IS THE BIBLE JUST AN OLD STORYBOOK (HISTORY BOOK) OR IS EVERY VERSE IN IT WHOLLY APPLICABLE TO US TODAY?

An offshoot of the topic "To Tithe or Not" Herein are some questions that have been bothering me. Your opinions are welcome!

1. How do we, or how should we read and study the bible?,

2. do/should we read and study it from historical perspectives i.e. based on the accounts of the people of that era, such as israelites/gentiles and their practices then, most of which are no longer applicable to us today?

3. Or should we read and study it based on how we can apply every verse of such scripture to our lives in today's world? 2 Tim 3:15,16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. {throughly, : or, perfected}" (KJV)


4. The coming of Jesus Christ was to connect us "gentiles" to the Abrahamic order of blessings, or did it make Abraham's and other blessings obtainable unnecessary? (gal 3:13-14).

5. Is there a way we can compare the levites and priests of those days to today's preachers or should we entirely discard that notion since we're not israelites?

6. What is Zion in today's world, as against Zion in the scriptures? Compare this two:
Ps 87:2 "The LORD loveth the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob. (KJV)" and
Heb 12:22 " But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, (KJV)"

7. Why are most people these days taking the bible as a history book and failing to see the potent power it has to produce results in our lives today? Where is faith today?

8. Does giving generally lead to an increase in blessings? YES. Was it right for God to have told Abraham to sacrifice his son? What if Abraham hadn't obeyed him? Did God proclaim blessings on him as a result?

9. Why did Elijah (or is it Elisha?) ask a widow with her last meal, ask her to prepare food for him, even though she had explained her condition to him? Did the meal get finished or did it increase?

10. Why did Jesus have to come to the earth to even die for our sins, when God, the all-knowing God, could have used other methods rahter than sacrificing his son?

11. Why does Prov 3:9-10 say "Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase: So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine.(KJV) What are firstfruits, or are they not a kind of tithes?

12. Why do we accept some scriptures, and not accept others? I'm sure most of us love the book of Proverbs, or don't we?

Your responses would be highly appreciated.

Dear sleekymag,

Thank you for the friendly move to open a thread to discuss the important questions you raised in the other thread on Tithes. A few pointers first, then I hope to address each one of the questions you raised - and like I said, please call my attention to any slips you may notice without sparing anything, so we all benefit eaither way.

The following comments before I give indepth answers to them:

sleekymag:

1. How do we, or how should we read and study the bible?,

There are several ways which I have found very helpful:

● read it daily, consistently, prayerfully and attentively -
I often use a plain text copy, without commentaries, notes or cross-references,
because it helps often times to just let the words feed your spirit

● note questions and never evade them -
they may challenge you to see some very important points that will be of blessings later

● in studying, take particular notes of what your eyes fall on -
there are basically two questions I often ask myself here:

► the what:
"And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear" [Mark 4:24]

► the how:
"Take heed therefore how ye hear" [Luke 8:18]

the synthesis of those two questions:

► applications (hear & understand):
"And He called the multitude, and said unto them,
Hear, and understand"
[Matt. 15:10]

These are by no means the only or best way to read the Bible - and indeed, along the way we may find some commentaries and study materials useful. However, it seems that many people who have started out reading the plain text first have found that exercise a consistent help in this regard.

sleekymag:

2. do/should we read and study it from historical perspectives i.e. based on the accounts of the people of that era, such as israelites/gentiles and their practices then, most of which are no longer applicable to us today?

The Bible needs to be read with their historical and spiritual imperatives. This is when we ask such questions as:

- who
- when
- where
- what
- why
- why not
- which
- how
- so?

When we look at the last question there, "so?", we are specifically looking at implications of our reading and studying - and this is where interpretations translate into reality. Therefore, if one reads the Bible merely as a historical document, all sorts of questions are raised, and the inference most people draw from such readings is that it's implications are irrelevant. I'm afraid that some believers have fallen into this sad position and remarked that as long as we allow the secular world to define our Christian faith, then we unwittingly embrace read the Bible with pagan spectacles.

On the other hand, we read the Bible for its main purpose - which is to glorify God as we seek to build our relationship with Him. Both are interwoven; for it is only when the believer understands that the health or condition of his relationship is predicated on glorifying the One who gave the Word, that is when the Word begins to give light to his heart. In other words, the Bible was given as a spiritual book: and its basic question is to answer WHY we are here.

What about the history, customs, and practices of what we read - are they applicable today for the Christian? This is where I have benefitted most from two terms in Biblical studies:

* exegesis
* deixis

Exegesis is a veritable Biblical practice in seeking to understand the Word. It basically means, the explanation or critical interpretation of a text (especially the Bible). Many people do exegesis without even being conscious of it - and examples are the interpretation of historical texts based on the culture, customs, political structures, identities, perculiarities and the historical background of any group of people as we see in the works of historians and archeologists.

Another term of this is "exposition" where people are dealing with the systematic interpretation or explanation of a specific topic. If you're doing Biblical exegesis on the topic of tithes, you are seeking at the same time to engage in the exposition of that topic particularly. It therefore means that you would have to look at the deixis of those who were involved in tithing.

But just what is deixis?

Deixis is not a big grammar that should scare us: simply means "aspect of a communication whose interpretation depends on knowledge or the context in which the communication occurs" (Concise English Dictionary). Lacking that knowledge of context is the reason why many people make huge mistakes and arrive at different ideas which are afr removed from the intended meanings of a text in Scripture.

I hope that my inputs so far have not been tedious on anyone. Now, as we brought these issues from the thread on Tithes, what can we gather from the expositions and deixis of this important subject? A good place to start is the Law - since that is where many people often make recourse to in seeking to understand this subject.

I'll try to come back and throw in a few pointers about the Law; and other subjects that may help would include:

● the dispensations

● the covenants

● the histories

● the identities of people in those dispensations

● the relationship of the Law to the new covenant

● the features of the old covenant

● where FAITH comes in

● the differences in the covenants

● so where is TITHE in all these matters?

I don't know if these would be useful to those who are seeking an understanding of this singular subject of tithes - and where I can, inputs will be made to help clarify the gray areas that have presented the most serious problems in our testimony.

