Was Marcion a heretic?

ViaCrucis · Jan 10, 2021

Vanellus said:
The thread discussion does seem to have reduced to using labels rather than arguments:

e.g. Marcion was Hitler's heresiarch.
Didn't the Nazis also try to adapt Luther to their cause as well?

e.g. Gnostic, Manichaeism but I think the general consensus is there are similarities and differences between Marcionism and Gnosticism

There has been very little engagement with the passage in Joshua I cited in the OP. Are you all totally comfortable with wiping out a whole community? What if you had been one of Joshua's soldiers tasked with killing the women and children? Or do you all go with "it's in the Bible" so wiping out a whole community is ok.

And there are plenty of similar passages such as God blinding all the horses of the nations Zech 12:4

On that day, declares the LORD, I will strike every horse with panic, and every rider with madness. I will keep a watchful eye on the house of Judah, but I will strike with blindness all the horses of the nations.

Why punish horses?

On that day I will make the clans of Judah like a firepot in a woodpile, like a flaming torch among the sheaves; they will consume all the peoples around them on the right and on the left, while the people of Jerusalem remain secure there. (v6)

There is a nationalistic us v them tone here. Our God is great because he destroys our enemies for us.
Is that the message of the Christian gospel?

I note 2Philovoid's excellent Kierkegaard quote about "making difficulties everywhere" but it seems that the responders reject that idea.

Throughout Christian history Christians have struggled with parts of the Old Testament. Being uncomfortable, and struggling with those things in Scripture is one thing. However, Marcion's position was that YHVH was an evil false god, and that Jesus introduced a brand new, never before heard of god. That is, at its very core, a denial of Jesus as the Christ. It undermines literally everything in Christianity to the point of meaninglessness.

-CryptoLutheran

Vanellus · Jan 11, 2021

prodromos said:
I wouldn't be a member if I didn't.

Well I'll take that as a yes you do think your church is the "only one Church established by Christ"
though a simple yes would have sufficed (Mt 5:37, Jas 5:12)

Doesn't everybody?

There is a widespread view that the Church is the worldwide body of all believers and not contained in a single institution e.g. Eph 5:25-27
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

Other references to church in the NT refer to individual fellowships. Recall that "congregation" or "assembly" is arguably a better translation of the Gk word. Or do you think only members of your church will be the bride, the wife of the lamb (Rev 21:9)

Vanellus · Jan 11, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
To reference Hitler or any other 20th century despot as a pattern of immoral measure by which to axilogically evaluate the literary figure of God in the O.T. is rather anachronistic.

This statement is incorrect and deceptive since the word "Hitler" doesn't appear in the OP. In fact the known evidence indicates that the local German commander far exceeded his orders and there wasn't any command for this from Hitler. Hitler, of course bears overall responsibility for the war and all the associated war crimes including the Holocaust.

Oradour-sur-Glane is a modern parallel of Ai. A small community wiped out as part of a larger conflict and a lasting memorial erected. Though in the case of Ai the "heap of ruins" and the pile of rocks may well have acted as a celebration of victory for the Israelites - these things depend on who the eventual victor is. There may well be other parallels in other modern wars if you prefer those as examples.

Furthermore, in retrospect where Marcion is concerned, it seems to be a bit inconsistent for him to demand for the imposition of the idea of a more graceful, merciful God in Jesus when Marcion himself is surmised to have been overly strict and refused to admit persons who suffered in Roman persecutions and recanted their faith.

I gather Marcion and his followers tried to emulate Paul and planted several churches. He also, like Jesus, had a high regard for the place of women in his movement. So one can understand why the church in Rome didn't like him!

2PhiloVoid · Jan 11, 2021

Vanellus said:
This statement is incorrect and deceptive since the word "Hitler" doesn't appear in the OP. In fact the known evidence indicates that the local German commander far exceeded his orders and there wasn't any command for this from Hitler. Hitler, of course bears overall responsibility for the war and all the associated war crimes including the Holocaust.

Oradour-sur-Glane is a modern parallel of Ai. A small community wiped out as part of a larger conflict and a lasting memorial erected. Though in the case of Ai the "heap of ruins" and the pile of rocks may well have acted as a celebration of victory for the Israelites - these things depend on who the eventual victor is. There may well be other parallels in other modern wars if you prefer those as examples.

