What Did Marcion Believe?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Marcion...hated heretic or influential maverick?
Twitter: @andrewmarkhenry
Facebook: www.religionforbreakfast.com/facebook
Blog: www.religionforbreakfast.com
Animation: EC Henry, echenry.com/
Design: Chris Maghintay, www.chrismaghin...
Music: Kevin MacLeod, www.incompetech.com
UA-cam constantly demonetizes my videos. Religion apparently is not "advertiser friendly content." If you would like to support this channel, consider becoming a patron on Patreon (www.patreon.com/religionforbreakfast) or donate at PayPal! www.paypal.me/religionforbreakfast
UA-cam is crazy
I am the poor people Jesus talks about. Do you believe that Jesus would have had to die if in those days they were prescribing Lithium?
Since Google bought UA-cam it has become an endless cesspool of lousy advertising!!! I hate it and i refuse to allow any ads to show up in my browser! I really appreciate your insights, and hope you keep showing them here on adtube :)
That's because your videos are awesome and intelligent and people do not like intelligent videos
For more information, see Jesus cleansing of the temple.
Wow! You explained that in understandable terms in seven and a half minutes. I have read about Marcion and Docetism but got bogged down with complications. Thank you once again for describing a complex subject in simple to understand terms.
Just imagine being Marcion tho, where literally everything people end up remembering about you comes from your worst enemies. Poor guy.
because there was nothing Good about him. his worst enemy is God And His Church.
@@JPX7NGD .... according to his worst enemies. No?
Honestly it is pretty sad
@@JPX7NGD ngl, being the political correctness of religions is sorta cringe
You mean like Nero, Caligula, Lincoln and Trump?
Very impressed with the religious prowess of John Oliver and Andy Sambergs love child.
This
I can't unsee it
😂
🤣🤣🤣🤣
I was thinking about another jew but that one fits pretty good
I was born into a Christian family, as many Americans are. Yet, I began questioning Christian gospel in my late highschool years. This single video has answered more questions and inconcistencies than the Bishop of my old dioces did, along with my own research mid video. I wish 17 year old me could see this.
So, what's the gospel then? You should be a professional about it.
The huge change of attitude in God is perhaps the most difficult concept to grasp
There's nothing to grasp: while Christianity emerges from Judaism and borrows from it the idea of monotheism, it is a very different or radically reformed doctrine. Jesus was a heretic (if he existed at all).
@@LuisAldamiz No serious scholar thinks Jesus didn't exist.
@@ewancummins4975 - Because you say so? No serious scholar (i.e. one that is not biased by religious "faith", aka brainwashing) can but doubt that Jesus existed at all because there's no evidence of his existence at all other than the Gospels, what is like saying that Achilles existed because it's in the Illiad, etc. Mythology is mythology and Jesus is mythology.
You may say: but Josephus... Fact is that the text where Jesus the Christ is mentioned is very clearly NOT the authorship of Josephus but a much later insert, a fake. Style is completely different, it breaks in between two passages that only make sense if that inset was not there, etc. And Josephus is exactly the only "evidence" of around that age, and it's a fake a late Roman fake.
Josephus does mention a character who somewhat resembles Jesus and even is also named Jesus: Jesus Ben Ananias, a madman who prophesized the fall of Jerusalem, was denounced by the Jewish priests as happened with the Biblical Jesus, was tortured by the Roman procurator as happened with the Biblical Jesus but then was set free becuase too mad to matter. He kept "prophesizing" for some years and died in the siege of Jerusalem by artillery shot. Incidentally the leaders of the defense of Jerusalem were Simon the Strong and John, characters that fit reasonably well with the two main apostles: Peter (Simon the Rock) and John, both Simons were executed in Rome and both Johns were imprisoned but survived for many years.
So, as always, there's probably a core of truth in the LEGEND of Jesus but the legend as such, the Gospels, are largely false.
@@LuisAldamiz try reading some actual scholarship, bro. Secularists who are also historians accept Jesus as a historical person. It's nota religious claim. It's a matter of history. You are simply revealing your gross ignorance. Again, go dig up even one credible historian who thinks Jesus wasn't real.
@@ewancummins4975 - No. If you claim Jesus is historical (without even a shadow of doubt), then you are a rubbish historian. Stop pretending that your ideologues are scientists as if you were Stalin.
I just came across this guy in a book and was delighted to see you had made a video about him here! Another great video Andrew. Keep it up.
+Z. Taylor Marcion is a lot of fun. Somewhat bizarre theology, but makes some sense from his perspective.
chris burris You are right, those are fallen Angels/Spirits/Souls with trickery! Our Creator/Maker,who we know only of his POWER,doesn't have a image! He is ALL! And no one knows his name and if they do it was forbidden and it didn't make all these rules. The Almighty Most High I call Our Creator only command is we love each other! That's why he sent us examples because he knew what his Creations was doing. All the books are tricks to keep us divided! Our Creator only have 1 COMMAND "love one another"!
Honestly this makes much more sense to me than standard Christianity.
Marcion is actually right, the god of the old testament (who introduced himself as El Shaddai) is nothing else, but Set (/sɛt/; Egyptological: Sutekh - swtẖ ~ stẖ[a]) is a god of deserts, storms, disorder, violence in ancient Egyptian religion. This deity is very different from the Suprime God of the new testament, whom Jesus taught about.
I think the same.
@@lajos-berenyi Yes he is Set, but Set is Satan, so Yahweh is Satan. In the OT, this just means that Yahweh is the adversary. The OT does not have a strong Satan like the NT does. Compare: I Chron. 21 with 2 Samuel 24.