Please advice what areas to deal with and which to erase if necessary. Afterwards, I shall come back to those first two questions you raised, and then tie them with the remaining 10, as well as welcome criticism and fresh enquiries.

Many blessings to all.

pilgrim.1:

A good place to start is the Law - since that is where many people often make recourse to in seeking to understand this subject.

So here:

Understanding the Law

As Christians, we understand that our faith is founded on the new covenant ratified by the Blood of Christ. As a consequence, we understand that our faith is not based on the old covenant which defined Judaism. Often, many people get confused when dealing with matters of the Law as taught in the NT, and it is my hope that our understanding would be helped by the following outlines to distinguish them here.

What’s the difference between the OC and NC?

The Bible is basically divided into two parts: the Old Testament (OT – comprising Genesis to Malachi) and the New Testament (NT – Matthew to Revelation). However, this is not to confuse those terms with old and new covenants (OC & NC). A simple way to understand them is that the old covenant points to Judaism, while the new covenant points to Christianity. So when I refer to the OC and NC, it should be clear to readers that I’m speaking about the old covenant and the new covenant respectively.

Does the Old Covenant (OC) morph into Christianity?

No, the old covenant is a complete system on its own standing and simply defines Judaism. I have noted elsewhere that Judaism is not a continuum into Christianity; and we don’t mix them up. Here are a few reasons why I’m persuaded that they stand distinctly and are mutually exclusive:

Old covenant
● Judaism
● ratified by animals blood
● served by the Levitical priesthood
● its identity was Jewish only

New covenant
● Christianity
● ratified by Jesus’ Blood
● Jesus is its Mediator and High Priest
● its identity is worldwide without distinctions
(Jews and Gentiles all welcome)

Certainly, there are many more distinctions; and we shall see them as we progress.

What about dispensations?

This is another subject which has many people confused. There are actually more than two dispensations, and for the sake of simplicty, I shall classify them under just 3 epochs:

[list]Pre-Mosaic: This includes all those periods and covenants which we find between God and man before the emergence of the Jewish nation, Israel. As such, they include all the people from Genesis right through to the birth of the Jewish nation, such as Adam, Noah, and Abraham. Certainly, there were also covenants that God made with men in some of those epochs, specifically first for the people under those economies, and then some of those blessings held prophetically for the world from that time to the present - we do well to not mix them up; and in detail they shall be highlighted.[/list]

[list]Mosaic: This is simply the Jewish dispensation of the Mosaic Law (sometimes called the Sanaitic Law, see Exo. 24:12; 31:18 and Lev. 25.1ff). It was specifically that period that commenced the very night of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt with the blood of the passover lamb (Exodus 12, see v. 14); and was ratified in mount Horeb, known as the mountain of God (Deut. 5:1-3, Exod. 3:1 and ch. 24). It should be striking to us that the patriarchs such as Adam, Noah, and Abraham were not given any part of the Mosaic Law; and no Gentile was asked to come under its edicts. There were provisions made for gentiles (non-Jews) who desired to participate in the covenants and privileges of the Mosaic Law (Exo. 12:48-49); but such people definitely were aware that they faced the dire consequences of violating that Law (Lev. 18:26 & 29). In plain terms, anyone who was a Jewish proselyte understood that there was only one Law for both Jews and proselytes (Lev. 24:22; Num. 9:14; 15:15-16, 29); and none others could come under the privilege of what was described as the “commonwealth of Israel” (Eph. 2:12).[/list]

[list]Post-Mosaic: The present period known as the Church age, where the covenants of God's grace as prophesied in the Old Testament have been offered to the world without ethnic or racial distinctions (Titus 2:11). It does not draw from the ratifications and rites of the old covenant; but its basis is the fulfillment of the Law by Christ in His death, resurrection and ascension; and commenced when He was glorified at the right hand of the Father (see Acts 2:33). [/list]

Thus far, I have looked at the Law and discussed the dispensations, so I can strike through that one now and seek to go on to the next subject if there are no comments, observations or queries. All welcome.

Blessings.

---

● the dispensations
● the covenants
● the histories
● the identities of people in those dispensations
● the relationship of the Law to the new covenant
● the features of the old covenant
● where FAITH comes in
● the differences in the covenants
● so where is TITHE in all these matters?

it depends. You have many approach to take:

1) Cut out the barbaric Old Testament and just stick with the New Testament, as Marcion, one of the first Christian scholars did.

2) Cut out the confusing New Testament and stick to the Old testament, as the Jews do.

3) Accept both old and new and play mental gymnastic to cope with the inevitable cognitive disonance of having these two irreconcilable books together.

huxley:

it depends. You have many approach to take:

1) Cut out the barbaric Old Testament and just stick with the New Testament, as Marcion, one of the first Christian scholars did.

2) Cut out the confusing New Testament and stick to the Old testament, as the Jews do.

3) Accept both old and new and play mental gymnastic to cope with the inevitable cognitive disonance of having these two irreconcilable books together.

There's a saying that ignorant people make their heart's condition obvious to the public.

@ pilgrim.1

What’s the difference between the OC and NC?

The Bible is basically divided into two parts: the Old Testament (OT – comprising Genesis to Malachi) and the New Testament (NT – Matthew to Revelation). However, this is not to confuse those terms with old and new covenants (OC & NC). A simple way to understand them is that the old covenant points to Judaism, while the new covenant points to Christianity. So when I refer to the OC and NC, it should be clear to readers that I’m speaking about the old covenant and the new covenant respectively.

Does the Old Covenant (OC) morph into Christianity?

No, the old covenant is a complete system on its own standing and simply defines Judaism. I have noted elsewhere that Judaism is not a continuum into Christianity; and we don’t mix them up. Here are a few reasons why I’m persuaded that they stand distinctly and are mutually exclusive:

Old covenant
● Judaism
● ratified by animals blood
● served by the Levitical priesthood
● its identity was Jewish only

New covenant
● Christianity
● ratified by Jesus’ Blood
● Jesus is its Mediator and High Priest
● its identity is worldwide without distinctions
(Jews and Gentiles all welcome)

Certainly, there are many more distinctions; and we shall see them as we progress.

