Early Christian "Heresies"

Originally posted by frogstomp
Gnostics considered the old testament error. as the Gospel of Truth explains:

"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 ...[text shortened]... hood, whereas this established truth is unchanging, unperturbed and completely beautiful."

1) Do you have The Gospel of Truth in book form, or as part of a collection? Do you have it with commentary? If you give me a citation, I’ll look for it, but it is not the kind of thing I’m likely to read on the computer (am a bit old-fashioned that way).

2) It’s been awhile since I’ve read any of Elaine Pagel’s stuff, but I seem to recall that there was not any one group called “gnostics,” but that this is a contemporary designation for people whose views had some general similarities—such as a dualistic good-evil view of divinity and nature, and “secret” knowledge that was only for initiates, stuff like that.

3) The word “gnosis” is used in the NT as a kind of knowledge or direct, intimate knowing—as opposed to intellectual understanding—and does not imply anything “gnostic” in the contemporary usage of that word. The word is still used by very “non-gnostic” Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Originally posted by vistesd
1) Do you have The Gospel of Truth in book form, or as part of a collection? Do you have it with commentary? If you give me a citation, I’ll look for it, but it is not the kind of thing I’m likely to read on the computer (am a bit ...[text shortened]... is still used by very “non-gnostic” Eastern Orthodox Christians.

http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/naghamm/nhlalpha.html

best I can do is the online Gnostic site that has the entire Nag Hammadi Library translated to english.


Its it their online bookstore including Elaine Pagel's "The Gnostic Gospels "

Originally posted by frogstomp
http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/naghamm/nhlalpha.html

best I can do is the online Gnostic site that has the entire Nag Hammadi Library translated to english.


Its it their online bookstore including Elaine Pagel's "The Gnostic Gospels "

the entire Nag Hammadi Library translated to english.

Wow! Thanks. I’ll keep it as a resource.

Originally posted by no1marauder
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?

So exactly how did Jesus effect this 'rescue', if there was no crucifixion and resurrection? Was the rescue mission successful?


I am vaguely aware of having read about Marcion (and also Pelagius) before, because I have a book about the development of the canon. It's quite clear that the refutation of heresies was a driving force in deciding which books were accepted and which were not. It also influenced other areas, such as the development of formal creeds.

I seem to remember, though, that Marcion had to rather heavily edit the Gospel texts to fit his views? That was the impression I got - that his versions cut out large chunks that were otherwise present, and that scholars think it was him chopping out rather than others adding in. Correct me if there's any doubt on that issue.

Sorry, this post is seriously disjointed. Respond to any or all of it as you all see fit.

Originally posted by orfeo
So exactly how did Jesus effect this 'rescue', if there was no crucifixion and resurrection? Was the rescue mission successful?


I am vaguely aware of having read about Marcion (and also Pelagius) before, because I have a book about th ...[text shortened]... ously disjointed. Respond to any or all of it as you all see fit.

Marcion was apparently the first to attempt to put the early Christian writings in any kind of New Testament; there was no systemic compilation in the early 2nd Century AD. Marcion would have limited his NT to the Gospel of Luke and some of Paul's epistles. Why? Basically this relates back to the earliest theological dispute in the Church between James the Just, the "brother" of Jesus and head of the Church at Jerusalem and Paul and others. James believed that Christianity was an offshot of Judaism and that the Christians should continue the observation of certain Jewish holidays and customs (as Jesus had observed them) while Paul believed that this would be a hindrance in getting Gentiles to convert. There's a big dispute in Acts somewhere about whether Gentiles converting to Christianity must be circumcised, for example.

Marcion, among other things, took the position that ALL remmants of Judaism should be expunged from Christianity and as Luke and the Pauline epistles are designed specifically to convert Gentiles, he thought they were the only legitimate NT Scripture. The bigger point is there was no NT version for Marcion to cut out large chunks of in 140 AD. The other point is what became doctrine and what became "heresies" was not determined by the Holy Spirit (at least not directly) but by decisions made by early Church leaders. Many things which are considered basic dogma like the Trinity were not made official dogma until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. So the whole subject of "heresies", as well as the decisions as to what was placed in the official NT eventually and what was excluded, is central to the understanding of present day Christian doctrine.

