No one becomes a thief, or a breaker-up, of his own property: the one who does that, is he who has come down into another's property and is taking man away from his Lord. But he means that the thief, in our case, is the devil, and that If at the beginning the man had known the hour of his coming he would never have been broken in on by him: and therefore he tells us to be prepared, because at an hour we think not the Son of man will come—not that he is himself the thief, but the judge, certainly, of those who will not have prepared themselves nor have taken precautions against the thief. So then if he himself is the Son of man, I take him to be a judge, and in the judge I lay claim to the Creator. If however it is the Creator's Christ he refers to here under the name of Son of man, so as to suggest that he is that thief the time of whose coming we know not, you have the rule I recently laid down, that no one becomes a thief of his own property—saving always this, that in so far as he represents the Creator as one to be feared, to that extent he acts as his representative and belongs to the Creator. And so when Peter asks whether he has spoken this parable to them, or even to all, with reference to them and to all who should ever be in charge of churches he sets out the similitude of the stewards, of whom the one who in his lord's absence has treated his fellow servants well will on his return be put in charge of all his goods: but the one who has acted otherwise will when his lord returns, on a day he has not reckoned for and at an hour he was not aware of,—and the lord is that Son of man, the Creator's Christ, not a thief but a judge—be set on one side, and his portion will be appointed with the unbelievers. It follows then either that he is here setting before us the Lord as judge, and is instructing us on his behalf: or else, if he means that supremely good god, he here affirms that he too is a judge—much as the heretic dislikes it. [4.29] But since he has said in his own garden, while neither the world nor that human being belongs to Marcion's god, but to the Creator, it follows that he who has sown the seed on his own property is proved to be the Creator. Otherwise if for the sake of escaping this noose they divert the person of the man away from Christ and apply it to a man who takes the seed of the kingdom and sows it in the garden of his own heart, not even so can this matter apply to anyone but the Creator. For how can it be that the kingdom belongs to that most gentle god, when it is immediately followed by the fire of judgement with its sternness and tears? [4.30] Who is it that seeks for a lost sheep and a lost coin? Surely he who has lost them. And who is it has lost them? He who had them in possession. And who was it had them? Their owner, of course. If then man is the property of none other than the Creator, then the man's owner had him in possession, he who had him lost him, he who lost him sought for him, he who sought for him found him, and he who found him rejoiced. [4.32] So if the appearance of fruit on small trees gives the sign for the summer season, because it precedes it, no less do the collisions of the world, by going before it, mark beforehand the sign for the kingdom. Now every sign belongs to him to whom belongs the property of which it is the sign, and upon every property the sign is set by him to whom the property belongs. [4.40] Because the Creator has given judgement, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree,h it will not follow from that that Christ belongs to another god and for that reason was already in the law made accursed by the Creator. How can the Creator have put a curse beforehand upon him he does not know exists? Yet is it not more reasonable for the Creator to have surrendered his own Son to his own malediction, than to have sub- jected him for malediction to that god of yours, and that for the benefit of man who belonged to another? [5.3] Also if that parable of the strong man armed, whom another stronger than he has overcome, and has taken possession of his goods,e is, as Marcion has it, taken for a parable of the Creator, in that case the Creator could no longer have remained in ignorance of your god of glory while he was being overcome by him: nor could he have hanged upon a cross that one against whom his strength was of no avail [5.6] If man is both the property and the work and the image and the likeness of the Creator, and is flesh by virtue of the Creator's earth, and soul by virtue of his breathing, then Marcion's god is dwelling entirely on someone else's property, if it is not the Creator whose temple we are. [5.7] That which is alleged as an attribute is <in logical terms> an accident, and accidents are preceded by evidence of the object to which they occur,—and especially so when someone else is already in possession of that which is being ascribed to him of whose existence there has been no previous evidence. There will be the more cause for denying his existence, the more that which is adduced as proof of his existence is the property of one already shown to exist. [5.11] Yet know that the Good One also was pleased by this deception, that He should come and pay our debt by a fraud. Yet He who is just and mighty is not mocked, for in virtue of His justice He does not act wrongly and in virtue of His might He is not mocked. For the Just One would not act [P. 132.] wrongly so as to come, when our debt has been paid, and demand the paid debt afresh, nor again would the Mighty One be mocked, so to allow His real possessions to be snatched from Him, without receiving anything real in exchange for His real possessions. "But," it is said, "though the Just One is mighty, the Good One is nevertheless mightier than He." If therefore He overcame Him by might, how 7 do they bring in the term 'purchase'? [Call] Him therefore a doer of violence and not a purchaser. But if He made a real purchase, as one who acted humbly, how was 'might' involved in the affair ? For either let them choose for themselves that He purchased as a humble and true (Being), or else let them choose for themselves that He did violence, as one who is mighty and tyrannical. And if they say that that root [P. 100.] also is changed, then how did He (i.e. the Stranger) not exert Himself in the case of the root as in the case of the fruits, that the perfect goodness of the Stranger might be proclaimed ? But the Apostle says,36 'Eve shall live on account of her children' : then the Maker will have lived on account of the souls which (came) from Him. Or did the Maker not wish to live thus ? And how did the souls which (came) from Him consent to live ? But if the nature of the souls is the same, their will also is the \|lxvi same. And if their will is different, their nature also is strange, and they are not from the Maker. And let them tell us whence are those souls ; for it is probable that they are not from the Maker. For He would not sell them (if they were really His), because He would not hate His own nature and love a nature which was not His own. " And if He was selling His nature for something which was not akin to His nature, there is a great kinship between Him and the Stranger, for lo ! one affection is found in both of them ; and moreover one will belongs to both [P. 101.] of them, namely that the Just One should love the nature of the Stranger and sell some of His possessions to Him, and that the Stranger should love the nature of the Just One and purchase from Him. And it will also be (considered) that that nature of the Just One, which is bought as being something precious, surpasses (the other) ; for if the nature of the Just One were not more excellent than that of the Stranger, the Stranger would not have actually purchased it. But what did the Stranger give to those whom He purchased ? And if He gave them a kingdom, can it be that He gave them one greater than that of Elijah and Enoch ? And why then did He not bring with Him some of His good things hither also ? Or (was it) because our domain is not worthy of them, (and) did He on that account not even introduce them into our domain ? In that case they are greater than the aforesaid Isu, inasmuch as our domain is worthy of Isu and unworthy of His (i.e. the Stranger's) good things. And if (it was) in order that they might not be denied, then he (i.e. Isu) was denied when he entered our domain. . . . [ephrem against marcion 1] But if they say that the heavens of the Stranger hang by the power of the Stranger, we also will deal frowardly with the froward, (and say) that he who is above the heavens cannot support the heavens, but (only) if he were beneath them. But if he is the same person who is above the heavens and below them, it is clear that the place of his possessions is the same, and in the midst of it are collected those Souls whom ISU brought up hence. For a Supporter is required for those heavy Souls whom he brought up thence . . . [ inasmuch as when his possessions are found enfolded within his bosom there is required for them another power which supports them.] For we cannot accept from them just as they do not accept from us I that there should be anything set up without a foundation.[ephrem three discourses hypatius But since the followers of Marcion were ashamed to be sponsors for the term 'violent robbery' (as applicable) in the case of the Stranger, they have used with reference to Him the term 'purchase in humble fashion,' and because they are refuted in \|lxi the matter of the purchase, they have used with reference to Him the term 'might,' so that when it is asserted against them that He did violence they say that He merely purchased, and when again it is asserted against them that the Maker did not wish to sell his possessions they say that He (i.e. the Stranger) is mightier than He (i.e. the Maker). Each of the (two) assertions [P. 133.] therefore annuls the other. For if it is a 'purchase in humble fashion,' consent (lit. will) and not compulsion is involved, but if the purchaser overcomes by force he does not really purchase but seizes by violence. If therefore they introduce (the mention of) His might, which is a plausible term, (the notion of) violent robbery comes in with it . . . [Ephrem Against Marcion 3]

