"The Gospel of Marcion"

[Soulgazer]

Jewish thinkers on the other hand didn't have philosophers as role models, like they did with the Law givers of their nation, so they were interpreting what Jesus was doing from that legalistic perspective. Catholics comes up with the faith concept leading to salvation, which may be invented by Paul because I haven’t found the idea before him.

The various gnostic/Marcionite schools are called Pauline, because Paul is credited with founding them, and treated like nothing less than a rock-star by them. (the proto catholic fathers at first dismissed Paul as a fabrication of the "heretics" and later embraced him...enough to forge some epistles in his name)

Plato was big among Jews too!

Just saying' Temple Judaism did not believe in life after death. That was an idea adopted from the Greek, and still rejected by the Sadducee, who were the keepers of the temple, at the time of the fall of Jerusalem.

Judaism was not one religion, but several. You would be hard pressed to tell the difference between Sethian mythology and Valentinian or Marcionite.

Now, I agree that it was probably Platonic thought that influenced the early Christians and Jewish mystics. However, we should also recognize that a demiurgic figure was VERY Jewish, and probably had it's roots in Proto-Jewish Zorastrianism. The Jewish/Christian demiurgic figure was very different from the Platonic figure, which was basically good. The Jewish/Christian demiurgic figure was at best insane.

The "heresies" were not "heretical" until catholicism started developing in the mid second century. The catholic movement had a very nasty habit of lying in the name of "truth".

 

[Prayer Circle]

Fascinating. I've heard of the Marcion Gospel, but never took much notice till now.

This may assist in further reading on the subject.

The Gnostic Society Library
Gnostic Scriptures and Fragments
Marcion: The Gospel of the Lord

 

[ElijahW]

You have a point. I should have been more specific. It was the more traditional or orthodox Jews who lacked the proper keys. Those who totally re-interpreted the Jewish tradition on Platonic and Pythagorean lines like Philo were a little closer to the truth. Philo recognized the creation of this world by a demiurge or lesser being but he wasn't willing to say Jehovah = the demiurge. The Gnostic Jews who formed the milieu in which Christianity was first formulated went further and recognized that the angry, jealous, violent and all to human being described in many of the verses of the Torah was in fact the demiurge and not the highest God. These folks were spot on imo.

I agree with most of that. I think the idea of the afterlife also comes from Zoroastrianism because the Greeks were big into reincarnation while Zoro went with a resurrection prophecy. Also agree that the idea, that the problem with the world, is found in a spiritual entity’s defect/evil/corruptness, probably comes from Zoroastrianism. But I only assume that because I’m not familiar with that idea in Greek philosophy or eastern philosophy.

 

[hedrick]

Could I get a little more clarity on what you think they were spot on about? Is this violent God meant to be understood with human emotions that comes from taking the texts literal? A guy in the sky with a bad attitude?

It seems to me that you can get the same benefits more believably by saying that many Jews misunderstood God's intentions, particularly in the period before the prophets.

 

[cupid dave]

I was just reading an article on the so called "Gospel of Marcion" (or as Marcion called it "The Gospel of the Lord") the general opinion for centuries seemed to have been that he altered the Gospel of Luke by removing the verses he didn't agree with but it seems scholars are more open now to the idea that it might actually have been an earlier Gospel than Luke that came from Paul and that only later came into Marcions possession.

http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/CW_2.htm
Did Marcion mutilate the Gospel of Luke? « Vridar
Marcion and Luke-Acts: a defining struggle - Joseph B. Tyson - Google Books

SO?
What about it?

It CAN'T be valid, because it was never preached over all the world.
The New testament is the ONLY gospel that was preached over allth world, and now te end is about here:


Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
http://www.christianforums.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24:13-15&version=KJV

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Could I get a little more clarity on what you think they were spot on about? Is this violent God meant to be understood with human emotions that comes from taking the texts literal?

