12 Jun 05
1 edit
I found a rather cool website at http://www.sundayschoolcourses.com/heresy/ which outlines a number of early Christian beliefs which varied from what was accepted by the majority of the Church's founders. I thought it might be interesting to discuss a few of them. I'll start off with Marcion.
Marcion (c. 85 - c. 160 A.D.) was a Gnostic ship owner, who believed that there were two Gods in the universe (dualism) - the God depicted in the Old Testament, and the God represented by Jesus in the New Testament. He believed that the God of Goodness took pity on man and sent his Son to rescue him from the evil god. He believed also that Jesus was a spirit (docetism) and did not appear in the flesh. As such, he rejected the infancy narratives about Jesus, as well as the crucifixion and resurrection.
I thought this was a very interesting belief which explained the drastic differences between the baby slaughtering OT God and Jesus' message of brotherhood and mercy towards your fellow Man. Any comments?
13 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat's not a comment. I do find it interesting that the site you gave spends more time gossiping about Marcion's personal life than discussing his beliefs. I also thought it was odd that it describes Marcionism as a "foe of Christianity"; Marcion believed in Jesus' teachings and his divinity so it was a certainly a Christian belief.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm
13 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderBut the idea that there are two different Gods represented in the two testaments is all wrong. The coming of Jesus is the fullfillment of the OT prophecies; the culmination of God's plan to save mankind. He is the offspring of Eve who would 'crush the serpent's head' God talked about in Genesis 3:15.
I found a rather cool website at http://www.sundayschoolcourses.com/heresy/ which outlines a number of early Christian beliefs which varied from what was accepted by the majority of the Church's founders. I thought it might be interesting to discuss a few of them. I'll start off with Marcion.
Marcion (c. 85 - c. 160 A.D.) was a Gn ...[text shortened]... ering OT God and Jesus' message of brotherhood and mercy towards your fellow Man. Any comments?
The gnostics beliefs were based on the presupposition that there really is no 'material', that all is only spiritual. Naturally, this idea would lead to a refutation of Jesus' bodily history. It is a conclusion drawn from its premise.
13 Jun 05
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderafter reading some of the Gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi some of which seems not all like the rantings of the church fathers trying to Gnosticism sound ,leads one to conclude that the power politics of the church dates to far earlier times than the inquisition.
That's not a comment. I do find it interesting that the site you gave spends more time gossiping about Marcion's personal life than discussing his beliefs. I also thought it was odd that it describes Marcionism as a "foe of Ch ...[text shortened]... achings and his divinity so it was a certainly a Christian belief.
It shows the error of letting 60% the new Testament consist of writings of a former Pharisee.
13 Jun 05
Originally posted by chinking58You presented nothing but assertions presented as fact. The Jews, the ones who made the OT "prophecies" obviously didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah presented in the OT. God's "plan to save mankind" is irrational; why would an almighty God need to come up with such a contrivance? Marcionism is far more logical than present day Christianity as it explains the incredible cruelty of the OT monster God in stark contrast to Jesus.
But the idea that there are two different Gods represented in the two testaments is all wrong. The coming of Jesus is the fullfillment of the OT prophecies; the culmination of God's plan to save mankind. He is the offspring of Eve who would 'crush the serpent's head' God talked about in Genesis 3:15.
The gnostics beliefs were based on the presupp ...[text shortened]... ould lead to a refutation of Jesus' bodily history. It is a conclusion drawn from its premise.
13 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by chinking58And Gnostics did NOT "presuppose that there is no material, only spiritual"; they did tend to believe that the material world was impure compared to the spiritual world. Your statement would presume that they believed EVERYBODY didn't have a material body; instead what they believed is that Jesus was pure and thus could not have existed has a material entity. This conclusion is no more drawn from its premises than most Christian dogma i.e. Holy Trinity, original sin, etc. etc.
But the idea that there are two different Gods represented in the two testaments is all wrong. The coming of Jesus is the fullfillment of the OT prophecies; the culmination of God's plan to save mankind. He is the offspring of Eve who ...[text shortened]... esus' bodily history. It is a conclusion drawn from its premise.
I also kinda like Pelegius:
Pelagius and his followers (one student named Coelestius was especially influential) denied predestination, original sin, and the doctrine of Grace, maintaining the humans are not tainted by the sin of Adam and Eve, and that babies are born pure. As a result, humans have the free will to choose to live sinless lives.
13 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by chinking58So what! Quantum field theory says matter is just waves in space.
But the idea that there are two different Gods represented in the two testaments is all wrong. The coming of Jesus is the fullfillment of the OT prophecies; the culmination of God's plan to save mankind. He is the offspring of Eve who ...[text shortened]... esus' bodily history. It is a conclusion drawn from its premise.
and the OT god is too monsterous to be the Father god that Christ spoke of.
