Posted on 01/11/2005 6:18:33 PM PST by malakhi
| Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
After a nine month hiatus, The Neverending Story, the granddaddy of daily threads, has returned to Free Republic. Originally begun on March 24, 2001, as a religious discussion thread, the NES evolved over time into a daily thread spanning a wide variety of topics. The new and improved Neverending Story will feature conversation on religion, politics, culture, current events, business, sports, family, hobbies, general fellowship and more. We welcome you to hang your hat in our little corner of FR. We ask you to abide by the FR posting rules and, even in the midst of serious debate, to keep the discussion friendly and respectful. Those who wish to "duke it out" are asked to take it over to the Smoky Backroom. I placed this thread in "General/Chat" for a reason, so play nice and have fun! :o)
sure I would have.
But try to be consistent. If you become Catholic half way through the conversation... make sure you clue us in... it'll save confusion.
Now this I'd never waffle on at all. Not gonna happen. :-)
Ummm....yes.
It's an interesting "chicken v. egg" type question.
BibleFacts
Marcion
On Church History
Marcion
Marcion in the middle of the second century AD, left the church and started the Gnostic Marcionites. Marcion was a native of Sinope. He first studied with the stoics then became a Christian. As he began to apostatize he seduced a young girl, according to Epiphanius, was then excommunicated. Marcion then traveled to Rome in hopes to be readmitted to the church. Later Marcion joined Cerdon and another Gnostic, preaching in Rome, in hopes of creating a schism in the church. Marcion's most famous disciples were Apelles, Lucanus, Basilus, Potitus, and Blastus who caused a schism in Rome. Marcionites continued until the 6th century, principally in Egypt, Israel, and Syria.
The teachings of Marcion are as follows:
1. Rejects the Old Testament and uses cut up versions of Luke and some of Paul's epistles. The god of the old testament and his prophets and are evil and will be destroyed.
2. God is the author of sin. Marcionites must be celibate.
3. There are two equal and opposite gods one good and one evil.
4. Strongly addicted to astrology.
5. The Law and The Gospel being so against each other proves two different gods.
6. There is no resurrection. The saved should not marry.
7. Removed references in his gospel that Christ was creator.
8. Jesus was a phantom (no physical body)
9. Marcion Forbids marriage and says it is evil. married people can't be baptized unless they get a divorce.
* Jesus came to over through the dominion of the evil creator
* Baptized often in order to remove sins recently committed.
* Women were allowed to baptize other women.
* Must be single, widows, or divorced before one could be baptized.
* Deny Christ came in the flesh
* Marcion tried to publish a Gospel he wrote himself in the name of Paul.
* No salvation or resurrection of the flesh, only the spirit.
* His followers sought martyrdom in order to escape this evil world.
* Some believed in the transmigration of the soul. (reincarnation)
* Marcion used the gospel of Luke with the first four chapters cut out and removed all references to Jesus divinity or connection with the God of the old testament. His canon of scripture also contained Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1st & 2nd Thessalonians, Philemon, and Laodiceans. All of these were tailored to fit Marcion's teachings.
Church teachings contrasted:
* Marcion 4.8 - Jesus was not a phantom but had a real body.
* Marcion 4.37 Christ saves both body and soul. Only heretics say the body is not saved (resurrected).
* Marcion 5.11 Heretics try to say the epistle to the Ephesians is the epistle to the Laodeceans.
http://www.biblefacts.org/history/marcion.html -------------------------------------------------------------
Bishop Marsh was one of the first to do Marcion justice. He said there was no proof that Marcion used Luke's Gospel at all [Notes to Michaelis, vol.3, pt. 2, p. 160]. Since then, many of the most intelligent German critics have come to the same conclusion; namely that it was not Marcion who corrupted the gospel tradition but Rome who refuted it by creating a later gospel tradition of their own which they presented in 180 C.E. to the world in the names of deceased apostles and Paul.Baring-Gould also says: "Marcion was too conscientious and earnest a man, wilfully to corrupt a gospel "[Lost and Hostile Gospels, p.241].
It would seem from the sources consulted that it is not a stretch of the imagination to see that the Church of Sinope, where Marcion formerly resided, had been furnished by Paul with a collection of the records of the life and teaching of Christ; that Marcion thus obtained his gospel, and brought it to Rome [Ibid.].
"Marcion's Gospel contained a different arrangement of the narrative, from the canonical Luke, and was without many passages which it is not possible to believe he wilfully excluded," [Ibid p. 242]. Once I came to understand Marcion, Gnosticism, Marcion's unique brand of Gnostic theology then it became relatively easily to understand that key omissions in Marcion's collection of apostolic written tradition and Pauline written tradition could only be blamed upon the lack of existence of such writings in his day. No good reason can be found as to why Marcion would have not strengthened his position and theological arguments against the Jews and literalist Roman positions other than the fact that such passages did not exist at that time. They will be invented later by the Holy Roman Forgery Mill.
This becomes painfully evident when one contrast Marcion's New Testament with the later Roman Second New Testament and these omissions and additions compared line upon line. I was consistently shocked to see such passages omitted in Marcion's First New Testament which theologically would have supported his arguments against the Jews let along the "literalistic" Roman Church which mysteriously appear some 40 years later in the Roman refutation of Marcion's First New Testament. For the life of me I could not ever understand why key passages that would support and bolster Marcion's theological points from both apostolic tradition and Pauline tradition would be omitted by Marcion if they had existed when he collected all the Pauline writings and apostolic traditions existing in his day.