I gather Marcion and his followers tried to emulate Paul and planted several churches. He also, like Jesus, had a high regard for the place of women in his movement. So one can understand why the church in Rome didn't like him!

Ok. I'm not seeing how anything I said in my previous post, even if not just spot on with SS entities, isn't applicable.

Marcion is problematic. I'm not sure what you'd like for us to see is the "take away" from what you're bringing up here in this thread. What would you like for us to learn, Vanellus? I'd hate to miss your main point.

Fervent · Jan 11, 2021

If any deserve the label of heretic, Marcion is certainly a prime candidate. Though the issue is not one of condemnation in his person, but preventing perversion of the truth. There are a handful of essential teachings in order to preserve the core Christian teaching, among those is the continuous nature of revelation and the full Messiahship of Jesus. Marcion may have been mistaken rather than maliciously seeking to twist the truth, but the degree to which he differs from core doctrine makes him a heretic.

As for your question of what human authority decides who is and isn't a heretic, it seems to me the breadth of agreement both historically and currently leaves certain doctrine outside the pale. For example, JWs with their denial of Jesus' full deity places them outside the church. And one of the tell-tale signs of heretics is they alter the canon of Scripture to fit their doctrine rather than simply trying to make sense of the material as given.

prodromos · Jan 11, 2021

Vanellus said:
Or do you think only members of your church will be the bride, the wife of the lamb (Rev 21:9)

We know where the Church is. We leave it up to God to judge those who are not in the visible Church. When Christ said to "tell it to the Church" in Matthew 18:17, He wasn't giving us a task that was impossible to achieve. The Church was visible then and is visible now.

prodromos · Jan 11, 2021

Vanellus said:
He also, like Jesus, had a high regard for the place of women in his movement. So one can understand why the church in Rome didn't like him!

No, I'm afraid I can't. Women have always been held in high regard in the Church.

Vanellus · Jan 12, 2021

Fervent said:
If any deserve the label of heretic, Marcion is certainly a prime candidate. Though the issue is not one of condemnation in his person, but preventing perversion of the truth. There are a handful of essential teachings in order to preserve the core Christian teaching, among those is the continuous nature of revelation and the full Messiahship of Jesus. Marcion may have been mistaken rather than maliciously seeking to twist the truth, but the degree to which he differs from core doctrine makes him a heretic.

As for your question of what human authority decides who is and isn't a heretic, it seems to me the breadth of agreement both historically and currently leaves certain doctrine outside the pale. For example, JWs with their denial of Jesus' full deity places them outside the church. And one of the tell-tale signs of heretics is they alter the canon of Scripture to fit their doctrine rather than simply trying to make sense of the material as given.

Though in Marcion's time there was no agreed fixed canon of scripture.

Vanellus · Jan 12, 2021

prodromos said:
No, I'm afraid I can't. Women have always been held in high regard in the Church.

Just so long that for some churches they don't occupy certain religious offices or roles.

Vanellus · Jan 12, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
Ok. I'm not seeing how anything I said in my previous post, even if not just spot on with SS entities, isn't applicable.

Marcion is problematic. I'm not sure what you'd like for us to see is the "take away" from what you're bringing up here in this thread. What would you like for us to learn, Vanellus? I'd hate to miss your main point.

Briefly the point is that, quoting ViaCrucis:

Throughout Christian history Christians have struggled with parts of the Old Testament. Being uncomfortable, and struggling with those things in Scripture is one thing.

and so this seems to be why Marcion made his decisions about the canon of scripture and theology. He wasn't being different just to be divisive but dealing with a genuinely problematic aspect of the OT. He was wrong but may not have been wrong out of malice.

Fervent · Jan 12, 2021

Vanellus said:
Though in Marcion's time there was no agreed fixed canon of scripture.

While it hadn't been officially named in the church, and exactly what the NT entailed hadn't been fully developed the canon of Scripture pretty solidly included the OT. In removing that, Marcion monkeyed with what was established as Scripture. What's interesting(to me) is examining the reformation by that standard, since the question of what is canon came up fresh thanks in no small part to Luther. Yet even if we ignore the removal of the OT, Marcion also created his own gospel through editorializing something akin to Luke so that also demonstrates a toying with the canon to suit doctrine.