I agree that we ought to be mainly focused on the NT, but are you saying the OT is no longer important, since it dealt with Pre-Mosaic and Mosaic eras? Are there not things we can learn and apply to our lives daily? Covenant secrets?

Well, maybe i should put it this way. I am of the opinion that when studying the bible, rather than study from historical perspectives, or drawing the inference that the (Old commandment)OC in the (Old testament)OT isn't applicable to me, i'd rather study as the spirit leads, and ask "Lord what are you saying to me through these scriptures?".

Maybe i had been thinking of taking a major decision, or there's a habit i want to stop or i just want to experience a closer relationship with God, irrespective of what scripture i'm looking at, the Holy Spirit speaks to my spirit and i contact light through those scriptures. Someone else, with some other issues, might see the word interpreted to him/her in a different dimension. I think that's where rhema comes in.

For example, lets say someone has been thinking of taking a major step in business but is kind of uncertain if its the right step, considering his good job, and unsure about what he may get out there. When he reads the following scripture. How should he react?

Deut 2:24 Rise ye up, take your journey, and pass over the river Arnon: behold, I have given into thine hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his land: begin to possess it, and contend with him in battle.

Does this mean he should be of strong faith and launch out into the business he's uncertain of, based on the light he contacted from the scriptures, or should he shrug it off and say, oh that was God talking to the Moses on behalf of the israelites, and how does it affect me?

Good morning, sleekymag. A very good question by observation you've raised, and here's what I think.

sleekymag:

@ pilgrim.1
I agree that we ought to be mainly focused on the NT, but are you saying the OT is no longer important, since it dealt with Pre-Mosaic and Mosaic eras? Are there not things we can learn and apply to our lives daily? Covenant secrets?

The OT (Old Testament) is not the same thing as the OC (Old Covenant). Let's remind ourselves:

       Old Testament   -   Genesis to Malachi
       Old Covenant     -   Judaism

Judaism is a system that ruled Jewish life and theocracy, and it is contained in the OT. The OT itself is bigger than Judaism, and that is why the OT is still relevant in many respects.

Another way to understand it is this:

 ●  Christians are not called to live by Judaism (the old covenant)
 ●  Christians are called to learn from the Old Testament (Genesis to Malachi)

   Examples to distinguish between them:

   ►   Living by the old covenant (Judaism)

            ●  Galatians 2:16 - 'Knowing that a man is not justified by the works
            of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in
            Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not
            by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh
            be justified. '

            ●  Galatians 1:13-14 - 'For ye have heard of my conversation in time past
            in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church
            of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my
            equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions
            of my fathers.

            ●  Acts 26:4-5 - 'My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first
            among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; Which knew me
            from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect
            of our religion I lived a Pharisee'


   ►   Learning from the Old Testament (Genesis to Malachi)

            ●  Romans 15:4 - 'For as many things as were previously written,
            were written for our own instruction, that through the patience and
            through the encouragement of the Scriptures we may have hope.'

            ●  1 Corinthians 10:-11 [EMTV] - 'Now all these things happened to
            those people as examples, and they were written for our instruction,
            to whom the ends of the ages have come. '

            ●  1 Corinthians 3:19 - [KJV] - 'For the wisdom of this world is foolishness
            with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness'
            (cf. Job 5:13)


The Old Testament gives us the following:

          ►  divine principles to live by, such as loving God (Deut. 6:5)

          ►  divine prophecies, such as of the Messiah (Isaiah 53)

          ►  definite practical wisdom to live by (Prov. 14:7 & 9:6)

          ►  covenants to live by all through the dispensations (Gen. 17:2, 7 and Exo. 19:5)

There certainly are more; but the bottomline here is that there is a difference between living under Judaism and learning from the Old Testament.

Regards.

@sleekymag,

sleekymag:

Well, maybe i should put it this way. I am of the opinion that when studying the bible, rather than study from historical perspectives, or drawing the inference that the (Old commandment)OC in the (Old testament)OT isn't applicable to me, i'd rather study as the spirit leads, and ask "Lord what are you saying to me through these scriptures?".
>snip<

For example, lets say someone has been thinking of taking a major step in business but is kind of uncertain if its the right step, considering his good job, and unsure about what he may get out there. When he reads the following scripture. How should he react?

Deut 2:24 Rise ye up, take your journey, and pass over the river Arnon: behold, I have given into thine hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his land: begin to possess it, and contend with him in battle.

Does this mean he should be of strong faith and launch out into the business he's uncertain of, based on the light he contacted from the scriptures, or should he shrug it off and say, oh that was God talking to the Moses on behalf of the israelites, and how does it affect me?

That's a good example, and let's look at it this way:

Faith in God's Word births seasonal fruits to the believer as he/she is able to touch the rhema of the Word. But rhema does not suppose that a believer should just apply any verse in order to launch into great tasks or risks - for God does not desire His children to obtain unnecessary loses or dangers to themselves.

If I were facing a major decision - business, marriage, school, career, associates, relationships, - as a Christian with faith, the word is applicable to every area of our lives. But here is something that many people miss: faith is not unreasonable, even though it astounds the doubter. Of course, Deut. 2:24 could be used by God to challenge someone to grow or move to something more challenging and worthwhile. But in the principle of 2 Peter 1:20 guides our faith as well, because no prophetic word is of any private interpretations (ie., it is not quite helpful to treat verses in isolation).

Let's look at the business example: a man reads Deuteronomy 2:24 (or even another verse - Lev 26:9 >> 'For I will have respect unto you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, and establish my covenant with you'). Yes, rhema brings light to the soul through those verses; but since our faith is reasonable (God calls us to reason together with Him - Isa. 1:18), it would be imperative to apply our faith to His Word.

One very helpful way to do so is to remember the admonition of our Lord - sit down first, count the cost, lest haply if the business man is unable to finish, he exposes himself to mockery (Luke 14:28-30). In as much as businesses are major decisions of one's life, faith does not excuse the need to count the cost. Even so, faith is not ruled by circumstances but by the power of God.

