Hope you read my second posting...you did ...but one with out any knowledge of marcion may have taken your statement as something else.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
My beliefs are irrelevant to the conversation. I am simply citing an historicaly verifiable fact within the parameters of the original post. (sans editorializing)
I trust that anyone who takes the time to read my posts in the order that I posted them is competent to appropriately assess for themselves the historicity of their content.Hope you read my second posting...you did ...but one with out any knowledge of marcion may have taken your statement as something else.
http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Valentinus.htmhttp://www.christianforums.com/ValentinusValentinus was born in Phrebonis in upper Egypt about 100 AD and educated in nearby Alexandria. There he became a disciple of the Christian teacher Theudas who had been a disciple of Saint Paul. He claimed that Theudas taught him secret wisdom that Paul had taught privately to his inner circle.
Marcion excised the pastorals (1 Tim, 2 Tim and Titus) and removed several excerpts from Luke and the remaining epistles that he felt to be forgeries or passages grafted on to previous text.
The irony, in view of the question posed by this thread, would be in that many of the early Gnostics, those who embraced Pauls epistles, regarded the bulk of those works to be Gnostic in origin.
Pauls gnosis is differant than most who claim that belief....his mysteries are in the scripture(OT) but recognized by few....while most others use outher sources or come to conclusions that violate other parts of scripture.
Irrespective of subjective pedestrian commentary, it was (historically speaking) Marcion (who was refuted as a Gnostic heretic), that introduced Pauls Epistles to the first cannon.
The irony, in view of the question posed by this thread, would be in that many of the early Gnostics, those who embraced Pauls epistles, regarded the bulk of those works to be Gnostic in origin.
Irrespective of subjective pedestrian commentary, it was (historically speaking) Marcion (who was refuted as a Gnostic heretic), that introduced Pauls Epistles to the first cannon.
This seems deceptive, as it was already demonstrated, such as with Ignatius and Polycarp, that Paul was already in use by the early Christians. Marcion only represents a person who formally produced a list, of which Christians, up to that point, did not appear to need, as they were already calling these books "scripture," even without any list being discovered of them. It does not mean that Marcion introduced the use of Paul's writings to the Christian church. They were already using them.
Yet it follows that they believed them to have been corrupted by Christians, as Marcion had to remove certain epistles, and make changes to the scriptural text.
Marcion excised the pastorals (1 Tim, 2 Tim and Titus) and removed several excerpts from Luke and the remaining epistles that he felt to be forgeries or passages grafted on to previous text.
Joseph Smith did the same thing, though he never completed his "retranslation" of the Bible. It does not mean that Smith had a legitimate historical claim.
Deceptive? I would hardly characterize your transpositions of the terms "cannon" for the term "Christian church" or "scripture" to be ..... ummmm..... "deceptive".
No harm no foul. Please in the future simply ask for clarification without the precursor. The nuances that are implied are crucial to deciphering the emphasis derived from the balance of the comment.I said "seems" deceptive, as I wasn't sure the exact point you were trying to make. If you agree that Marcion did not somehow invent Paul or some such thing, then we have no problems. I also was not transposing any meanings. I was trying to make sure that you weren't, actually. The other problem is, your icon says "Other Church," and with LDS, Armstrongites, Russellites, Universalists, all crawling about, and not always with the correct icons, it is hard to interpret from what direction you may be coming from.
If I offended you, I apologize, but you take offense too easily. This is the second time you've gotten on me for something I meant far more innocently. Maybe part of the problem was my wording, but you should wait before you bite.
Cannon fire cannonballs. It is a word like "deer" -- singular and plural the same. One or more weapons that fire projectiles at an enemy -- that is the meaning of "cannon" spelled with 2 N's...
Canon is a term used to refer to a list of books accepted as biblical. Originally it comes from a term like a "measuring reed" - a rule accepted as a standard.
The fact that Marcion was a Gnostic and he wanted to set up a rule of a "Canon" that only included some of Paul's epistles and nothing else -- in no way proves Paul was indeed Gnostic -- that's silly.
The fact that Elaine Pagels thought Paul was Gnostic has to be balanced with the realization that she was one of the first to study Nag Hammadi documents and henceforth saw Gnosticism everywhere.
The authenticity of some of them is debated, but none of them sound like gnostic productions.
The ones whose authenticity are questioned are: Ephesians, sometimes Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus.
Questioned by nobody are: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians.
It is not difficult to find conservative scholars to defend the authenticity of all of them, if that is what you want.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?