stephan huller

The Samaritans add Genesis 37 and Exodus 2 to the list (there may be more but that's all I know).

stephan huller

The question which divided the orthodox and Marcionites (according to my supposition) is whether other passages where a divine being 'visits' a Patriarch can be connected to the list. In other words, the Church Fathers said the Son was everywhere in the Pentateuch. The Marcionites (I assume under this theory) only in the ish passages. As such there is no real connection between him and the Creator. He gives a divine name to Israel and was present when Joseph (metaphorically?) raised from the dead. But that's it. He's just some weird figure - a stranger - who just 'appears' in the text and then disappears.

Clivedurdle

http://www.bloggingtheologically.com...old-testament/

DCHindley

Clive,

It is kind of funny, but I have a NAB Study Bible (the Catholic one) in which I highlighted and annotated passages that "obviously" pointed to the coming of Jesus Christ and his 2nd coming, as I read through it a couple times. I did not refer to any outside theological literature, but relied almost exclusively on concepts that had been socialized into me.

If I saw a passage that appeared to touch on one of these concepts I had stored in the back of my head as I was growing up, I'd follow up on it by determining the historical situation. Let's just say it is very colorful, but I learned so much in the process. It helped me divorce the naïve theological concepts programmed into me by western Christian culture from the issues of what these passages originally referred to.

It is not quite as neat as the reviewer of the Mark Driscoll video makes it seem.

DCH

Clivedurdle

I am only saying that what people do in the twenty first century people might have been done two thousand years ago!

No one said anything about it being water tight!

Davka

This position fits far more closely with Jewish concepts of Messiah than the Christian ideas of God Incarnate/Trinity do. What is the connection between the Marcionites and Rabbinic Judaism (if any)?

Davka

It is unlikely to the point of implausibility that any Jewish reader of scripture in the 1st century would have interpreted it in a manner which is even close to that of the casual (or even committed Christian) reader in the 21st century. The religious and sociological context of the times is almost inconceivable to the average person alive today, and most certainly our context would have been inconceivable to them.

Try reading some of the writings of the Church Fathers, such as Polycarp or Augustine, to see just how very different their beliefs were compared to mainstream Christianity today.

Clivedurdle

I am not talking mainstream! I am looking at this anthropologically, what modern cults say! And I am not discussing Jewish readers of the scriptures, but Greek thinking Christian ones. More and more I cannot see much understanding of Judaism in Xianity, it has stolen the stones and rebuilt them very differently with Greek stones.

Interestingly, I think ideas do survive very very long times in very similar ways, and what you find is modern people copying and repeating old ideas. A classic example is Islamic veils and modesty, that goes directly back to Greek medical thinking that hair stores semen.

http://www.sbl-site.org/publications...?articleId=271

Similar things are found all over the place - looking for the Christ in stories about Angels is an obvious one - there might even have been deliberate editing to create this.

stephan huller

I was shocked to learn today that Tertullian witnesses my claim that the Marcionites identified their god from the pages of Genesis http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...pealed-to.html We have proof that Jesus was at least like the איש of Genesis 32 if not THE איש.

I think this settles it once and for all. I have a viable thesis.

Davka

That's pretty solid, all right. Looks like you have the lynchpin you needed.