Later, I'll show some examples where even the apostles quoted extensively from the OT in teaching NT doctrines.

Shalom.

@ pilgrim.1,
Hope u had a great night. I concur with you on your points.

If I were facing a major decision - business, marriage, school, career, associates, relationships, - as a Christian with faith, the word is applicable to every area of our lives. But here is something that many people miss: faith is not unreasonable, even though it astounds the doubter. Of course, Deut. 2:24 could be used by God to challenge someone to grow or move to something more challenging and worthwhile. But in the principle of 2 Peter 1:20 guides our faith as well, because no prophetic word is of any private interpretations (ie., it is not quite helpful to treat verses in isolation).

I agree that the scriptures shouldn't be privately interpreted, and that's why i said earlier, one should ask, "Lord what are you saying to me through these scriptures?" There are even times that you don't ask but base on steps you're to take or situations you've been dealing with, that the Holy Spirit talks to you through the word, and you begin to see things in a different light from the same scripture you've read many times b4.

There's a saying that ignorant people make their heart's condition obvious to the public.

Not really. Marcion represented a very large proportion of Christianity until the Catholic Church cemented their power and branded him a heretic. And when one also realises that the Bible has been edited so many times, it makes the discarding of anything seem less of a major point. Protestantism itself has discarded the Apocrypha. Does this make Protestants evil? The Bible itself contained hundreds of books all vying for different status until it was cemented at the Council of Nicea in the 4th century - when Christ was also given god status.

But let's take the Old Testament specifically. This was a book compiled in a couple of stages. The first was when the Hebrews were in exile and the second when they were nomadic and travelling around the Holy Land. In the first instance, we have a book that relies heavily on local religion and in the second we have a book concentrating on nomadic warfare. Is this pertinent to the way that we live today? Here's my opinion:

Take a look at Leviticus. Why do you think that the laws sound strange and that Christians do not adhere to them? Do not eat shellfish. Do not eat pork? Why? Well, if you are a desert nomad warrior living in the desert, the last thing you want your army to come down with on the eve of a battle is a dose of food poisoning. So you forbid it.
By the time the New Testament writers come along, these things aren't a problem any more. People live in towns. They have access to hygiene and proper food storage. It isn't necessary to ban a food product because the risk of food poisoning is minimal.

The same goes for the Sabbath. You must take that day off in the Old Testament. Why? Well, an army needs it's rest doesn't it? If you're fighting to conquer a country, you must take time off or you become no use to anyone. And what better thing to do on that day but cement your army together by all worshipping the same god on that day?

Then take a look at the violence within the pages of the Old Testament. There's quite a bit of advocation of murdering an enemy or somebody who gets in the way of the god. Not suprising really when you realise that the Jews were pretty much at war with everyone - including themselves. It's a justification.

And these are just two small examples. The Old Testament is riddled with rules, regulations and a way of life that are alien to the way we live today. But it's the historical aspects, geography and social issues that dictated the rules back then. Not the god. But you need the order to come from the god to make it official.

When Christianity came along, a lot of those rules weren't needed so they were thrown out of the window. Not only that, but Christianity needed to spread and so it needed to appeal to non-believers and converts (incidentally why Christianity contains a lot of aspects from other religions). So why is the Old Testament pertinent to Christianity?
In my opinion, Marcion got it right. It isn't. It has done it's job. And that job was to sell the new religion. Early converts would have a hard time following something brand new. By tying it in with the Judaic religion it gave a comfort blanket and a stepping stone to it's new followers. Islam did no different. It took the Old Testament and adapted it for the Arabs. But the Arabs being nomadic and living closer to the ways of the Hebrews in the Old Testament, Islam kept most of the rules because they were still pertinent. This may sound "heretical" but it isn't. It's the way things are done in almost every apsect of our life. If you try something new, you need to compare it to something else. And if it's the "New and Improved" version of something, you're given that extra push that you need to try it. Human beings are creatures of habit - on the whole, we're not natural risk-takers, but give them something familiar to cushion the blow and they won't see it as a risk.

There's no ignorance in advancement. No evil in recognising that something has done it's job and isn't needed any more. It's what drives the human race forward. It's progress. And isn't that what any god would want? Traditionalists would say "No. Change is bad", but then they've adapted the Bible to fit themselves, so they're no less guilty than anyone else.

So Huxley has it right. There are people who can take the Bible in the ways that he's proposed. None are necessarily the right way and none are necessarily wrong. It's up to the individual. The only people who would state otherwise are those who insist that you follow their faith and that their's is the only right one.

@Bastage,

Bastage:

So Huxley has it right. There are people who can take the Bible in the ways that he's proposed.

Anyone can take the Bible any which way they have predetermined - that doesn't make them right, unless out of the sake of ignoring the details, one desires to shove his own ignorance as a wild card in the face of the gullible public.

Bastage:

Marcion represented a very large proportion of Christianity until the Catholic Church cemented their power and branded him a heretic.

Rightly so - Marcion was a heretic, and I'm glad for your sake that you mentioned it unequivocally. Even at surface value, what actually did Marcion believe about God that made him largely a 'Christian'? People pass all sorts of theories and label this heretic a 'Christian', and that is because those doing so are largely themselves quite vacant of Marcion's fundamental postulations. In a capsule, Marcion believed in a god that was neither Christian nor Jewish; and those who have been ignoring that fundamental fact have never been able to face up to it. Can you defend Marcion's proposition about his "god" as either Jewish or Christian? Not even if one grants what is distinctly Christian writings from gnosticism.

When you take a view such as Marcion's and label him 'Christian', please take the time to look at the details and not the label. Not everyone who goes about calling the name 'Jesus' is actually a believer.

Cheers.

Anyone can take the Bible any which way they have predetermined - that doesn't make them right, unless out of the sake of ignoring the details, one desires to shove his own ignorance as a wild card in the face of the gullible public.

Hmmm. Yet the same accusation could not be levelled at you I suppose? Why not? I should also say that I specified that mine is only an opinion - not something that I see coming from you.
Haven't you merely taken the Bible in a way that's been pre-determined? In fact, which is better? To pre-determine yourself or to let other people do it for you? Isn't the latter lazy or maybe even dangerous?