@@lajos-berenyi Nah
@@danlds17 The biblical usage of "adversary" doesn't mean what you think it means which renders your entire fanfic bogus.
I have no clue why this guy's videos were suggested to me, but they're great! Fascinating stuff and much appreciated. Thanks.
UA-cam somehow knew you'd like the academic study of ancient religion. Those algorithms...
A lot of Marcian's teaching is in line with the Gospel of Judas.
Not surprising, Marcian could be considered one of the fathers of the Gnostic movement, and gospel of Judas is a gnostic text.
@@kainshannarra2451 evil sickening gnostics. I hate whoever beleives they themselves are creator. Disgusting. Even creator says he hates the works of the niccolations which were gnostics trying to interpret christain text
@@takima504 yeah YOUR GOD the deceiver and the fool as we know of him.
@@takima504 ok. And your point being? Nobody cares what YOU hate. Bozo.
@@takima504 The gnostic thought I'm familiar with does not make themselves to be creators, but they do reject Yahweh of the OT.
I remember reading about Marcion on encyclopedia when I was around 12 years old, his belief made total sense to me back then. But then, I'm a Catholic, and admittedly I don't read Bible a lot.
His beliefs are essentially Gnosticism, which while perennially popular is super disliked by pretty much all Christian sects ever
@@jamesstewart3856 Popularity has no correlation with truth.
Check out "Israel Anderson Yahweh". The Bible is pretty explicit on Yahweh being an evil entity that christ opposed.
@@nosuchthing8 gnosticism is based on the devil's lie that "ye will be like gods" through wishful thinking.
@@JPX7NGD you need to study up. There was an explosion of Christian views before everything was decided by Constantines time.
It took several hundred years to find all the details about the Trinity, for example.
I'm just interested in the history of the church. So what?
From the sermon on the Mount... It was said by the men of the days of old an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I tell you (which means this is my teaching) forgive your enemies. Even the Bible has some indication of this idea.
and on the same sermon on the mount he says "do not think that i have come to abolish the law...."
@@adamuhaddadi5332do we follow Moses or Jesus?
@@scotwells7573we should do both.
You should make a video on alternate versions of the Genesis story. I hear there are quite a few.
You mean myths of neighbor countries? You might find Michael Heiser useful in that regard.
@@betrion7 I’ve checked him out. I have all three of his supernatural books.
Marcion sounds like the few things I heard from the Cathars - ca you talk about them too?? :)
*+Jay's Theatraecum* & *+ReligionForBreakfast* Yes, I have indeed read that too. Would be very interested in seeing something of that, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot out there - isfaik.
Maybe but the Cathars had also other ideas that are not in Marcion, notably reincarnation. They were probably a tad more gnostic than Marcion. Also the Cathars AFAIK do not make "God the Father" (Yaweh, El) into a demon, but rather think, like much of Medieval Christianity, that the world is contaminated by the Devil. Probably the Cathars are more mainline Christians, except in the reincarnation bit, which allowed people to relax about salvation because, it would happen eventually after many deaths. I know Western Buddhists who think the same: "I'm in no hurry to reach Nirvana", etc. (my former landlord, who was a quite decent guy).
Are you telling me you know a Cathar?
@@Bacopa68 Cathars are around. They have recreated what they know from history and built it into a theology.
I forget exactly who it was but the person who introduced Christianity to Southern France had gnostic-aligned theology and it's believed this is where the Cathars originated from.
"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first." John 15:18 Poor Marcion sure did get hated for what he was preaching makes you wonder.
Funnily though, Marcion didn't consider to Gospel of John authoritative. Go figure.
Of course, the God of the OT is not the same as that of the NT.
The god of the Bible has its origins in the Mesopotamian creation myth Enuma Elish, and he is modeled on Marduk, who created the world from water, and created men from clay.
Later, he was identified with El Elyon, the highest god in the Canaanite pantheon (1200 BCE). Abraham is spoken to by this god, and Jacob also meets with this god. Jacob chooses this god (of the many) to worship.
Yet again, the god of the Bible was redefined as Yahweh in a later addition, Exodus (950 BCE), who was originally the god of war in the Israelite pantheon (Ex. 15:3). Verses that make it clear that at that time, he was thought to be just one of the many gods: Ex. 15:11, Ex. 18:11. Yahweh was a bloody, merciless god, who is shown to have ordered his followers to slaughter the women and children of their enemies. Times of upheaval made Yahwists stronger, precisely because their favorite god was the war of gods.
Josiah, king of Israel from 641 BCE - 609 BCE was a Yahwist, and asked his high priest to write the book of Deuteronomy (622 BCE). This additions made Yahweh god to appear as if he was the only god. The older books were partly rewritten, and interpretations were added to old verses. But they did not make a perfect job. Moreover, even Josiah believed in more gods, which is reflected in Deut. 5:7.
Another addition, the book of Leviticus (600 BCE) also tries to make Yahweh to appear as the only god, and the OT was once again rewritten to further strengthen this impression (but still not perfect).
By the time the NT was written (more than 600 years later), a new god concept was invented, which fit the needs of the people in that age; a loving, caring, merciful father figure. The Christians would actually be better off if they denounced the OT entirely, and said that their holy book is the New Testament exclusively.
This is a very long non-sequitur and I'm not sure who it's directed at
@@thename535 I think you are constructing one dimensional character traits for both God and Jesus. A critical reading through the old and new Testament will show that you that YHWH was actually more lenient than Christ.
I know how absurd that must sound, but just keep in mind if God loves good infinitely, he must hate evil infinitely. What you may view as unwarranted anger may just be a mistaken perception.