2PhiloVoid · Jan 12, 2021

Vanellus said:
Briefly the point is that, quoting ViaCrucis:

and so this seems to be why Marcion made his decisions about the canon of scripture and theology. He wasn't being different just to be divisive but dealing with a genuinely problematic aspect of the OT. He was wrong but may not have been wrong out of malice.

Ok. Yeah. I understand that and if that's all you're saying, I can generally agree with you.

And so we understand that Marcion had a tension between his moral sensibilities and what he thought he was reading in the Old Testament.

Now what?

Fervent · Jan 12, 2021

Vanellus said:
and so this seems to be why Marcion made his decisions about the canon of scripture and theology. He wasn't being different just to be divisive but dealing with a genuinely problematic aspect of the OT. He was wrong but may not have been wrong out of malice.

Judging his motives, either malicious or not, is rather immaterial. Regardless of his motives, he was wrong not only intellectually but also morally because rather than recognizing that even in those apparently problematic things it is God who is morally correct and not our moral sensibilities. Yet instead we impugn and condemn God's justice and desire to replace it with our own, often through the development of theologies and definitions.

prodromos · Jan 12, 2021

Vanellus said:
Just so long that for some churches they don't occupy certain religious offices or roles.

You mean like the pagan religions did?

Vanellus · Jan 14, 2021

Fervent said:
While it hadn't been officially named in the church, and exactly what the NT entailed hadn't been fully developed the canon of Scripture pretty solidly included the OT. In removing that, Marcion monkeyed with what was established as Scripture. What's interesting(to me) is examining the reformation by that standard, since the question of what is canon came up fresh thanks in no small part to Luther. Yet even if we ignore the removal of the OT, Marcion also created his own gospel through editorializing something akin to Luke so that also demonstrates a toying with the canon to suit doctrine.

Now let me be clear I'm not questioning the current Christian canon (though there are differences between different parts of the church). The OT was the Scriptures used by the very earliest Christians for the simple reason many of them were Jews of "God fearing" Gentile converts to Judaism, and of course Jesus, the Apostles and Church Fathers developed Christian theology from them: the Apostles and Fathers used the gospels and the rest of the NT as well. Usage alone in the end was not enough (e.g. The Shepherd of Hermas) so in the end decisions had to be made but this didn't happen until the church had an overall structure more than being a collection of fellowships connected by personal visits and letters: though of course connected by the Holy Spirit.

I don't think the slaughter of the people at Ai is quoted in the NT but of course the OT provides much of the theology of the NT though not without dispute e.g. the servant songs in Isaiah - is the servant Jesus or Israel? Someone had to formally decide to adopt the OT as part of the Christian Bible and in so doing they took on the apologetic problems of passages like Joshua 8. The church has the choice of sweeping such passages quietly under the carpet i.e. no sermons or readings in church services or forum discussions - or facing up to the apologetic issues they pose. The latter is surely the better course.

"Monkeying" is unnecessarily and unhelpfully pejorative.

Fervent · Jan 14, 2021

Vanellus said:
Now let me be clear I'm not questioning the current Christian canon (though there are differences between different parts of the church). The OT was the Scriptures used by the very earliest Christians for the simple reason many of them were Jews of "God fearing" Gentile converts to Judaism, and of course Jesus, the Apostles and Church Fathers developed Christian theology from them as well as the gospels. Usage alone in the end was not enough (e.g. The Shepherd of Hermas) so in the end decisions had to be made but this didn't happen until the church had an overall structure more than being a collection of fellowships connected by personal visits and letters: though of course connected by the Holy Spirit.

I don't think the slaughter of the people at Ai is quoted in the NT but of course the OT provides much of the theology of the NT though not without dispute e.g. the servant songs in Isaiah - is the servant Jesus or Israel? Someone had to formally decide to adopt the OT as part of the Christian Bible and in so doing they took on the apologetic problems of passages like Joshua 8. The church has the choice of sweeping such passages quietly under the carpet i.e. no sermons or readings in church services or forum discussions - or facing up to the apologetic issues they pose. The latter is surely the better course.