Rightly so - Marcion was a heretic, and I'm glad for your sake that you mentioned it unequivocally

I used the words "branded a heretic". Branded is a pretty important part of that statement don't you think? And also, does it necessarily mean that the branding was correct?

Marcion believed in a god that was neither Christian nor Jewish

Errrr,  no he didn't. He discarded the Jewish god as merely the creator and looked upon the Christian god of the New Testament as the "real" god.

Can you defend Marcion's proposition about his "god" as either Jewish or Christian?

I don't have to. I'd be basing it on a false assumption that you've made.

When you take a view such as Marcion's and label him 'Christian', please take the time to look at the details and not the label. Not everyone who goes about calling the name 'Jesus' is actually a believer.

Says who? What gives you the right to say that Marcion was not a believer? The facts show that he certainly did believe in Christ. Who made you judge and jury? What authority do you hold to say who is a Christian and who is not? I don't necessarily believe in Marcion's duality view but that's only my opinion and I don't have the right to say that he wasn't a Christian. I wonder what power you have that says that you can say otherwise.

please take the time to look at the details and not the label.

I would level the same accusation right back at you. Maybe you should read up on the subject before commenting further:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope
http://www.marcion.info/

And even one from the other side:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm

Marcionism was, "a strong ecclesiastical organization, parallel to that of the Catholic Church, they were perhaps the most dangerous foe Christianity has ever known."
"The most dangerous foe"? Is it any wonder that he was branded a heretic? And if he was the "most dangerous", why? Obviously his views was very popular before Catholic persecution otherwise he wouldn't have been considered so dangerous. I love the way that they say that he was the most dangerous foe "Christianity has ever known". In reality, that passage should read "Catholisism has ever known", but then that wouldn't give them the aura of speaking for a whole religion and everyone in it would it? Control freaks.

There's plenty of other info on Marcion on the net if you can be bothered to look.

@Bastage,

Bastage:

Hmmm. Yet the same accusation could not be levelled at you I suppose? Why not?
Haven't you merely taken the Bible in a way that's been pre-determined? In fact, which is better? To pre-determine yourself or to let other people do it for you? Isn't the latter lazy or maybe even dangerous?

Lol, this logic even fails to produce any substance. If I let others do the reading or determine anything for me, why would I be taking my time to share issues from the Bible and lay out my points logically? Secondly, would the projected idea of laziness not mean that I would sit down and not be able to critique Marcion's postulations? Rather than assume that Marcion was right based on what you assume from others who have done the reading for you, have you any clue what he postulated about the Biblical faith? of course, one could make any several allegations against me, and I welcome criticisms. . . as long as they help the critic understand his own premise in the face of what he argues.

Bastage:

I used the words "branded a heretic". Branded is a pretty important part of that statement don't you think? And also, does it necessarily mean that the branding was correct?

I wonder if you had the time to read my input there. In plain words: Yes, Marcion was a heretic - and I summarily made a few pointers as to why so. Was that difficult to digest?

Bastage:

Errrr, no he didn't. He discarded the Jewish god as merely the creator and looked upon the Christian god of the New Testament as the "real" god.

Lol, . . .Bastage! I don't think that is what has been presented by researchers. You should have done a bit more research carefully, though. I'm sorry, but Marcion did not present the Christian God as of the New Testament as the real 'god'. A few pointers:

  ● Marcion's christology saw Jesus as nothing more than a ghost

  ● Marcion believed that Jesus was not the promised Messiah

  ● Marcion also believed that Jesus was sent by 'a god greater than the Creator'

There are definitely more than those; but the third point just shows that you could not be correct in your assumptions that Marcion thought Jesus was sent by the 'real god' - no, Marcion rejected that and postulated that there was a God greater than the Creator!In mentioning just thsse three points, no casual reader of the Bible would be able to defend Marcion's heresies from the Bible itself, regardless how many books he had rejected from within its pages.

Bastage:

I don't have to. I'd be basing it on a false assumption that you've made.

I knew you would rather be running with the idea, and not a good grasp of the distinctives.

Bastage:

Says who? What gives you the right to say that Marcion was not a believer? The facts show that he certainly did believe in Christ. Who made you judge and jury? What authority do you hold to say who is a Christian and who is not? I don't necessarily believe in Marcion's duality view but that's only my opinion and I don't have the right to say that he wasn't a Christian. I wonder what power you have that says that you can say otherwise.

If Marcion actually believe in the NT canon he collated mainly from Paul' epistles, then those epistles simply put Marcion out as a heretic. It is even more remarkable that Marcion's favourite book (Galatians) makes clear that people like Marcion were heretics - unless you just want to react without reading it yourself.

Bastage:

I would level the same accusation right back at you. Maybe you should read up on the subject before commenting further:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope
http://www.marcion.info/

And even one from the other side:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm

And there's plenty more if you can be bothered to look.

I read those already - and that is why I summarised them for you in those 3 points instead of being reactive here. If I had no clues about Marcion's heresies, I would not have been able to correct your assumptions above.

Cheers.

Lol, this logic even fails to produce any substance. If I let others do the reading or determine anything for me, why would I be taking my time to share issues from the Bible and lay out my points logically?

The important word here is "my", They're not your points. They're what you've been spoon-fed and are are parroting. You're doing nothing more than spouting the "party-line". You prove that with the continued statement that Marcion was a heretic. It's not insubstantial logic. It's inescapable.

Marcion was a heretic - and I summarily made a few pointers as to why so. Was that difficult to digest?

Marcion was a heretic in the eyes of the Catholic Church. This does not mean that he was a heretic full stop. Many, many people did not and do not view him as a heretic.

Marcion's christology saw Jesus as nothing more than a ghost

Marcion believed that Jesus was not the promised Messiah

Marcion also believed that Jesus was sent by 'a god greater than the Creator'

Marcion affirmed Jesus Christ as the saviour sent by God and Paul as his chief apostle. Disagree with a fact all you like. He believed in "Christ". He may not have believed in your version of Christ but he still believed. Because you define in a different way, this makes him a non-Christian?