That's trying to use scripture to suit your false doctrine.. 🤔
Just listening to this in the background for the nTH time, Background music is really underrated! I like this style and havent heard it in recent videos
Loved the video, love the new layout of the episodes, and really appreciate the subject of today's. Keep up the fantabulous work!
I had the same ideas as Marcion as a child in church but had never heard about him. I remember thinking how can the god of the Old Testament be the same god of the New Testament. What changed? It was confusing
Thank you for posting this video. About 30 years ago I had a conversation with this guy who kept talking about a "demi urge" and I had no idea what he was talking about as he kept making Christian references yet kept insisting that there were two "gods." His whole diatribe made no sense at all until I watched this video.
We know there were the Elohim in Gen. 1, then Yahweh enters the stage starting in Gen. 2. We should know that Yahweh was not benevolent, but acts like a psychopath. Were the Elohim the benevolent Gods (I don't believe the plurality of majesty)? I think the Elohim are generally too passive to be benevolent, although they did warn Noah that Yahweh was getting ready to flood the earth. I would opt for another father of Jesus, one who is mostly hidden from us, but was reflected through Jesus.
The demiurge interpretation does make sense. I mean, there are black metal bands with whole discographies far more tame than Yahweh's attributed deeds in the Old Testament. But he's the same "today, yesterday and forevermore". Yeah, okay.
You are misunderstanding the purpose of why Yahweh did what he did. He warns his children over and over and over, but they commit outright satanic rebellion against him.
He administers perfect justice and promises to redeem them if they would just repent, which is also the same message of the New Testament.
@@rogercurb7147 All knowing god also knows that his children would do that when creating them, yet he punishes them. Seems pretty evil to me
@@rogercurb7147 Any justice that involves causes easily preventable deaths of innocents is not just. Nor is any justice that calls of the death of an innocent party to satiate its demands.
@@steggoraptor are you using God's definition of innocence or Yours? God never acts against someone unless they are in outright rebellion and turning others against him.
@@rogercurb7147 Both. Children, animals (especially lambs and calfs), and Jesus were all killed by god (or on his orders) in the name of "justice", and the bible indicates that all three of those groups are viewed as innocent by god.
Thank you. What I receive is similar to what Marcion received. Compare what happened when Moses received the 10 Commandments with the Pentacost. Immediately, Moses ordered a death penalty. As a result, 3,000 were dead. On Pentacost, 3,000 were saved. Then see the Bronze Serpent event. Compare it with what Jesus said, "Which father among you will give snakes when the children ask for bread?"
Yes, i talk about this on my channel about Marcion.
Great videos, absolutely love the channel. Would be amazing to see more videos on early Christian heresies such as the Donatists or Arians.
I have one coming out soon on Valentinus. Donatists definitely sometime in the future.
tfw Arians were right
One question: how do we really know that Marcion is the one who edited Paul's gospel? How do we know that the fathers of the church were not the ones that edited it?
Several sources:
The thing is, the Church was not centered in Rome or anywhere else. There were lots of bishops like Alexandria, Antioch, and other places. Either they all came together in one room and conspired against Marcion, or Marcion tried to alter the texts. Interestingly enough, he seems to have edited them by exclusion, not by interpolation.
Well who you going to believe the guy who originally collected Paul's writings or the guys who forged fake Pauline letters. Yes it's the scholarly consensus only 7 of the letters are authentic, and the rest were forged and accepted as authentic by the same guys disparaging Marcion. So do you believe known liars or the guy they call a liar?
I think Marcion got his texts mixed up, though that is no reason to hate him, I never understand why people hate each other just because the don't agree on certain ideas.
Count Janus Hassildor - The problem starts with monotheism, some people expect one god, one truth, one preacher of the truth. This is why we have Today a fine thousand differing versions of Christianity.
TorianTammas yeah but some sects of Gnosticism believe in monotheism, some don't, I dont agree with the heavily dualistic God theory, their belief that just because this world isn't perfect then the god who made it isn't perfect and therefore isn't truly God, just doesn't ring well with me, that's a theory that has too many grey areas. How can we appropriately acknowledge perfection? such a concept doesn't even exist in this world except for that faint expression of it, I prefer the philosopher who said "the only thing I know, is that I know nothing", my personal opinion is such, I can choose to believe in God (which I do), and or I can choose not to believe in God (which i dont), the simple truth is that I know nothing, knowing anything is delusional. I am therefore free to choose based on personal perspective, I may be wrong or right to believe in one God who is Lord supreme, what matters is how much faith I have in it, but that's a whole other book.
Yeah, never understood the hate either.
Of course, the God of the OT is not the same as that of the NT.
The god of the Bible has its origins in the Mesopotamian creation myth Enuma Elish, and he is modeled on Marduk, who created the world from water, and created men from clay.
Later, he was identified with El Elyon, the highest god in the Canaanite pantheon (1200 BCE). Abraham is spoken to by this god, and Jacob also meets with this god. Jacob chooses this god (of the many) to worship.
Yet again, the god of the Bible was redefined as Yahweh in a later addition, Exodus (950 BCE), who was originally the god of war in the Israelite pantheon (Ex. 15:3). Verses that make it clear that at that time, he was thought to be just one of the many gods: Ex. 15:11, Ex. 18:11. Yahweh was a bloody, merciless god, who is shown to have ordered his followers to slaughter the women and children of their enemies. Times of upheaval made Yahwists stronger, precisely because their favorite god was the war of gods.
Josiah, king of Israel from 641 BCE - 609 BCE was a Yahwist, and asked his high priest to write the book of Deuteronomy (622 BCE). This additions made Yahweh god to appear as if he was the only god. The older books were partly rewritten, and interpretations were added to old verses. But they did not make a perfect job. Moreover, even Josiah believed in more gods, which is reflected in Deut. 5:7.
