(June 11, 2016 at 1:10 pm)YahwehIsTheWay Wrote: Dorfl,

Sort of. 

The Marcionites didn't think Yahweh was "evil" per se but rather an inferior and incompetent god. Jesus was not "sent" but rather WAS the higher and superior god who took pity on us one day and offered us a ticket out. 

Jesus, according to Marcion, was never a baby. There was no birth, virgin or otherwise. No Mary and Joseph. No nativity scene. All of that was tossed out along with the Old Testament and all things Jewish. Jesus appeared, as all gods do, on earth one day as a fully formed adult and that's where the story began. Marcionite Christianity fit in with the gnostic ideas that this was a flawed world and those who could learn certain secrets of salvation could escape to a better one. 

It was popular among early Christians and was a contender at Nicaea. Ultimately, it failed because it had no link with the past. It was a "new" religion, since it was tossing out everything from before. The Romans were suspicious of any religion that didn't have any bone fides with antiquity because of the reasoning, "If your religion is true, how come nobody's heard about it until now? Was God just watching us get it wrong all this time and suddenly now has decided to talk to one guy who will tell us what's what?" 

I'm looking at you Mohammed and Joseph Smith. 

So Christianity needed a link to the past. It needed the OT as a foundation and then build the yarn as if Christianity were the fulfillment of what the Jews had believed until that point. Hence, the Orthodox version, as clumsy as it is with it's Trinity, was triumphant at Nicaea.

(June 11, 2016 at 6:02 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote: Marcion was the one who believed there is a good go and a bad god. That the bad god was worshipped by the jews and created this world, so Jebus was sent to correct these errers. Am I correct?

Quote:Marcion taught that the god of the Old Testament was not the true God but rather that the true and higher God had been revealed only with Jesus Christ. Marcion wrote the Antitheses to show the differences between the god of the Old Testament and the true God.

(June 11, 2016 at 3:36 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The story gets shakier from there.  Rome in the 140s AD was hardly a hotbed of jesus freak theology!

(June 10, 2016 at 7:05 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(June 10, 2016 at 4:27 pm)Godschild Wrote:  

---

 You keep harping on this same thing and all you do is post from biased sites on the net. You do no research of your own and you never go to Christian sites to learn. When I went to the site you posted the first thing to come up was the genealogy of Jesus, showing how it's contradictory.
 
Let's look at he genealogy of scripture, here is the genealogy my Matthew and the one in 1 Chronicles 3:10-12, these are the very same genealogies.

 1 Chronicles 3;10-12                                                           Matthew 1:8-9
     Asa                                                                                      Asa
     Jehoshaphat                                                                        Jehoshaphat
     Joram                                                                                  Joram
     Ahaziah (Uzziah)                                                                    Uzziah
     Joash
     Amaziah
     Azariah
     Jotham                                                                                 Jotham
     Ahaz                                                                                     Ahaz
     Hezekiah                                                                               Hezekiah
     ect.                                                                                       ect.  
 As you see Matthew didn't write down all the genealogy, Matthew when saying Uzziah was the father of Jotham it can mean he was the father who lead to Jotham. Just as the Bible says that Abraham was the father of a nation or the angel said to Joseph, "Joseph son of David." This was the tradition of the ancient times to refer to a man as the father of a great great great grandson or even more distant. Matthew had a reason to eliminate the names, but what he didn't do was to write them out of order. So there is nothing wrong with Matthew's written genealogy, he for reasons unknown to us didn't include all the names. You need to remember that he had access to the genealogies at the temple and could have written them down as recorded in earlier manuscripts. So in the end there's no contradiction with the two, as I stated previously the writers didn't necessarily put down all the facts because they didn't feel it necessary for the times.

GC

---

Paul said that the genealogies were BS and not worth arguing about.

(June 10, 2016 at 4:38 pm)madog Wrote:

(June 10, 2016 at 4:30 pm)Godschild Wrote:  Defection is a sign of one being unable to defend his/ her posts. I never asked you to prove God as you are an unbeliever, if I ask anything it would be to disprove God and why shouldn't you, you claim He don't exist.

GC

I am getting pissed off now    Below is what you said in pink, unedited ......

  I've been doing this for years, I'm not changing now, so get use to it.

 You better get to answering, God is real.

 GC

I even gave you a chance to correct it 

(June 10, 2016 at 8:38 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(June 10, 2016 at 4:27 pm)Godschild Wrote:  
 You keep harping on this same thing and all you do is post from biased sites on the net. You do no research of your own and you never go to Christian sites to learn. When I went to the site you posted the first thing to come up was the genealogy of Jesus, showing how it's contradictory.
 
Let's look at he genealogy of scripture, here is the genealogy my Matthew and the one in 1 Chronicles 3:10-12, these are the very same genealogies.

 1 Chronicles 3;10-12                                                           Matthew 1:8-9
     Asa                                                                                      Asa
     Jehoshaphat                                                                        Jehoshaphat
     Joram                                                                                  Joram
     Ahaziah (Uzziah)                                                                    Uzziah
     Joash
     Amaziah
     Azariah
     Jotham                                                                                 Jotham
     Ahaz                                                                                     Ahaz
     Hezekiah                                                                               Hezekiah
     ect.                                                                                       ect.  
 As you see Matthew didn't write down all the genealogy, Matthew when saying Uzziah was the father of Jotham it can mean he was the father who lead to Jotham. Just as the Bible says that Abraham was the father of a nation or the angel said to Joseph, "Joseph son of David." This was the tradition of the ancient times to refer to a man as the father of a great great great grandson or even more distant. Matthew had a reason to eliminate the names, but what he didn't do was to write them out of order. So there is nothing wrong with Matthew's written genealogy, he for reasons unknown to us didn't include all the names. You need to remember that he had access to the genealogies at the temple and could have written them down as recorded in earlier manuscripts. So in the end there's no contradiction with the two, as I stated previously the writers didn't necessarily put down all the facts because they didn't feel it necessary for the times.

GC

There are some flat-out errors in the New Testament, such as the author of Luke claiming that Quirinius was the Roman governor of Syria:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

Quote:2 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

Luke 2

(June 12, 2016 at 5:38 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:2 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

Luke 2

No.  He did not.  And it would have been about the stupidest thing anyone ever did anywhere if he had.

Augustus was many things but stupid was not one of them.

In that, G-C, he differs from you.

Quote:[1] Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,

Quote:"You are fond of saying that in the old days this same most high god made these and greater promises to those who gave heed to his commandments and worshipped him. But at the risk of appearing unkind, I ask how much good has been done by those promises have done either the Jews before you or you in your present circumstances. And would you have us put our faith in such a god? Instead of being masters of the whole world, the jews today have no home of any kind."

Quote:"Again, if God, like Jupiter in the comedy, should, on awaking from a lengthened slumber, desire to rescue the human race from evil, why did He send this Spirit of which you speak into one corner (of the earth)? He ought to have breathed it alike into many bodies, and have sent them out into all the world. Now the comic poet, to cause laughter in the theatre, wrote that Jupiter, after awakening, despatched Mercury to the Athenians and Lacedaemonians; but do not you think that you have made the Son of God more ridiculous in sending Him to the Jews?"