If Marcion actually believe in the NT canon he collated mainly from Paul' epistles, then those epistles simply put Marcion out as a heretic.

Again the word "heretic". On whose authority?

It's tiresome watching somebody chase their tail.

@Bastage,

Bastage:

The important word here is "my", They're not your points. They're what you've been spoon-fed and are are parroting. You're doing nothing more than spouting the "party-line". You prove that with the continued statement that Marcion was a heretic. It's not insubstantial logic. It's inescapable.

Marcion was a heretic - I am still making that statement, and rather than react and argue endlessly, the invitation is still open to simply open his most beloved book Galatians and see the reason for that. Why is that such a task to you, Bastage?

Bastage:

Marcion was a heretic in the eyes of the Catholic Church. This does not mean that he was a heretic full stop. Many, many people did not and do not view him as a heretic.

I don't have to be a Catholic to know that Marcion was heretical.

Bastage:

Marcion affirmed Jesus Christ as the saviour sent by God and Paul as his chief apostle. Disagree with a fact all you like. He believed in "Christ". He may not have believed in your version of Christ but he still believed. Because you define in a different way, this makes him a non-Christian?

This is not even my definition, lol! Kai, I thought you were so gleeful to quote links and sources? Why are you so reactive, m-a-n?

Bastage:

Again the word "heretic". On whose authority?

On the authority of his most beloved book - Galatians.

Bastage:

It's tiresome watching somebody chase their tail.

I know, but it's fun watching you complain as you do so.

But you still haven't answered the question.
By whose authority is Marcion a heretic?

I'll state again, I do not agree with Marcion's views but I will not brand him or his followers heretics. By the way, the fact that I don't agree with him would seem to point to the fact that I've already studied Marcion's Galatians. Galatians in itself does not say "Marcion is a heretic". A book cannot talk. Only the reader can.

This is not even my definition

No. It was the definition from the Wikipedia link.


Finally, I am not reactive or unchilled. I merely disagree with your opinion that he was a heretic. I find it a distasteful word and an insulting one when used to describe anyone's beliefs. By implication it would also mean that a major proportion of early Christianity's followers (though you'll disagree that they were Christians as they were Marcionites) were also heretics.

Okay Bastage,

Bastage:

But you still haven't answered the question.
By whose authority is Marcion a heretic?

Galatians.

The reason why my answer is terse is not to mean that there were no other sources for drawing that inference; but seeing that Galatians itself mentions the fact that anyone preaching differently from what the apostles (including Paul) were preaching, they brought themselves under an anathema. That is why I had invited you to calm down and let's take a reasoned look ourselves, though I acknowledge that your penultimate post says otherwise - my apologies.

Bastage:

I'll state again, I do not agree with Marcion's views but I will not brand him or his followers heretics. By the way, the fact that I don't agree with him would seem to point to the fact that I've already studied Marcion's Galatians. Galatians in itself does not say "Marcion is a heretic". A book cannot talk. Only the reader can.

I'm not aware if there was anything as 'Marcion's Galatians', though - rather, he collated Galatians (one of Paul's epistles) as part of his canon. The point is that when one reads those epistles (and particularly that one, Galatians), there's nothing else to draw from all available inferences that Marcion was definitely leading a heretical life. If he did not, it would be great to open the book and highlight a few pointers for ourselves and see if the case in to the contrary.

Bastage:

No. It was the definition from the Wikipedia link.

As acknowledged.

Bastage:

Finally, I am not reactive or unchilled. I merely disagree with your opinion that he was a heretic. I find it a distasteful word and an insulting one when used to describe anyone's beliefs. By implication it would also mean that a major proportion of early Christianity's followers (though you'll disagree that they were Christians as they were Marcionites) were also heretics.

I know how people feel about these issues; and even though I've been branded all sorts on this forum, the point for me is to be sure that I have my answers from the same germane source that my fellow discussants make recourse to - the Bible. However, though we may disagree on this issue, one thing we could say on opposite sides of the bridge (perhaps euphemistically) is that Marcion's views could not be defended even by the very books he collated in his canon. Those who feel otherwise could open the same books and seek to defend his views from there.

Cheers.

The reason why my answer is terse is not to mean that there were no other sources for drawing that inferences; but seeing that Galatians itself mentions the fact that anyone preaching differently from what the apostles (including Paul) were preaching, brought themselves under an anathema.

This is where I have the problem. As I've already stated, the book cannot condemn on it's own. It takes a reader to make that step. If you're referring to Chapter1 Verses 6-9 in your condemnation, I find them to be totally open to interpretation and certainly not enough in themselves to brand him as a heretic.

In Marcion's day, his views were only a major problem to the fledgling Catholic Church and it was only because he and his movement were deemed a threat to Catholocism that he was branded a heretic. To justify their own beliefs, the Church  branded millions of believers (or certainly a large proportion of the new religion) heretics by implication.

Ironically, if history had turned out slightly differently, people today would be revering Marcion - he certainly had the support.

The saying goes that the victor writes the history. But is that not a denial? How can we brand people heretics when all they merely are is people with a different belief to our own?

By the way. Marcion didn't just collate Galatians. He edited it. Sometimes omitting and sometimes re-writing (although this is rarer). Hence "Marcion's Galatians". To tell the truth, I thought you were aware of this and that it was part of your reasoning behind branding him heretical.

You can compare his version with the KJV authorised version with these two links.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians
http://www.gnosis.org/library/marcion/Galatian.htm

Now, if your lived in the first 450 years of the common era (CE), how would you have determined what was true amid the claims of the various followers of Jesus.  These were the competing sects:

Marcionism
Nestorianism
Docetism
Apollinarism
Arianism
Proto-Catholics
Gnosticism
Ebionitism
etc
etc

These groups had very diverse and conflictting ideas about the nature of jesus;

For instance, Arianism, which had deep roots in the earlier Jesus movement, did not believe in a corporeal and physical Jesus, but a spritual being.  If Jesus was not flesh&blood, he could not have suffered for the sins of mankind, said the proto-orthodox Christians.