Later Hellenistic Jews applied a radical reinterpration to their traditional scriptures precisly because they found a lot that was embarrassing within them. They might claim that these reinterpretations represent what it "actually meant" all along but I doubt their teachings had anything to do with the original intent of the authors. Where the bronze age authors of the book of Genesis really proto-Platonists? This is a common way to give new teachings under the guise of traditional sources. Gnostics on the other hand simply admitted the text wasn't infallible and an inerrant source of truth to begin with. It was of mixed quality. You can find wisdom in it but you can also find admonitions to kill men women and children and commit genocide against people. You can find rather spiritual conceptions of God but you can also find examples of him being portrayed as suffering from human passions and being vindictive toward man.

 

[Soulgazer]

I agree with most of that. I think the idea of the afterlife also comes from Zoroastrianism because the Greeks were big into reincarnation while Zoro went with a resurrection prophecy. Also agree that the idea, that the problem with the world, is found in a spiritual entity’s defect/evil/corruptness, probably comes from Zoroastrianism. But I only assume that because I’m not familiar with that idea in Greek philosophy or eastern philosophy.

I would add in that the understanding of the demiurge varied from school to school, and from group to group within the various schools. The demiurge was viewed as nature, which from a scientific bent, has proven the most accurate, and also as an attempt by men to create a god, which from a psychological standpoint, has also proven to be pretty accurate. Then there were those that misunderstood, and tried to take it literally, like Marcion. But those types are always the most prevalent anyway.

Definitely the mad god that sent wind to blow ships to port, and then sank them before they got there.

 

[cupid dave]

I agree with most of that. I think the idea of the afterlife also comes from Zoroastrianism because the Greeks were big into reincarnation while Zoro went with a resurrection prophecy. Also agree that the idea, that the problem with the world, is found in a spiritual entity’s defect/evil/corruptness, probably comes from Zoroastrianism. But I only assume that because I’m not familiar with that idea in Greek philosophy or eastern philosophy.

It is a sigh of insanity to ignore the Reality, that life is not only creul if you want to complain about it, but it is also terminal.

We are born into this life experience and never get any explanation concerning what it is all about.
We have the selfish instinct to want to survive, though.
Bad as one my complain the "boss" of the living here may be, that is the price of a "ticket" to the ride that is all very short.

How crazy and small is it for you to call the God of the living "a spiritual entity’s defect/evil/corruptness" but still take the opportunity to live as if te nature of the real world ought change just for you????


Get real.
Life is tough and short.

The Truth is your best friend and guide while you try to enjoy this as much as you can.


"I am the Truth, the way, and the Life"....?

 

[cupid dave]

I would add in that the understanding of the demiurge varied from school to school, and from group to group within the various schools. The demiurge was viewed as nature, which from a scientific bent, has proven the most accurate, and also as an attempt by men to create a god, which from a psychological standpoint, has also proven to be pretty accurate. Then there were those that misunderstood, and tried to take it literally, like Marcion. But those types are always the most prevalent anyway.

I disagree.

Both Aristotle and the Jews understood that the demiurges were equivalent to what we understand to be the Freudian archetypes (which they did not know about of course, but called them angels or messengers).

The main contribution of Chasidic thought to angelology was a distinctly anthropocentric, even psychological, interpretation of angelic nature.

Specifically, early Chasidic masters held that ephemeral angels were the direct result of human action.

Goodly deeds created good angels, destructive behavior created destructive angels, etc.

In other words, most angels are ontologically the creation, really a byproduct, of humans rather than God!
Thus the balance between the angelic and demonic forces in the universe is a direct result of human decision and action.


[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/angels.html[/FONT]

 

[cupid dave]

Just saying' Temple Judaism did not believe in life after death. That was an idea adopted from the Greek, and still rejected by the Sadducee, who were the keepers of the temple, at the time of the fall of Jerusalem.
.

You must mean some of the Jews did not believe in life after death when you qualify with Temple Judaism, right?