Another addition, the book of Leviticus (600 BCE) also tries to make Yahweh to appear as the only god, and the OT was once again rewritten to further strengthen this impression (but still not perfect).
By the time the NT was written (more than 600 years later), a new god concept was invented, which fit the needs of the people in that age; a loving, caring, merciful father figure. The Christians would actually be better off if they denounced the OT entirely, and said that their holy book is the New Testament exclusively.
Count Janus Hassildor I agree. Too much hate nowadays over different opinions.
"Every time I turn around its sorry this and forgive me that and I'm not wooorthy!"
@kymoor104 What movie is it?
'Course it's a good idea!!
It's like those miserable psalms; they're so depressing.
The Demiurge has his tentacles in it all
Interesting and thought provoking as always... Breakfast will never be the same again
As an atheist that was once a Christian, Marcion's theology sounds a lot more rational than mainstream Christianity's.
mainstream Christianity's beliefs are Marcion's theology. Which is why its wrong.
Also as an Atheist who was once a Christian, I have to agree with you
Loving your videos so far! BTW, I appreciate you rocking the Classical Latin accent ;)
The only acceptable Latin accent! ;)
Excellent as usual.... Wish you had been my seminary theology teacher.
1:34 Jesus Christ Tertulian. Literally burst out laughing with that quote. Savage af. Great video Andrew!
I hardly ever make comments and I never press like, even if I like the video but that view of religion makes more sense metaphorically than any version I've heard yet. An evil god created the universe meaning first we are born into the animalistic world of nature, living on instinct, then a benevolent god came along and taught us to be better than our animalistic selves ie; be civilized and care for one another. Nicely done!
What an interesting video on Marcion. At the end of your video, you said that Marcion's view fizzled out. However, I watched a video by a Catholic bishop (Bishop Robert Barron) that a certain strain of Marcionist view did filter to our time, especially when Christians try to explain away certain problematic verses in the Hebrew Bible as "Old Testament stuff," nothing to do with the loving Jesus in the NT. I wonder if this is true, or does this modern point of view emerge independently of Marcion?
Thanks Andrew. I hadn't bumped into Marcion properly before. Now I am interested in finding out more :)
So the tendency in Matthhew to make Jesus Jewish may be a reaction to Marcion by the early Christians.
Got tricked by the thumbnail, thought that was marcion😄
Do you have a video on Arian Christianity. I remember learning that it was the largest heresy during the Nicene Council. I wonder how wrong I am.
MrSpectralfire yeah he did a video about that, just look for it
MrSpectralfire I think you might find the Kolbrin Bible to be the untampered-with Aryan works you are seeking. It is heresy because the ten tribes are truly Essene, formerly Shemsu Hor, so they practice religion without a pope, and teach astral projection and soul ascension as a science, unlike the prayer and pathetic wishful thinking of nu-christianity.
www.bibliotecapleyades.net/hercolobus/kolbrin_00.htm
And it later in the migration era almost all Germanic kingdoms adopted it as their national faith
Duncan Crow astral projection is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard of.
Do you mean the heresy were Santa Claus punch Arius?
Firstly, there are many passages found in Marcion's gospel that seem to contradict his own theology, which is unexpected if Marcion was simply removing passages from Luke that he didn't agree with. Matthias Klinghardt has argued:
The main argument against the traditional view of Luke’s priority to Marcion relies on the lack of consequence of his redaction: Marcion presumably had theological reasons for the alterations in “his” gospel which implies that he pursued an editorial concept. This, however, cannot be detected. On the contrary, all the major ancient sources give an account of Marcion’s text, because they specifically intend to refute him on the ground of his own gospel.
“37 But they were terrified and affrighted,
and supposed that they had beheld a phantom.
38 And he said unto them,
Why are ye troubled?
and wherefore do reasonings arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that I am myself:
for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” The Gospel of Luke according to Marcion. Why did Marcion not remove this. If he was diligent enough to remove everything that disagreed with his theology, even the little parts, why did he not remove this part since it is right at the end of the gospel and would have been the most significant part of the gospel,
Secondly, Marcion himself claimed that the gospel he used was original, whereas the canonical Luke was a falsification. The accusations of adulteration are therefore mutual:
The Church fathers, accepted the same Gospel of Luke we know, felt that the "heretic" had shortened and "mutilated" the canonical Gospel; and on the other hand, there is every indication that the Marcionites denied this charge and accused the more conservative churches of having falsified and corrupted the true Gospel which they alone possessed in its purity. These claims are precisely what we would have expected from the two rival camps, and neither set of them deserves much consideration.
Bart Ehrman suggests there is more evidence that the Catholic church edited Luke from the Marcion gospel, in How Jesus Became God, and The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.
Also, Marcion existed before the church fathers, thus making the first witness of the Gospel of Luke Marcion.
@Angel Rosas - I seriously doubt that anyone has the "original" Luke.
But if you believe there is such a document, please tell the world where it resides today. Because you are that only person I have ever heard to claim to know of this supposedly "original" Luke.
@Angel Rosas - is *honesty* such a difficult thing for you that you can't just admit that you don't have the original Luke, despite just saying you did?
Perhaps you are mistaken, or you are just foolish ... or ... you happily told a _huge_ lie in public.
So I'll let you decide if you are mistaken, foolish, or dishonest. _You might even be all three of those...._
@Angel Rosas - you have simply consolidated you *dishonesty.*
Instead of admitting a mistake, you try to talk around it. I asked only for what you offered - *the original Luke* - knowing that you don't have the original Luke. We both know that you don't have the original Luke.