It is worth remembering that many of the early Christian fathers were Arians.  In fact, the leading Church father and mastermind behind the Council of Nicea, Eusebius, was an Arian, before he changed side.

If Jesus's life had preceeded these early xians by not more than two generation, how come it was unclear what his true nature was?

It is even made more lamentable by the fact that in the 2nd century there were church fathers and bishops who demonstrated no knowledge of an earthly Jesus, even in situation where it might have played strongly in their favour to do so.

In fact, the apostle Paul show no knowledge of the human Jesus, but the spiritual being.

@Bastage,

Bastage:

This is where I have the problem. As I've already stated, the book cannot condemn on it's own. It takes a reader to make that step. If you're referring to Chapter1 Verses 6-9 in your condemnation, I find them to be totally open to interpretation and certainly not enough in themselves to brand him as a heretic.

I'm sorry, but the texts are available for any unprejudiced reader to see that Marcion was anti-Christian (another unpalatable term, perhaps more euphemistic?). Most sources tell us that Marcion's writings are not extant, but from those who have countered him, we could make a pretty good gathering of his persuasions on doctrine - and if we have to be honest about this, his teachings were completely antithetical to apostolic Christian doctrines. A few of them have already been highlighted, and that is why I have been asking that you simply go to the Bible and see for yourself if you could defend Marcion's teachings therefrom. Since marcion preached contrary to what we find in those texts, there's no other way to view him than as has been said already.

Bastage:

In Marcion's day, his views were only a major problem to the fledgling Catholic Church and it was only because he and his movement were deemed a threat to Catholocism that he was branded a heretic. To justify their own beliefs, the Church branded millions of believers (or certainly a large proportion of the new religion) heretics by implication.

Be that as it may, I have said that I'm not a Catholic; but even so, where the Catholic edict was right, why argue against it just for the sake of it and yet refuse to go to the same texts and prove Marcion right?! If the Catholic Church never existed, it would not mean that Marcion was right - unless those who say so would still deliberately refuse to open the texts and see the case for themselves! It is not only the catholic Church that has rejected Marcion's teachings - other denominations down through the ages have done so; and if Marcion had any real danger to the Christian testimony, his teachings would have gained a powerful movemnt to this very day! That his own movement phased out for precisely the reason as seen is testimony that not many people could defend his teachings.

Bastage:

Ironically, if history had turned out slightly differently, people today would be revering Marcion - he certainly had the support.

He had support, and on arriving in Rome (?) donated over 200, 000 sesterces - a very huge gift in his time! But on discovering that his views were actually anti-Christian, his money was retruned to him and he lost support in Rome. Nobody today is that gulible to close the texts and argue from outside it to "rever" Marcion - and this is why those who feel strongly about him are invited to betake themselves to that opportunity to see the texts for themselves.

Bastage:

The saying goes that the victor writes the history. But is that not a denial? How can we brand people heretics when all they merely are is people with a different belief to our own?

A "different belief" is not what Christianity was about - if that is how you defend Marcion's heresy.

Bastage:

By the way. Marcion didn't just collate Galatians. He edited it. Sometimes omitting and sometimes re-writing (although this is rarer). Hence "Marcion's Galatians". To tell the truth, I thought you were aware of this and that it was part of your reasoning behind branding him heretical.

Dear sir, at least I know that much - and in addition, I know just how many books he collated, how many books he rejected; what specific books he included; and what he did with which books, so much so that he edited the Gospel of Luke, No? Of course, I know all these - and that is why I was of the opinion that as far as I was aware, there was nothing like 'Marcion's Galatians.' Even granting the way you explained it still does not mean that by editing Galatians, that book became "Marcion's" any more than what he did with the Gospel of Luke.

Bastage:

You can compare his version with the KJV authorised version with these two links.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians
http://www.gnosis.org/library/marcion/Galatian.htm

Thanks for the recommendation. Actually, there are other sources where I had the privilege of seeing these matters, and that is how I came to that inference shared above.

Cheers.

huxley:

It is worth remembering that many of the early Christian fathers were Arians.

How "early" was Arius (256?-336) if he only arrived in the 3rd-4th century? Were there no well defined doctrines of the Christian Church before Arius?


Edited.

huxley:

In fact, the apostle Paul show no knowledge of the human Jesus, but the spiritual being.

● Romans 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord,
which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh

● Romans 9:5
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

● 1 Corinthians 15:3-4
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day
according to the scriptures.

pilgrim.1:

How "early" was Arius (256?-336) if he only arrived in the 3rd-4th century? Were there no well defined doctrines of the Christian Church before Arius?

Early enough for this doctrine to greatly influence the later formation of Christian doctrine, the Catholic Church, the Church councils, etc, etc.

Yes, the was no single central doctrine of the Church at the time. In fact, that was why Constantine was persuaded to unify the church doctrine by organising the Council. Present at the first council was a strong contingent of Arians. In fact, this issue was not settle until about 100 years later.

Why would there have been such diversity of Christologies in the first 300 years, when these people were so close to the events?

huxley:

Yes, the was no single central doctrine of the Church at the time. In fact, that was why Constantine was persuaded to unify the church doctrine by organising the Council. Present at the first council was a strong contingent of Arians. In fact, this issue was not settle until about 100 years later.

I guess you forgot that Arius was a late comer and did not write the texts that are found in the NT? Those texts were written by the apostles who preceded him by no less 200 years, no? I wonder how people miss these simple issues and argue just about anyhow.

huxley:

Why would there have been such diversity of Christologies in the first 300 years, when these people were so close to the events?

For same reason that even in our current times there are diversities of opinion in simple matters in our own day - even when it is not related to Christianity.

pilgrim.1:

I guess you forgot that Arius was a late comer and did not write the texts that are found in the NT? Those texts were written by the apostles who preceded him by no less 200 years, no? I wonder how people miss these simple issues and argue just about anyhow.

For same reason that even in our current times there are diversities of opinion in simple matters in our own day - even when it is not related to Christianity.

None of the apostles wrote any of the book of the bible. some book bear their names, but the earliest gospel(Mark) was written at the 70s at the earliest, long after they would have been dead.

No new testament scholar, religoius or secular disputes the above fact.