This depends on how canonization is viewed historically. I'm of the opinion that the declarations in the church were mere formalization of something that occurred organically(as directed by God), rather than something done on the basis of an authority within the church. Because of this the formalization dates for canon are not that interesting to me, but that the OT was regarded as Scripture even though it's full bounds had not been set long before Marcion is almost certain. At the very least the Torah, Pentateuch, or whatever you want to call the 5 books of Moses were hard-Scripture. As well as the prophets, starting with Joshua and what is now considered the histories. The Ketuvim may have had a questionable status, but most of the truly challenging material in the OT takes place in the law and prophets which were much more solidly considered. Marcion simply forced the church to formally recognize something that already existed in having an established canon because up to that point no one had presented a serious challenge to general acceptance.

Vanellus · Jan 15, 2021

Of course usage preceded canonization. But it wasn't just usage else why isn't The Shepherd of Hermas, for instance, in the Bible?

Vanellus · Jan 16, 2021

prodromos said:
You mean like the pagan religions did?

Deacon Phoebe (Rom 16:1) and the apostle Junia (Rom 16:7) might disagree with you!

There is faulty logic here along the lines of:

1. Some cats are black (some early Christian had women officers)
2. Some dogs are black (some pagan groups had women leaders)
Hence
3. Some dogs are cats (some early Christian sects were actually pagan

prodromos · Jan 17, 2021

Vanellus said:
Deacon Phoebe (Rom 16:1) and the apostle Junia (Rom 16:7) might disagree with you!

In the early Church, people were baptised naked, so there were women (deaconesses) who served to protect the modesty of women who were being baptised. As far as I am aware, they did not perform any other liturgical duties.
I don't see how you can conclude that Junia was a woman, considering the context.

ἀσπάσασθε Ἀνδρόνικον καὶ Ἰουνίαν τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ συναιχμαλώτους μου

"Kinsmen" and "fellow prisoners" are both masculine plural in the Greek.

Vanellus · Jan 18, 2021

prodromos said:
In the early Church, people were baptised naked, so there were women (deaconesses) who served to protect the modesty of women who were being baptised. As far as I am aware, they did not perform any other liturgical duties.
I don't see how you can conclude that Junia was a woman, considering the context.

ἀσπάσασθε Ἀνδρόνικον καὶ Ἰουνίαν τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ συναιχμαλώτους μου

"Kinsmen" and "fellow prisoners" are both masculine plural in the Greek.

Maybe it's time, prodromos, that some of your assertions (about women leadership and baptism) were clothed with your evidence. The Bible is remarkably silent on your theory of the role of female deacons. Do you then believe in baptism by immersion? Deacons also "must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience" (1 Tim 3:9) In the Didache they can act as prophets and teachers.

Andronicus is male. "Kinsmen" is a third declension adjective that can be masculine or feminine. "Prisoner" is second declension adjective which can also be masculine or feminine.
see: Adjectives: Part II – Ancient Greek for Everyone
Note the distinction between grammatical and actual gender in ancient Greek

It's not only me who thinks Junia was a woman:
Junias and Junia in Early Commentaries of Romans 16:7 | Marg Mowczko

So it seems Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome and many others including lately James Dunn thought that Junia was a woman:

[The female name Junia] was taken for granted by the patristic commentators, and indeed up to the Middle Ages. The assumption that it must be male is a striking indictment of male presumption regarding the character and structure of earliest Christianity… We may firmly conclude, however, that one of the foundation apostles of Christianity was a woman and wife.
Dunn, Romans 9-16 (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol 38B) (Dallas, TX: Word, 1988), 894.

Further:

Looking for evidence beyond the biblical canon, Peter Lampe has noted some 250 examples of the name Junia in Roman literature.[7] While this clearly indicates that Junia was a common female name, “not a single example of the masculine name Junias has been found.”[8] The absence of this name has caused some commentators to propose the idea that the name Junias must be a contraction of the longer name Junianus.[9] It is true that such abbreviated names were common during this period,[10] but it remains to be seen whether Junianus was ever shortened to Junias. Thus Richard Cervin states that this idea is “groundless because there is no evidence to confirm the theory.”[11] Based on linguistic evidence, the argument for the masculine name Junias is simply one from silence

from Junia(s) in Romans 16:7

Was Marcion a heretic?

Confessional Lutheran

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Similar threads