Why would you persist with your lie after you have been exposed?
Why do you want to be publicly exposed as a dishonest Christian? I have been told Christians are honest people ... but _you_ are not an honest Christian! You are a very poor example of what Christians claim to be.
Why would you embarrass other Christians and force them to disown your dishonesty?
Well that's interesting
It's obvious the fact he removed any reference to the Jews and the Old Testament was slander by the Proto-Orthodox.
This was so interesting! Thank you
Marcion had some things right. Act 7 says the hebrews worshipped an angel, received law from it, and made a temple for it. Stephen got stoned by implying this idea.
Hi, Andrew. It's not about being hated or not being hated by many parties,, but it's about the 'purity' of the message... Thanks.
Marcion sounds cool
I have both the 1910 EB and the 1943 EB both of which provide a fairly good reconstruction of Marcian theology, which has a certain logic in finding no consistency in the OT and NT god, and therefore deciding that they must be entirely separate beings. The Marcians seem to have been a rival to Catholics for a century after about 140 AD, but then must have succumbed to a disciplined Catholic Church, and to the other great dualism, Manichaeism, which also died out.
It was important to point out that we know Marcion only from the point of view of his enemies. Good point. I am a little surprised that you did not mention the important book that Von Harnack devoted to Marcion. Harnak considers him to be the most important theologian between St. Paul and St. Augustine. I think that Marcion represents an important step in the formation of Christianity as a rupture with Judaism. For him, it is no longer possible to define oneself as a Christian and to continue Judaizing, that is, to respect the irrational prohibitions of the Torah. We often speak of "Judeo-Christianity" with much lightness as if there was no incompatibility. In fact, Christianity is the subversion of Judaism!!! It retains from Judaism the monotheistic rationality but get rid of its sectarian identity defined by the Torah (the core of Judaïsm)...rigid and divisive identity which was the real reason for the persistent historical hostility of the peoples against the Jews. We find the same problem with Islam, which believes to be superior to Christianity, whereas it is a reversal, essentially a return to the logic of identity of Judaism, but with enough variants in its prohibitions and obligations to distinguish itself from Judaism.
@P Belgazo This sounds like you're absolving antisemites throughout the ages of their hatred of Jewish people and blaming the Jewish people for their own oppression.
Wow. I only read your comment once, and I can tell you went to college.
So you arbitrarily decide what are prohibitions or not. Or perhaps you are just a lax Christian who is unaware your religion has those as well.
This was 8 years ago and I believe there have been some scholarly updates. These include evidence suggesting that Marcion's gospel was written before the book of Luke became part of orthodox cannon. This means that the Gospel written by or compiled by Marcion may be closer to the original version of Luke than the version in the new testament that we read today. The scholar you want to follow for these updates is Dr. Markuz Vinzent.
Marcion is a genius. He's one of the only theologians with common sense.
2000 years of theologians and scholars far smarter than you and you think the only one with common sense was a heretic who edited scripture to fit his arguments?
Kind off
But its inconsistent
Because if the God of new and old testament are different god's,then that means jesus wasn't the foretold Messiah of the old testament.
@@γιουργιαDid you read the bible? You realize the Jews rejected him
Marcion was definitely ahead of the bunch in his reasoning of Bible. I think he had a intuitive insight that truly made him a very bright light which gained the attention of the power house Rome. I think a mistake we make is that we don't point the finger at the originator of Christianity which was created by the apostle Paul. Paul never quoted any of the teachings of a man named Jesus Christ that we read of in the 4 gospels. Why?
The term “gnosticism” appears to have originated in the 18th-c. In light of this, there is no meaningful consensus among specialists in the religions of the Greco-Roman world on an encompassing definition of “gnosticism.” In fact, a “Gnostic religion” doesn't have an ancient equivalent at all. But this doesn't seem to stop modern Christians from carelessly throwing the term around as if there was such a person as a "gnostic" in antiquity. Marcion was a Christian as were all the so-called heretics. And how consistent was his message with that of Jesus? You will have to ask Jesus, personally.
I mean, Marcion would call the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob evil, and that's Jesus himself...
These days, eight years in the future, scholars are asking if Marcion edited Luke or later scribes added verses to an earlier Luke.
There's no evidence of such heavy editing in Luke. And most scholars date it around 80-90 AD, almost half a century before Marcion came to Rome
Robert Heinlein's "Job: A Comedy of Justice" is a good read, a fictional novel about a christian who finds by experience that he lives in a multiverse, and that each universe may be managed by a local area manager of sorts, basically one demiurge per world.
Heinlein is an underestimated writer, a very clever man who used humour to make profound commentary on humanity
I’ve known since I was a child that there was a HUGE difference between how god was written in old/New Testament bibles. I actually chalked it down to “character development” like how it would be in a book but it’s interesting to think about.
I actually clicked on this thinking there would be some mention of Monty Python but kept watching because it was interesting.
There is no mention of the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow in this video.
Also what are your thoughts on the Marcion Hypothesis? Turns the whole idea that Marcion altered Luke around and suggests that Luke was edited to refute Marcion.
Well Marcion was born in 85 ce and Luke's gospel is dated to about the same age (give or take 5 years) so it's clear that Luke predated Marcion.
@@ashley_brown6106 The earliest fragments of Luke date to 2nd-3rd century. To say the dating is the same is complete conjecture. Not to mention the dating of Marcion's birth and death are also disputed.