I'll look more closely at Marcion's theology; obviously has he did not believe Jesus ever had a physical body his crucifixion and resurrection would have been an impossibility. I suspect that he looked above Jesus has something of a messenger of the Good God's similar to the way Muhammed is viewed as a messenger of Allah, but with Jesus having certain divine attributes. I'll try to find a more detailed site.

From Pioneers of Christian Thought by Frederick D. Kershner. 1930 - Chapter III - Marcion:

With all his faults Marcion stood for a certain ethical idealism which was superior to the more subtle philosophy of his opponents. He wanted to establish the goodness of God, no matter at what cost, and his ethical instincts at this point were sound. If his teaching had prevailed there would have been no autos da fe, no Inquisition, and no burning of heretics by either Catholics or Protestants. It was the triumph of the imperialistic God of Tertullian and Augustine which led to most of the later horrors in the history of the church. The idea that the Deity could do anything which he himself regarded as unjust or cruel seemed unthinkable to Marcion, but this was not the case with his opponents. There are passages in Tertullian in which the grim old Roman orator challenges his enemies to do their worst with rack or fagot or sword, being well assured that his persecutors will suffer infinitely more in the eternal flames of hell. The satisfaction which this reflection apparently gives him makes the thought of his own torments trivial and insignificant. It was the common belief of the period, at least in orthodox circles, that the joys of Paradise would be enhanced by the possibility of witnessing the torments of the damned. Augustine has a great deal to say about this somewhat gruesome topic later on, but neither Augustine nor Tertullian represented anything unusual from the orthodox point of view. As Marcion saw all too clearly, no human being will ever rise to a higher moral level than the ethical plane of the Deity he worships. A God who could condemn little children to the unending flames of perdition simply because some of their remote ancestors disobeyed his commands represents an ethical ideal which was later to write history in the torture chambers of Torquemada, the flames which consumed the bodies of Huss and Servetus, and which broke Jean Calas on the wheel only two centuries ago. Marcion's theology at the worst would never have permitted such things as these. He was close enough to the original message of Jesus to recognize its incongruity with the idea of a Cruel Omnipotence. His theological gropings were grotesque and absurd enough, but his moral sense was sound, and the world might have been better off if his heresy had prevailed."

I may have been incorrect in saying that Marcion didn't believe in the crucifixion and resurrection; it's certain that later Marcionites did but I'm trying to find a definitive statement of Marcion's view which is difficult as virtually none of his writings survive. Also, Marcion wouldn't have used all of Luke's Gospel but the bulk of it in his NT.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Be 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 viol ...[text shortened]... bother with the Temple incident which has been discussed here many times; anger is not there).

I'm not saying that the OT God is not generally depicted as being strict, even cruel by modern standards. However, I'm saying that a simple, monochrome picture of the OT God as a "monster" is simply inaccurate.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'm not saying that the OT God is not generally depicted as being strict, even cruel by modern standards. However, I'm saying that a simple, monochrome picture of the OT God as a "monster" is simply inaccurate.

Monster God is, of course, my gloss on the OT. I believe it is generally accurate and the occasional acts of kindness towards a few in the OT is completely outweighed by the incredible amounts of cruelty meted out by OT God or at his direction. Like any person, this human-like God need not be unrelentingly vicious to be considered monstrous; Hitler was reputed to be very kind to animals, dogs esp., but you wouldn't say a description of him as a "monster" was too "simple and monochrome" would you?

Marcion apparently would have described the OT God as strict but "just", but still found the severity of his "justice" to be fundamentally at odds with the concept of a "good" God has epitomized by Jesus' central message of love, charity and compassion towards your fellow Man.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You 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.

Which do you want to discuss first here?

Assertions are the starting point methinks. Nothing discussed here will ever be settled on as factual, but I try to present reasons for confidence in a conclusion.

The Jews who actually made the specific prophecies did believe they were speaking for God, that is, speaking God's Word. And many of those very prophecies prophecied that the Jews would not recognize the Messiah when He came. God often called them a stiff-necked people.