Most Jews did believe in a resurrection and life after death:


Acts 23:8
For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.
http://www.christianforums.com/passage/?search=Acts+23:7-9&version=KJV

 

[Ishraqiyun]

It CAN'T be valid, because it was never preached over all the world.

The Gospel is the good news of Christ it's not a specific text.

 

[Soulgazer]

You must mean some of the Jews did not believe in life after death when you qualify with Temple Judaism, right?

Most Jews did believe in a resurrection and life after death:


Acts 23:8
For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

New Testamentl Judaism didn't really exist. The Sadducee were in charge, not the Pharisee. Temple Judaism, (those that kept the Torah and the tradition of the Temple as God's house) officially did not believe in an afterlife. Pharisee were more like lay preachers, and picked up the idea of a messiah figure and afterlife from Books like Enoch, which the Sadducee refused to recognize. They were literalistic, and did not see Enoch as a parrable(even though the author of Enoch introduced it as a parrable).

There were a number of other Jewish groups, that each had their favorite "closing" prophets. To lump them all together though, is erroneous. Some were Messianic, some were mystics, some were muslems on steroids. They all had differing writings, or no writings, different creations and different traditions. Some were Abrahamic, some were not.

The Pharisee were a relatively minor group. Sadducee held all the political power. Most messianic groups were looking for a general to lead a successful revolt against Rome, not a spiritual leader.

 

[cupid dave]

The Gospel is the good news of Christ it's not a specific text.

LOL

So the four gospels are not the gospel which has been preached over all the world???

And I suppose these long discarded and recently dug books are the gospel?

You would tells that the story about Jesus and the events of 32AD could be told as a gospel without the The New Testament as our guide and reference?

LOL
Lame.

 

[cupid dave]

New Testamentl Judaism didn't really exist. The Sadducee were in charge, not the Pharisee. Temple Judaism, (those that kept the Torah and the tradition of the Temple as God's house) officially did not believe in an afterlife. Pharisee were more like lay preachers, and picked up the idea of a messiah figure and afterlife from Books like Enoch, which the Sadducee refused to recognize. They were literalistic, and did not see Enoch as a parrable(even though the author of Enoch introduced it as a parrable).

There were a number of other Jewish groups, that each had their favorite "closing" prophets. To lump them all together though, is erroneous. Some were Messianic, some were mystics, some were muslems on steroids. They all had differing writings, or no writings, different creations and different traditions. Some were Abrahamic, some were not.

The Pharisee were a relatively minor group. Sadducee held all the political power. Most messianic groups were looking for a general to lead a successful revolt against Rome, not a spiritual leader.

Nah...


Thge New Testament comment came from Luke who certainly was describing Judaism and what he and Jews in 32AD thought.

It is not valid to say the New Testament is disqualified as a source of historical fact as in this case, because the Jews disregarded the theology it teaches.

 

[ElijahW]

Later Hellenistic Jews applied a radical reinterpration to their traditional scriptures precisly because they found a lot that was embarrassing within them. They might claim that these reinterpretations represent what it "actually meant" all along but I doubt their teachings had anything to do with the original intent of the authors. Where the bronze age authors of the book of Genesis really proto-Platonists? This is a common way to give new teachings under the guise of traditional sources. Gnostics on the other hand simply admitted the text wasn't infallible and an inerrant source of truth to begin with. It was of mixed quality. You can find wisdom in it but you can also find admonitions to kill men women and children and commit genocide against people. You can find rather spiritual conceptions of God but you can also find examples of him being portrayed as suffering from human passions and being vindictive toward man.

Speaking of Origen and Philo in particular, I totally agree they went nuts and over interpreted the texts in ways that the authors didn’t intend. You are correct that the sacrifices were embarrassing to Philo and other Hellenized Jews and that forced them to interpret the passages allegorically, where the sacrifices are symbolic and not swaying a God that could be appeased by sacrifice.