@@edenicchristian335 what are your sourses? According to mine, "In the Book of Acts Luke does not mention the persecution of Christians instituted by Nero (64 AD), the deaths of James, Peter, Paul (early-mid 60’s AD), the siege of Jerusalem or the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (70 AD). This indicates the Book of Acts was written in the late 50’s or early 60’s AD. Since the Book of Acts was written after the Gospel of Luke (cf. Acts 1:1) then the Gospel of Luke must have been written sometime in the 50’s AD. Another important indicator of the early date of Luke’s Gospel is that Paul quotes it as Scripture in his second letter to Timothy (1 Tim. 5:17-18; cf. Luke 10:7). Some have argued that Paul is actually quoting Luke in his first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11: 23-25; cf. Luke 22: 19-20). Since 1 Corinthians is considered one of the earliest if not the earliest New Testament writings, if this is correct, it would then place the Gospel of Luke even earlier. Thus we have a very early, accurate and authoritative account of the life and ministry of Jesus from Luke".
@@ashley_brown6106 Omissions aren't evidence of being early. It's evidence that the writer was distant from the original apostles. As was likely the case with Luke (who never knew any of the original 12 apostles).
Papyrus 4 is the earliest *fragment* of Luke:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_4
Further this passage is said to be about the destruction of Jerusalem. Considered to be inserted retroactively as a prophetic passage.
And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
Luke 21:20-24 KJVAAE
@@ashley_brown6106 Just to address some of your possible parallelisms.
Luke 10:7 is also the same as Matthew 10:10. This is evidence of an earlier common narrative (i.e. Q source or proto-Luke).
The communion narrative is in all three Gospels, again pointing to a common source. Mark is actually considered the earliest gospel. Some more textually critical scholars even suggest that Mark is Marcion. I don't know if I buy into that, but it's worth entertaining in the back of my mind.
And just because Luke was written before Acts does not necessarily make either early. Acts was assumed to be written (at the earliest) from 80AD-110AD. And this paragraph is telling and supportive of my theory:
"Acts was read as a reliable history of the early church well into the post-Reformation era, but by the 17th century biblical scholars began to notice that it was incomplete and tendentious-its picture of a harmonious church is quite at odds with that given by Paul's letters, and it omits important events such as the deaths of both Peter and Paul. The mid-19th-century scholar Ferdinand Baur suggested that the author had re-written history to present a united Peter and Paul and advance a single orthodoxy against the Marcionites (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who wished to cut Christianity off entirely from the Jews); Baur continues to have enormous influence, but today there is less interest in determining the historical accuracy of Acts (although this has never died out) than in understanding the author's theological program."
ALL religious enemies are blamed of being evil, sexual deviant, cannibalistic, scheming etc.
When each sect blames the other of these - its impossible to believe any such allegations :)
A thought process which has led some to reexamine some of the thusly accused, such as the Canaanites and the Knights Templar.
Any particular reason you default to the churches perspective on which scriptures were original and not altered? One of these two sides is recorded to have destroyed opposing writings. Would like to have seen you address even the possibility that the Marcionite versions are original. There are very clear additions, out of context insertions which break up the flow of the "authoritative versions" of the Pauline Epistles when you do some basic textual analysis.
Indeed, 2 Corinthians for example is a hodgepodge. I first of all default to the position of the majority of New Testament text critics...not the position of the Church. Here is one of those cases where the Church and text critics align [somewhat]. Text critics are pretty confident that 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus are late forgeries...maybe even from the 2nd century. But they overwhelmingly place the authentic Pauline Epistles in the 1st century, pre-dating Marcion by a century. Basically, we need to work with the evidence that we have. We have nothing but polemical citations about Marcion, and that is flimsy historical evidence to try to argue that the few early manuscripts of Paul's Epistles that we have are Marcionite originals that were corrupted by proto-orthodox Christian groups. There has been a recent push to argue the version of Acts that we have was written in response to Marcion's version of Luke-Acts, but this is a minority position.
ReligionForBreakfast
Bring out the info on 1&2 Timmy and Titus I’d like to hear the 2 sides of it. I have enough reading to do so it’s nice to get a well thought out condensed video. And what makes 2 Corinthians a hodgepodge? Thanks
+Cie SO THEN I SAY TO YE, MAKETH YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH YASHUA, BETWEEN YOU AND YASHUA DIRECT, FROM YOUR THOUGHTS, EMOTIONS, AND YOUR HEART, DO ALL GOOD DEEDS N ACTS, YOU SHALL B WITH ME IN PARADISE. AMEN
Is that a Bible quote, or are you just making your own statement *_look_* like a Bible quote?
There is no proof that he mutilated Luke. The version without the birth story may well be the original, just as Mark has no birth story and we know the texts are related. Additions are more common than removals in biblical texts, and the differences are just as likely to be later additions, responses to marcionism. Marcions Luke (which isn't named) would seem mutilated to anyone who only knows the canonical version, but that doesn't prove that it is.
How does one account for the 2 distinct Creation stories, sets of Genealogies, Flood stories, etc., interwoven throughout the Hebrew text of Genesis?
All this sounds like Socrates religion which predates Christianity by hundreds of years except Nomad was the name of the all knowing loving spiritual god and talks about the immaculate conception of Demiurge by Mary...I would actually like to see you do a video on this.
04938dreadfelix : Does this Nomad concept or belief exist within Socratic thought? I tried googling it and couldn’t find anything meaningful. It’s something I’ve never heard of and you’ve piqued my curiosity about it.
it's monad (greek for center) not nomad
@@neonet310 😂
@@neonet310 Monad means one or oneness
Could it be that Marcion was first? His Luke the original which was expanded into Luke/Acts? His Pauline letters the originals? Was YHVH as Demiurge -- Gnosticism -- first?
