Marcion

[speed]

One of the most interesting figures of Christianity I have come across, is Marcion. He created a new gentile christian sect totally seperated from the jewish roots of the religion. The most important thing, is he was also the first Christian to create a biblical canon, and a true church hierarchy--things the Catholics copied. I was wondering what everyone on this site thought about the religious thought and ideas of this early Christian?

Here is the beginning caption of the Catholic Encyclopedia about him and his followers: notice the Catholic church considers him the greatest threat they ever faced.

Heretical sect founded in A.D. 144 at Rome by Marcion and continuing in the West for 300 years, but in the East some centuries longer, especially outside the Byzantine Empire. They rejected the writings of the Old Testament and taught that Christ was not the Son of the God of the Jews, but the Son of the good God, who was different from the God of the Ancient Covenant. They anticipated the more consistent dualism of Manichaeism and were finally absorbed by it. As they arose in the very infancy of Christianity and adopted from the beginning a strong ecclesiastical organization, parallel to that of the Catholic Church, they were perhaps the most dangerous foe Christianity has ever known.

If anyone wants to read more, here is the link from the Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm

 

[Kenneth R.]

interesting. but how can the "good God" not be the "God of the Jews" when the Koran and Bible both account of events regarding the "God of the Jews"? i see inconsistancy here.

i also dislike most of the workings of the catholic church and its beauracracy(sp). i would agree such a group would be dangerous to the survival of christianity as it poses itself as christianity, while itself is not.

note also that catholicism and christianity are not wholly compatible. in my opinion catholicism focuses too heavily on the "system" of religion, and far too little on faith and understanding of the bible. i feel i can represent this opinion as one who (by family) was pushed to go to catholic church for many years.

 

[speed]

interesting. but how can the "good God" not be the "God of the Jews" when the Koran and Bible both account of events regarding the "God of the Jews"? i see inconsistancy here.

iQUOTE]

Simple, Marcion was a gnostic; the good god, or the one, could not embody any imperfection. Imperfection was the creation of the equally imperfect Demiurge. Marcion listed the many times in the old testament, where GOd was not a God of good, of light, but actually a reprehensible and jealous bastard. Thus, the God of the Jews could not be the father of the good Jesus; Jesus was born of the one. Think Plato, add christianity, and one gets gnosticism.

Marcion's sect, and many of the gnostics who would eventually be killed off ending with the Cathars (There were Paulines, Bogomils, Marcionites, Manicheans etc, etc), were quite influential in the early years all the way up to the middle ages. The problem is, the secular church apparatus of Byzantium and Rome hated this supposed heresy.

I cant say I actually care for gnostic religion, but it is interesting. And if one is Christian, there are some serious inconsistancies with the ancient jealous avenger God of the Old Testament, and the God of equality, suffering and redemption of the New Testament. In fact, the son of Man in the Old Testament was supposed to be a secular conquerer, thus how and why should one even bother with old Jewish scripture etc, when one has Paul and Jesus?

 

[infoterror]

interesting. but how can the "good God" not be the "God of the Jews" when the Koran and Bible both account of events regarding the "God of the Jews"?

One can interpret "God" in a different context, e.g. adualistically or cosmically, in contrast to the absolute and dualistic nature of a Jewish god.

 

[Kenneth R.]

interesting...

 

[infoterror]

Simple, Marcion was a gnostic; the good god, or the one, could not embody any imperfection.

I cant say I actually care for gnostic religion, but it is interesting. And if one is Christian, there are some serious inconsistancies with the ancient jealous avenger God of the Old Testament, and the God of equality, suffering and redemption of the New Testament. In fact, the son of Man in the Old Testament was supposed to be a secular conquerer, thus how and why should one even bother with old Jewish scripture etc, when one has Paul and Jesus?

I like the gnostic view of a transcendent god-as-mechanism. It's much closer to the Hindu view than the conventional Judeo-Christian one.

 

[the alumnus]

i once read an article online that purported archaeological evidence showing that the old testament was an amalgamation of two distinct judaic traditions (judah and israel). basically, because the 12 tribes were seperated and then reunited, their religions had also seperated and reunited. to that end, one group worshipped yaweh, a transcendental god who was all spirit (non-corporeal), all good, and all powerful. the other group worshipped jehovah, a tribal god much like other tribal dieties; petty, vengeful, jealous, and corporeal. thus there are two different and competing philosophies of the old testament. one is the god whose eyes no man has seen. the other is the one that showed noah his brown eye. you can see this in the moses/aaron rivalry that crosses different segments of the bible. it also purported that jesus always referred to god as yaweh in an attempt to bring judaism inline with the yaweh tradition, rather than the jehovic. interesting theory, but i've found little evidence from the jewish scholars that i know of who can verify its voracity.

 

[speed]

that is interesting Alumnus.

I am always intrigued by the first 1,600 years of christianity, where relatively small theological differences in Christianity were cause for death, inquisitions, and in the Cathar's case, a crusade against them. We have a nice western tradition of orthoxdoxy and intolerance.