OK, let me see if I have this straight...
According to Bart Ehrman's book, "Lost Christianities", Marcionite Christianity was an alternative to what he called the "proto-Orthodox Christians". Marcion preached that Jesus was not the son of Yahweh nor was he born of a virgin but rather he was a higher god, superior to the Jewish god Yahweh. Jesus appeared in a temple one day, fully formed as an adult. There was no childhood, Mary or Joseph. The Marcionites rejected all things Jewish and had no use for the OT or the Jewish laws. Jesus' path to salvation was by faith in him alone.
Contrary to assertions by apologists, the Marcionite faith was not just a splinter faction but a serious rival to the proto-Orthodox at the Council of Nicaea. They were condemned as heretics and stomped out eventually, as the Romans needed the appeal to antiquity that the OT offered (their attitude was a "new" religion had no credibility for if it were the Truth, why hadn't anyone heard of it before?).
The poster boy for the Marcionite Christian faith was Paul. He was the prophet who's writings were "discovered" by Marcion. Bart Ehrman suggested that the Marcionite scripture was primarily composed of letters from Paul and a variation on the Gospel of Luke (mostly eliminating the part about the childhood and bloodline of Jesus).
OK, so here's the part where I go "huh?" ...
Paul's Jesus was born of a woman, of the seed of David and served as an intercessor to the divine.
While it is true that Paul rejected the need for adherence to Jewish law in favor of faith alone in Jesus and his sacrifice upon the cross, something Marcion would have agreed with, the parts that describe a more modern Christian concept of Jesus would seem to completely contradict the Marcionite version.
What the Hell?
This is like discovering that Muhammad was really a Trinitarian Christian.
As I see it, and others can offer their insights here because I'm admitting I'm confused, there are only three possibilities:
1. Marcion knew that Paul believed in a Jesus that had a Davidic bloodline, was born of a woman, etc. and hoped no one would read the very scriptures that he was touting.
2. Marcion touted Paul's scriptures and had no idea what they actually said.
3. The triumphant Orthodox Christians burned all the original copies of Paul's epistles and incorporated edited versions in the canonical NT. The "Paul" we know today is reworked to suit the Trinitarian agenda much the same way that John the Baptist was incorporated.
The first two possibilities seem comically unlikely. The third would follow the modes apperandi of the emerging Catholic Church, that which can't be crushed is to be incorporated. The Mandaens were also rivals of the early Christians and so the Bible incorporates their central icon and claimed messiah, John the Baptist. Could the early Church have done the same thing with Paul in an effort to incorporate the Marcionites?
It is interesting to note that the Paul of Acts is very different from the Paul of the epistles. The latter is a bombastic bully who answers to no one but Jesus. The former is a submissive team player who takes a back seat to the Catholic poster boy, Peter. Paul is "sent here" and "sent there", the passive language being very different from the nature of Paul suggested in his epistles.
One part of Acts that lept out at me was when Paul was thought to be Mercury and Barnabus, Jupiter.
It strikes me as a subtle put down. Mercury was the messenger boy of Zeus. Technically one of the gods but clearly the least among them in the Greco-Roman pantheon. He could be thought of as a glorified gofer.
As I said, these are questions I have and would welcome any input from those who've done more research.
According to Bart Ehrman's book, "Lost Christianities", Marcionite Christianity was an alternative to what he called the "proto-Orthodox Christians". Marcion preached that Jesus was not the son of Yahweh nor was he born of a virgin but rather he was a higher god, superior to the Jewish god Yahweh. Jesus appeared in a temple one day, fully formed as an adult. There was no childhood, Mary or Joseph. The Marcionites rejected all things Jewish and had no use for the OT or the Jewish laws. Jesus' path to salvation was by faith in him alone.
Contrary to assertions by apologists, the Marcionite faith was not just a splinter faction but a serious rival to the proto-Orthodox at the Council of Nicaea. They were condemned as heretics and stomped out eventually, as the Romans needed the appeal to antiquity that the OT offered (their attitude was a "new" religion had no credibility for if it were the Truth, why hadn't anyone heard of it before?).
The poster boy for the Marcionite Christian faith was Paul. He was the prophet who's writings were "discovered" by Marcion. Bart Ehrman suggested that the Marcionite scripture was primarily composed of letters from Paul and a variation on the Gospel of Luke (mostly eliminating the part about the childhood and bloodline of Jesus).
OK, so here's the part where I go "huh?" ...
Paul's Jesus was born of a woman, of the seed of David and served as an intercessor to the divine.
While it is true that Paul rejected the need for adherence to Jewish law in favor of faith alone in Jesus and his sacrifice upon the cross, something Marcion would have agreed with, the parts that describe a more modern Christian concept of Jesus would seem to completely contradict the Marcionite version.
What the Hell?
This is like discovering that Muhammad was really a Trinitarian Christian.
As I see it, and others can offer their insights here because I'm admitting I'm confused, there are only three possibilities:
1. Marcion knew that Paul believed in a Jesus that had a Davidic bloodline, was born of a woman, etc. and hoped no one would read the very scriptures that he was touting.
2. Marcion touted Paul's scriptures and had no idea what they actually said.
3. The triumphant Orthodox Christians burned all the original copies of Paul's epistles and incorporated edited versions in the canonical NT. The "Paul" we know today is reworked to suit the Trinitarian agenda much the same way that John the Baptist was incorporated.
The first two possibilities seem comically unlikely. The third would follow the modes apperandi of the emerging Catholic Church, that which can't be crushed is to be incorporated. The Mandaens were also rivals of the early Christians and so the Bible incorporates their central icon and claimed messiah, John the Baptist. Could the early Church have done the same thing with Paul in an effort to incorporate the Marcionites?
It is interesting to note that the Paul of Acts is very different from the Paul of the epistles. The latter is a bombastic bully who answers to no one but Jesus. The former is a submissive team player who takes a back seat to the Catholic poster boy, Peter. Paul is "sent here" and "sent there", the passive language being very different from the nature of Paul suggested in his epistles.
One part of Acts that lept out at me was when Paul was thought to be Mercury and Barnabus, Jupiter.
Quote:Acts 14:12 And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.
It strikes me as a subtle put down. Mercury was the messenger boy of Zeus. Technically one of the gods but clearly the least among them in the Greco-Roman pantheon. He could be thought of as a glorified gofer.
As I said, these are questions I have and would welcome any input from those who've done more research.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
![[Image: 2397_bpfobu.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=memedepot.com%2Fuploads%2F2000%2F2397_bpfobu.jpg)