(Rules for Radicals: Always accuse your opponent of what you have done.)
marcion did nothing wrong
Thank you for your work. Very happy I found you.
His theory does fit with the urantia book.He could have been correct so it makes sense he would be hated, Jesus was too for going against the establishment.
Good presentation. Well done.
You do really good work. Thank-you!
It hard not to agree with marcion if you read the bible in the lord god way it pretty self evident i don't agree with marcion point of jesus disappearing at sundown is farfetched but i think he was on to something
You know what? Marcion was absolutely right. This fully explains why the Old Testament is so strange and brutal. What modern church is pure Marcion?
I doubt any are specifically Marcionite but his ideas are squarely in the Gnostic tradition and there are still a few communities of them around. They similarly believe in the evil demiurge being the god of the Old Testament. Jesus coming from the higher good god, etc.
@@Taiyama2he was NOT Gnostic and you can see more about this with then Marcionite church that is now being built. There’s a community online and they’re building a community in Dominican Republic but also online. They have a UA-cam channel. I bought the version of the bible they follow. And it’s super fascinating
it is said by some that Marcion's gospel (that he 'acquired') was one of the first, and it got reworked into Luke. If you look at Luke 3:1, that's where his gospel began right there. Also, that this gospel was used by Mark and Matthew as well. And he popularised the epistles.
But it seems his dualism was more radical than his predecessors just like the epistles were also one person's ideas, the sayings of Jesus in the gospels represent yet another point of view which seem of a higher level
May I ask where you got the image of the patriarch-looking image that appears to be possessed? What was the original photo?
Monty Python and the Holy Grail lol
@@CodytheHun123 While it's famous because of MP, I wonder where they got it.
"Patriarch-looking image" 😭🤣
What an awesome summary, thanks.
I really enjoy your videos - thanks for uploading!
Perhaps Marcion's most positive contribution to the history and development of Christianity is that he was the first to come up with an official canon of what he considered to be authoritative scripture. Although his critics vehemently opposed the particular canon that he put together, at least it got them to thinking that some authoritative canon of scripture was necessary. Regarding the Demiurge, I thought that it was actually the Gnostics who really put the concept of the Demiurge into its final form. I thought that Marcion's ideas on an inferior god were not so clear or developed as those of the Gnostics - he just concluded, by a careful comparison of the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New Testament, that the wrathful, jealous Old Testament God must be an inferior deity, whereas the loving, compassionate New Testament God, the one who sent Jesus and his New Covenant, must be the superior God. I believe that echoes of Marcion's theology can still be found in Christianity today, and that he did leave his indelible imprint upon Christianity, even though, his following has long since died out.
Gnosticism was inferred by the lack of creation story in Marcionism. We don't know if he subscribed to the Gnostic version of creation.
Marcion comes from a Zoroastrian or Mithraic context ... the new testament is a compilation of the religions of the new Roman empire after Augustus ... incorporating the dualistic godhead of the Zoroastrians ... but what you can not do is exclude the Jewish aspects of Christianity.
Just a tiny correction on the pronounciation of Marcions name.. It should be with a "k" sound, as his name in greek Μαρκίων [Markion].
In English it is customarily pronounced as in the video, or, alternatively, like the word "Martian". But don't take my word for it: look it up!
What sources do you have about Marcion's theology? I have heard that Marcion didn't necessary believe the demiurgical god was "evil" but rather, simply a different God. One who was interested in judgement and right conduct but was sometimes capricious and committed what we might call evil acts. More of a traditional tribal diety. This is in contrast to his "alien" God of love.
Love fullfils the Law.
So when I see Marcionite churches today, do they not go all the way back/do they originate from a modern revival movement?
Yahweh is definitely the demiurge.
A movement that still runs rampant in Christian theology today without calling it marcionism. The later trinity doctrine seems to unite the 2 "god's". Yet there's many others texts in the "New testament", alone that completely goes against any marcionistic belief and trinity. Those same scriptures are still being ignored or reinterpreted by mainstream scholars today
Imagine an alternate reality where Marcion Christianity became
dominant?
Marcion had much more well informed and valid reading of the scriptures than did the canonical fathers of the Catholic church.
Is that why he had to change scripture to fit his argument? Dumbfuck
I've always thought of something like this.. I knew this god scene was not as simple as it is, Couldn't figure out until this
Marcion understood what he was reading unlike most during his time and more so today. Even with all mistranslations, transliterations and revisions, the truths Marcion acknowledged still exist plain as the nose on one's face today. Those that can not see it are brainwashed and blind.
❤ way cool to take something so complicated and make it understandable! For the average person who has an interest in is.
Hmm I thought Satan was almost a lesser God in his own right with his own army?, a fallen angel who created his own domain in exile to defy his fathers purity which he then manipulated and tained Gods creations out of sheer jealousy and hate? In part becoming a lesser God in his own right with his own domain of evil to torment and torture creation utilising his twisted powers.. and that there was almost already a Dual good side with the Holy Mighty Father Spirit being the 1 true God of purity and Jesus Christ of love and care..sending his son Jesus to enter the mortal world from spirit to flesh to become a medium to communicate with his creation on what the fallen angel was conspiring to do and had done to them through sin and this was why Jesus taught us morality, love and care for one another out of the barbarity, greed and selfishness people were practicing from the loss of there way? And dieing on the cross to give us a second chance to be good, humble, down to earth people who care for everyone and cleansed us all from sin that the devil had influenced upon us? Great videos I've been binge watching subbed and liked
Just read genesis. satan was a fallen angel. Keyword. Angel
@@darkdrift0r124 Genesis just says that The Serpent is a serpent.