08-28-2013, 04:18 PM	#13
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	ww

08-28-2013, 06:33 PM	#14
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Πυθαγόρειος, πυθαγορείων = http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...wn0&prior=tw=n Ὀρφεῖος, Ὀρφείων = http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...8:page=829&i=1

08-28-2013, 09:21 PM	#17
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Jiri, That is extremely cool. Thanks for pointing that out. I sometimes feel like we are all groping in the dark, feeling different parts of the same elephant. Stephan

08-28-2013, 09:28 PM	#18
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Apparently there is a Μιθραιος but I can't see whether it is a name of a person or description of a person or thing.

08-28-2013, 09:30 PM	#19
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Not only is there Ὀρφεῖος, Ὀρφείων = of or belonging to Orpheus but also Ἡρακλείτειος = of Heraclitus, ἥλιος Pl.R.498b; Η., οἱ, his disciples, Id.Tht.179e, D.L.9.6. I also see Hesychius of Miletus use the specific form Ἡρακλείτείων http://books.google.com/books?id=231...%CE%BD&f=false

08-28-2013, 09:42 PM	#20
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It is strange that so many of the heresies are identified in the specific Latinized -ianos form. I wonder whether the -ειος, -είων form sounded 'philosophical' hence the name 'heresies' Itacism is the thing that turned around the theory and made it sensible.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.