I am sure that your opinion of God's 'irrational' plan does not bother Him in the least. Given the same 'spiritual laws' that God originally laid out, as modeled in the law given to Moses, what other plan would you recommend? And could it be more full of grace and compassion? And could your offer of salvation be more one-sided than the one God came up with?

To contrast Jesus to God at all means to eliminate Jesus testimony itself. He said things like "I and the Father are one.", and "I only do what I see the Father do."

Originally posted by chinking58
Which do you want to discuss first here?

Assertions are the starting point methinks. Nothing discussed here will ever be settled on as factual, but I try to present reasons for confidence in a conclusion.

The Jews who actually made the specific prophecies did believe they were speaking for God, that is, speaking God's Word. And many of those ve ...[text shortened]... said things like "I and the Father are one.", and "I only do what I see the Father do."

Rather than doing your inevitable proselytizing, perhaps you'd make some attempt to discuss Marcionist thought, one of the topics of the thread. Insulting the Jews might be a good laugh line at the KKK meetings, but perhaps 1st Century Jews might have been in a better position than you to judge whether Jesus was the prophesied Messiah who was supposed to re-establish the Kingdom of Israel on Earth. He didn't but, of course, Christians say he'll do that NEXT TIME. The idea that Jesus was not the Messiah promised to the Jews by the OT is certainly more consistent with that document than the idea that he was.

Ask the Midianite babies who had swords stuck in 'em how full of "grace and compassion" OT monster God was. That was a rather one-sided deal he gave them wasn't it?

If you bothered to read the links I gave (which I'm sure you didn't) you'd know that Marcion didn't "contrast Jesus to God" but stated that Jesus was sent by the Supreme God of Goodness to rescue man from the cruelty of the Creator God of the OT. It's rather unclear to me whether the Marcionites believed Jesus WAS a manifestion of the Supreme God or not, but at any rate the quotes you gave would not be inconsistent with Marcionist thought. The extreme cruelty of the OT monster God stands in very sharp contrast to Jesus' ministry and teachings and the Marcionists believed that they were not compatible. Perhaps you'd explain to me why the Prince of Peace spent soooooooo much time in the OT slaughtering, enslaving and tormenting Man in general and why your so-called omnipotent OT God was a "jealous" and "angry" "God"; attributes typically given to pagan Gods who lacked omnipotence but plainly inconsistent with an Almighty entity.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Monster God is, of course, my gloss on the OT. I believe it is generally accurate and the occasional acts of kindness towards a few in the OT is completely outweighed by the incredible amounts of cruelty meted out by OT God or at his direction. Like any person, this human-like God need not be unrelentingly vicious to be considered monstrous; Hitle ...[text shortened]... ouldn't say a description of him as a "monster" was too "simple and monochrome" would you?

"Is the God of the Bible an immoral egotistical arrogant tyrant in his prejudiced demands to be worshiped as the one true God and his condemnation of those who worship other gods? Is he an insanely angry bigot? Crueller than the cruellest earthly dictator in his bloodlust and hatred and barbaric desire for killing and violence? A ruthless baby and child killer? Bursting into enraged childish temper tantrums at the most minor provocation and inflicting deadly punishments on people for trivial offences? Is the Bible a malicious and intolerant book of hate literature which should be treated with contempt by anyone with an ounce of compassion because it incites irrational acts of barbarity? Did it directly incite the "burning times" when Christians in their supposed zeal for biblical commands tortured and killed anyone accused of being a witch? These are all charges commonly brought against the God of the Bible and the Bible itself by many sceptics, with similar vehemence as that just displayed. Are they true?"

http://www.broadcaster.org.uk/section2/biblegodviolence/biblegod5.html

Originally posted by lucifershammer
"Is the God of the Bible an immoral egotistical arrogant tyrant in his prejudiced demands to be worshiped as the one true God and his condemnation of those who worship other gods? Is he an insanely angry bigot? Crueller than the cruellest earthly dictator in his bloodlust and hatred and barbaric desire for killing and violence? A ruthless baby and ch ...[text shortened]... ayed. Are they true?"

http://www.broadcaster.org.uk/section2/biblegodviolence/biblegod5.html

Apparently, yes.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Apparently, yes.

Apparently.