Dark Drift0r angel=messenger. Think harder
Too bad these videos have been halted
What's your take on the recent theory that Marcion wrote what would be the first edition of Luke, which was then edited by "orthodox" Christians to conform more to the other gospels?
Nice thing about growing up Mormon is that this totally makes sense ✌️
So do Mormons believe that the Old Testament God is a demigod
I mean sure, that explains why the Old Testament is full of cruelty and violence, ha
Poor Marcion. He didn't have the greatest attention to detail, but he was just trying to work some stuff out.
I just saw a video where David Wood says that Christians are not like Muslims who burn the versions of scripture that they don't like so they can taught a singular version as the only preserved canon. If that was the case then why do we not have ANY writings of Marcion. I'd like to see a volume of the epistles of Marcion.
I do agree with Marcion on the idea the between the Hebrew (Old Testament) and the Christian (New Testament) it seems to be two different gods.
The other issue is how much it contradicts itself. Sometimes in the same books. Such as Genesis saying humans were created, then in a later chapter talking about the creation of Adam & Eve.
Which could make one ask if there was humans before Adam & Eve outside the Garden of Eden. Which would explain why Cain found a city full of people after he was cast out for killing his brother.
But more likely, for the Genesis book, it seems like two or more books/texts from different authors were mashed together to make one book.
Even the New Testament the different gospels can’t even agree with each other.
Genesis 1 gives the grander narrative of the entire creation, while Genesis 2 focuses in on the creation of man. Reading them as a linear progression in time is wrong; they give a different account of the same events, much like the 4 gospels in the New Testament. Thus they are supplementary, not contradictory.
@@ninjakn3628 they are two different stories that were meshed together to become one book. Scholars have known this for years that genesis was written by two or more authors. Same with exodus.
I think there is a difference within the OT itself especially between pre Persia Israel and post Persia Israel.
God or Yahweh in the earlier texts was originally the god of war and the national god of Israel which was just one of many kingdoms in the Levant and part of a larger pantheon. IN polytheistic religions, you don't worship all one thousand gods, just the Supreme God, your national god, the mother goddess of fertility and the god relevant to your profession. Israel's originally was a monolatric religion is also why the Devil wasn't present and why Yahweh never said "You shall not have any other god but me" instead "You shall not have any other god before me" suggesting that other gods exist and can be worshiped just make sure Yahweh is the actual boss. Also in Genesis, God usually spoke in plural form and said "man has become one of us", which indicate the originally monolatric nature of Israel.
The introduction of monotheistic Zoroastrianism made the Jews lump their national god, Yahweh to be identified as the Supreme Good God taught by Zoroastrianism which was carried over into Christianity and later Islam.
Zoroastrianism is the actual proper ancestor of Christianity than the ancient Israelite religion of King David.
Genesis 1 and 2 are two different stories and Genesis never created a proper time table.h had a consort
This was actually a belief of the early church.
This is not an either/or situation.
I seriously doubt that the church fathers didn't do their own editing of their own scriptures too - they look like guilty hypocrites who edited their their "holy texts" to conform to their own ideas too.
If anything written by Marcion had survived, I bet it would show that he condemned his own accusers in the same manner that they condemned him.
Paul Cross It is even worse they choose only the texts that fitted to their belief system.
I feel bad for those church fathers branded hypocrites because of how they looked.
SQ Sent Ones - don't feel bad for them. If they can't even be _honest,_ while they belong to a religion that supposedly punishes liars with infinite torture, they are clearly just charlatans.
Fantastic.... informative and well presented! How has it taken me this long to find this!?
Well, we now know there are (at least) 2 gods in the Hebrew Bible: El(ohim) and YHVH. Which makes the origins of early Christian dualism so much easier to understand.
Hold on, is this where Id Software got the lore for the Doom Eternal DLC?
Marcion was right though 🤣🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣🤣 🤣🤣 🤣
Wow. This touched upon and affirmed some of my core beliefs, academically. I wish I could chat with you.
“ you did not come to a mountain burning with fire and smoke..
Justin the Martyr 200ac. Very important philosopher and God's messenger. continued Marcion's...
I actually think he is still a 'heretic' and is responsible for a lot of dualisms or dualities that impacted medieval Christianity. Dominance of hellenistic philosophy has shaped the understanding of the Gospels as well as the understanding of Saul of Tarsus. This is why Marcion might sound more logical as we are heavily impacted by Plantonism and especially Epicureanism. However, early Christianity and Judaism is more closely related to Stoicism as the jewish and the stoic worldview object cosmological dualities....i.e. heaven and earth are supposed to belong together and should not be eternally separated. For example, the Wisdom of Solomon as well as the prologe of the Gospel of John are clearly using Stoicim for their purpose. It is important to know that for Jews and early jewish Christians creation was good and should be restored...Marcion's view that creation is the product of an evil god clearly violates jewish monothesim of a good creator god. Hence, from their perspective he has to be a heretic.
Partial reading of the hebrew testamtent might also be a hellenistic trait of early antisemitism and I really think this is highly problematic and education is clearly needed here. Simply picking and choosing text passages without understanding the underlying worldview nor the controlling political narrative can be very destructive. For example, the great hebrew narrative of creation of humans as imagebearers, and thus, God's agents within his creation is giving any human being dignity while being created by the Demiurge clearly does not do the job. The unpopular 'original sin' of humans protects them from perceiving themsleves as "superhuman". Once the 'original sin story was considered as naive due to the enlightment period, ppl. started to believe in such Superhuman which were supperior to other humans...see for example Nietzsche's "Übermensch" or the many racist ideologies spreading in the 19th and 20th century.
There is so much laws for fairness and mandate for mercy in the old testament