I do think though that Moses or more specifically the writer/s of the Torah should be thought of more like proto Platonists, versus assuming they hadn’t reasoned out anything about God or spirit at all. Reading the creation account it seems obvious that the writer is trying to counter superstitious understandings of God by not presenting him as a person, like would be common at the time in Egyptian mythology or Greek poetry.

He is on the same mission as Plato, in trying to counter superstition brought about presenting God as a person in poems or allowing idols. There are some metaphysical points the author is trying to make at the beginning of Genesis, though how aligned they are with Plato is debatable but the attempt is being made. Both are presenting mono instead of polytheism. Also the nation Moses is building is a Republic in the platonic sense. Lots of similarities.

The only thing is how constant was God understood and when that idea was popularized within Judaism.

At the end of the day I believe you have to take it allegorically and understand the texts as rationally as you can, instead of creating mistakes by taking it literal enough to do so. And remember you are reading a history so they couldn’t make God, "the giver of cake and ice cream" ,when they were telling their history. They have to depict God as part of what actually happened.

 

[ElijahW]

I would add in that the understanding of the demiurge varied from school to school, and from group to group within the various schools. The demiurge was viewed as nature, which from a scientific bent, has proven the most accurate, and also as an attempt by men to create a god, which from a psychological standpoint, has also proven to be pretty accurate. Then there were those that misunderstood, and tried to take it literally, like Marcion. But those types are always the most prevalent anyway.

Definitely the mad god that sent wind to blow ships to port, and then sank them before they got there.

The bolded is my favorite understanding of the demiurge or at least the spiritual entity that should be viewed in the negative.

Lots of variance and looooots of uncertainty when reading the texts on which exact interpretation you are looking at.

 

[ElijahW]

It is a sigh of insanity to ignore the Reality, that life is not only creul if you want to complain about it, but it is also terminal.

We are born into this life experience and never get any explanation concerning what it is all about.
We have the selfish instinct to want to survive, though.
Bad as one my complain the "boss" of the living here may be, that is the price of a "ticket" to the ride that is all very short.

How crazy and small is it for you to call the God of the living "a spiritual entity’s defect/evil/corruptness" but still take the opportunity to live as if te nature of the real world ought change just for you????


Get real.
Life is tough and short.

The Truth is your best friend and guide while you try to enjoy this as much as you can.


"I am the Truth, the way, and the Life"....?

I think you misunderstood me presenting Marcion's position for my own.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Good news is like a joke .. you don't need to explain why it's good news ..

the word Gospel came from "God Spell" in the latin . there's a real need to get back to it being good news ..

 

[cupid dave]

At the end of the day I believe you have to take it allegorically and understand the texts as rationally as you can, instead of creating mistakes by taking it literal enough to do so.

And remember you are reading a history so they couldn’t make God, "the giver of cake and ice cream" ,when they were telling their history. They have to depict God as part of what actually happened.

First of all, Judaism was the only agrument made, ever, that opposed the sexually promiscuous pagan societies.

They encouraged and condoned lifestyles based upon the worship of one of the major twelve god heads of their myths.

That is the same situation today, where the Christianity that grew from the seed of Judaism is basically opposing the American matriarchy in this regard of sexual morality.

The difference between these Christians and the Jewish patriachs of 1362BC is they are supposed to want to be prudent sexually because it is god for the next generation, buids strond families, and avoids the social prblems of a matriarchy that requires abortion, No Fault Divorce, Single Mothers, social welfare, STD, etc.





Deuteronomy 4:19
And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.
http://www.christianforums.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+4:18-20&version=KJV

 

[Soulgazer]

I think you misunderstood me presenting Marcion's position for my own.

Happens a lot. Marcion seems to stir a lot of passion.

Marcion took literalism to it's limit. At the end of the day, if one is intellectually honest, one either has to assign an allegorical meaning to the texts, or accept Marcion. Those that claim a literalistic interpretation and reject Marcion can only be lying to themselves, or to us.

Marcion is the little boy in the crowd pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.