Baring-Gould in his Lost and Hostile Gospels afterward speaks of differences of arrangement in Marcion's gospel which are unaccountable on the theory that Marcion corrupted Luke, and says that Marcion's Gospel was without several passages which apparently favor his views.[Ibid, p.243].
Canon Westcott is equally explicit in acquitting Marcion from the accusation made against him by the early fathers of the church. He says: "Tertullian and Epiphanius agree in affirming that Marcion altered the text of the books which he received, to suit his own views; and they quote many various readings in support of the assertion. Those which they cite from the epistles, are certainly insufficient to prove the point; and on the contrary, they go to show that Marcion preserved without alteration, the text which he found in his manuscript. Of the seven readings noticed by Epiphanius, (in the epistles), only two are unsupported by other authority: and it is altogether unlikely that Marcion changed other passages, when, as Epiphanius himself shows, he left untouched those which are most directly opposed to his system."History of the Canon, p.284]. -[Canon Westcott]
Some writers still persist in repeating the old slander. But the more candid and intelligent opinion of Westcott and Baring-Gould, is supported by Semler, Griesbach, Loeffler, Schmidt, Schleiermacher, Hahn, and many other scholars.
The strength of the argument, then, based upon the principle of accretion, would be 230 to 1, that the Gospel of Marcion was first written.
snip
But there is other evidence of priority. The Gospel of Marcion is more simple and natural, not only in the mode of expression, but in the order of arrangement.
In the fourth chapter of Luke, Jesus is represented as being tempted in the wilderness, immediately after his baptism; thence he returned into Galilee, and came to Nazareth; [Luke, 4. 16]; where his public ministry commenced. But though commencing, at Nazareth, he is made to refer [v. 23], to works which he had done at Capernaum; a place to which he goes, afterward ;[v. 31.]
In Marcion, on the contrary, his public ministry commenced at Capernaum; [Marcion, 1. 1]; whence, [v.10], he came to Nazareth, and preached; and here, in the natural order, [v.13], he refers to the works done at Capernaum.
This accords with the Gospel of Matthew, which represents that Jesus did not commence preaching until after he had taken up his residence in Capernaum. [Matt. 4. 13 to 17.] Mark follows Luke.
Matthew and Marcion were probably from a common manuscript.
In the Gospel of John, Jesus is represented as performing his first miracle in Cana of Galilee, after which he went down to Capernaum. [John 2. 11, 12.] This, therefore, is confirmatory of Marcion.
It is probable that in Luke, the manuscripts were put together out of their natural order, and that this disorder was followed in Mark. It was the opinion of Griesbach that the author of Mark had before him the whole of the present Gospel of Luke. Schleiermacher thinks he had some of the manuscripts which comprise the Gospel of Luke [ Schleiermacher on Luke, p.91].
At the same time, the fact that nearly every word of Marcion is in Luke, besides much additional matter, is strongly suggestive of the theory, that the author of Luke had before him, besides other material, the Gospel of Marcion entire. On the supposition that Marcion was last written, it is difficult to conceive why he should have excluded so large a part of the Gospel of Luke, especially as it is now conceded that it was not done for dogmatic purposes. On the other hand, if Luke was written last, the accumulations were in accordance with the spirit of the age, and the practice of the times. Besides, it was necessary to have a gospel different from that of Marcion, who was a heretic. There is no satisfactory evidence that Marcion had seen either of the canonical gospels, or had even heard of them.
The first two chapters of Luke were wanting in the gospels of the first century. They were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes, about A. D. 125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A. D. 145. They first appeared in the Protevangelion, about A. D. 125, and were probably not deemed by Marcion, authentic.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/wait2.htm?200517
I'm not sure I follow. It's ultimately an article of faith. Many a person has used his mental faculties to arrive at the doorstep of the Church. But they are not sufficient to move one inside.
Ultimately one must believe that God set up His Church in a manner that it would be Visible and Authoritative. And then believe that this Church is that Church. Just as much as different people must believe that God preserved His Written Word in a Bible for our present use without the benefit of a clear chain of custody. There is no scientific proof for either of these propositions.
SD
There's nothing wrong with changing to reflect new truths and newly gained knowledge.
You followed me just fine; that was exactly what I was noting. At some point, one believes because one believes.
You and I know that but some people like to bring it up when the debate gets hot. So as to take away from any credibilty I may have had to begin with. :-) Its a popular Catholic tactic.
I don't believe Jesus misspoke.
SD
Umm... now cut that out! :-)
There were how many hundreds at the Council? How many of them chose in the beginning not to sign the creed proclaiming the Christ was God?
17
And in the end it was down to two or three.
Hardly a majority.
Again, I assume Jesus meant something when He said the words. Note the singular "name" applied to three persons (Father, Son, HS).
I don't believe Jesus misspoke.
SD
Only one whose opinion counted.
I think you forget which council this was.
Oh ok. I can see its a matter of which source we quote. Uncle.
We are both speaking of Nicea, n'est-ce pas?
Now you're just making stuff up. Here's a hint: orthodox Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God AND God Himself. There is no contradiction here.
SD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.