13 Jun 05
2 edits
I am currently reading Herbert Muller's The Uses of the Past. It says:
The Church... found its great enemy not in unbelievers--there were as yet few of these--but in simple, earnest men, such as the Waldenses and Lollards, who took seriously the simpler ideals of Christ and the Apostles. In fighting to stamp out these heretics it also fought to keep the Bible out of the hands of the people, forbidding its translation into the vernacular... Ignorant people can get strange ideas from the Bible. Still, the Church made little effort to educate or uplift the swine, and its educational method now was not resonable persuasion but invective, calumny, and persecution.
13 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderNo it's not a comment - just more information for the discussion. 😉
That's not a comment. I do find it interesting that the site you gave spends more time gossiping about Marcion's personal life than discussing his beliefs. I also thought it was odd that it describes Marcionism as a "foe of Christianity"; Marcion believed in Jesus' teachings and his divinity so it was a certainly a Christian belief.
It's interesting that the site provides both biographical info about Marcion, but not surprising. Rather than have two brief articles about Marcion and Marcionites (which would've been in sequence in the Encyclopedia anyway), the editors decided to combine them into one article. I would expect single articles on Mani/Manicheans and Pelagius/Pelagianism as well.
13 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderWhich OT God is this? The same God who pissed off Jonah by refusing to condemn Nineveh? Or the same God who was ever-forgiving and willing to accept Israel in Hosea?
Marcionism is far more logical than present day Christianity as it explains the incredible cruelty of the OT monster God in stark contrast to Jesus.
And which Jesus is this? The same Jesus who said that sins against the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven in this world or the next? Or the same Jesus who said that a far worse fate awaited the Pharisees than Sodom and Gomorrah?
You can't paint God in either testament with broad strokes.
13 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerPerhaps not. However, you can paint God of the OT as a psychopath every now and then. Let's not forget he turned some lady into a pillar of salt for the crime of turning around to view the death and destruction God was exacting on an enitire town.
Which OT God is this? The same God who pissed off Jonah by refusing to condemn Nineveh? Or the same God who was ever-forgiving and willing to accept Israel in Hosea?
And which Jesus is this? The same Jesus who said that sins again ...[text shortened]... h?
You can't paint God in either testament with broad strokes.
I will admit that God seems to have chilled out a bit lately, to his credit. 😉
In the end, God killed people and he spared people and acted generally like a child for quite a long time before finally having a kid and deciding to grow up. Wow, he really did create us in his own image! 😉
TheSkipper
13 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerBe serious. If you will not concede that the OT monster God is presented as similar to pagan Gods in his human-like emotions and seemingly limitless amounts of cruelty he inflicted (ask the Midianites), then you are being dishonest and/or willfully ignorant. Please point me to ANY passage in the Gospels where Jesus acts in a cruel, vicious or violent manner by ANY standards (don't bother with the Temple incident which has been discussed here many times; anger is not there).
Which OT God is this? The same God who pissed off Jonah by refusing to condemn Nineveh? Or the same God who was ever-forgiving and willing to accept Israel in Hosea?
And which Jesus is this? The same Jesus who said that sins against the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven in this world or the next? Or the same Jesus who said that a far worse fate awa ...[text shortened]... arisees than Sodom and Gomorrah?
You can't paint God in either testament with broad strokes.
14 Jun 05
2 edits
Marcion is also the first to be credited with proposing a Christian canon: he would have included the gospel of Luke and some of Paul’s letters, and that’s it. He would not have included any of the Hebrew Scriptures.
There were diverse understandings in the early church. “Orthodox” doctrine emerged; it was not simply “there.” Many theologians who had some of their views declared heterodox, or even heretical, did not have everything they thought, wrote or taught condemned, and they are important sources for early Christian thought.
BTW, re literal interpretation, Jaroslav Pelikan states:
“There was no early Christian who simultaneously acknowledged the doctrinal authority of the Old Testament and interpreted it literally.” (The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1, p. 81, my italics). At that time, “scripture” referred pretty much only to the Hebrew Scriptures, although, according to Pelikan, “There was an increasing tendency to cite apostolic writings as authoritative, and there seem to be the beginnings of collections of these writings.” (p.79)
14 Jun 05
Originally posted by vistesdGnostics considered the old testament error. as the Gospel of Truth explains:
Marcion is also the first to be credited with proposing a Christian canon: he would have included the gospel of Luke and some of Paul’s letters, and that’s it. He would not have included any of the Hebrew Scriptures.
There were diverse understandings in the early church. “Orthodox” doctrine emerged; it was not simply “there.” Many theol ...[text shortened]... uthoritative, and there seem to be the beginnings of collections of these writings.” (p.79)
"This ignorance of the Father brought about terror and fear. And terror became dense like a fog, that no one was able to see. Because of this, error became strong. But it worked on its hylic substance vainly, because it did not know the truth. It was in a fashioned form while it was preparing, in power and in beauty, the equivalent of truth. This then, was not a humiliation for him, that illimitable, inconceivable one. For they were as nothing, this terror and this forgetfulness and this figure of falsehood, whereas this established truth is unchanging, unperturbed and completely beautiful."