Arianism did not arise out of a vacuum. before Arian gave full expression of his idea, he would have been expose to nascent forms of docetism circulating in the empire. Remember, docetism had full expression in most of the pagan cult of the time.

If Marcion had any real danger to the Christian testimony, his teachings would have gained a powerful movemnt to this very day!

Probaby not after they had been stamped out by the Catholic Church so thoroughly. Twelve hundred years (give or take a century or two) of persecution is a pretty difficult hurdle to recross. Do you believe that Orthodox Christianity would recover just as easily if the shoe was on the other foot? As I stated previously, the victor writes the history. Over a thousand years of working on Marcion has given the Catholic Church a big advantage.
But then he was danger enough to warrant the Church placing the mantle of heretic on.

That his own movement phased out for precisely the reason as seen is testimony that not many people could defend his teachings.

Phased out? That's a very sanitary way of saying "destroyed by Catholicism". The early Church didn't tolerate any dissent. The demise of Marcionism was not down to it's own weakness - rather the brute power of Catholicism.

* I am aware that you are not Catholic, but I use the denomination because that was the one concerned with Marcionite "heresy" when it began.

huxley:

None of the apostles wrote any of the book of the bible. some book bear their names, but the earliest gospel(Mark) was written at the 70s at the earliest, long after they would have been dead.

That is simply a gnostic claim, and it would be confusing issues for yourself.

huxley:

No new testament scholar, religoius or secular disputes the above fact.

And you argued earlier that "the apostle Paul show no knowledge of the human Jesus"? Secular disputes may run round in circles, but scholarship does not bear the hallmarks of inconsistencies. Take, for instance, the secular argument for Marcion - he did not write Paul's epistles: but secularists do not deny Marcion's editing Pauline epistles. This cop-out to deny the authorship of the epistles does not tell us anything about who could have been the real authors.

huxley:

Arianism did not arise out of a vacuum. before Arian gave full expression of his idea, he would have been expose to nascent forms of docetism circulating in the empire. Remember, docetism had full expression in most of the pagan cult of the time.

There you have your answer, and I wonder why you sound desperate to just grasp at anything to make a point and yet make none. Dear huxley, Christianity does not mix with Docetist paganism. . . you can't even look into the texts of the New Testament there and defend that idea. Even today, new heretical doctrines are emerging within mainline Christianity - we are familiar with the sad case of a shade of prosperity gospel that is neither prosperous nor a gospel. But does that mean that these fellows who preach these forms of doctrines are actually promoting the NT doctrine of salvation and grace?

It is easy for people to make vacant statements just because they want to believe it so - secular thinkers do this a lot. Yet, when simple questions are asked, it does not come as a surprise that these secularists have no answers, nor do they hold a consistent position in their arguments.

@Bastage,

Bastage:

Probaby not after they had been stamped out by the Catholic Church so thoroughly. Twelve hundred years (give or take a century or two) of persecution is a pretty difficult hurdle to recross. Do you believe that Orthodox Christianity would recover just as easily if the shoe was on the other foot? As I stated previously, the victor writes the history. Over a thousand years of working on Marcion has given the Catholic Church a big advantage.

This doesn't make any sense. Marcion's doctrines were rejected by other Christians besides the Catholic Church. Catholicism also persecuted other sects of Christianity, but some of those movements have survived for more than 500 years - not because their proponents were wealthy or powerfully militant to withstand the persecutions. Yet, in the case you're seeking to defend, a simple premise that would do the job for you is to go to the texts and see if Marcion stood any chance of defending his teachings from the same texts he collated as his canon.

Bastage:

But then he was danger enough to warrant the Church placing the mantle of heretic on.

Like I said, if the Catholic Church never even said anything, it does not mean that his views would have become established Christian doctrines.

Bastage:

Phased out? That's a very sanitary way of saying "destroyed by Catholicism". The early Church didn't tolerate any dissent. The demise of Marcionism was not down to it's own weakness - rather the brute power of Catholicism.

Lol, the "brute force"? This is making a very sad apologetic for Marcion! His doctrines did not stand a chance of surviving the scrutiny of the texts of the apostolic epistles.

Bastage:

* I am aware that you are not Catholic, but I use the denomination because that was the one concerned with Marcionite "heresy" when it began.

I understand that: and beyond its era, who has gone around claiming any substance to Marcion's doctrines as veritable Christian teaching - even if the Catholic Church was not pursuing Marcionites to death? People seem to blame everything on the "brute force" of Catholicism; but I don't take that approach. For me to have a good grasp of where Marcion stood, my inclination is to go to the text and see things for myself. Fair deal? No?

I wrote the following:

None of the apostles wrote any of the book of the bible. some book bear their names, but the earliest gospel(Mark) was written at the 70s at the earliest, long after they would have been dead.

And your response was the following;

pilgrim.1:

That is simply a gnostic claim, and it would be confusing issues for yourself.

How is this a gnostic claim?  Gnosticism makes no claims about who wrote the bible or gospels.  How is this gnostic claim?

pilgrim.1:

And you argued earlier that "the apostle Paul show no knowledge of the human Jesus"? Secular disputes may run round in circles, but scholarship does not bear the hallmarks of inconsistencies. Take, for instance, the secular argument for Marcion - he did not write Paul's epistles: but secularists do not deny Marcion's editing Pauline epistles. This cop-out to deny the authorship of the epistles does not tell us anything about who could have been the real authors.

How does that invalidate the point I made about Paul's lack of knowledge about the human Jesus?   Although there are some disagreement in the scholarly community about the authorship of some of the books ascribed to Paul, I have not raised that here.  So where have I deny the authorship.  If you were refering to this statement, then technically you have a point. This statement is not very well defined and specific;

None of the apostles wrote any of the book of the bible. some book bear their names, but the earliest gospel(Mark) was written at the 70s at the earliest, long after they would have been dead.

I should have said:

None of the disciples (the 12) wrote any of the books of the gospels. Some books bear their names, but the earliest gospel (Mark) was written at the 70s at the earliest, long after they would have been dead.

pilgrim.1:

There you have your answer, and I wonder why you sound desperate to just grasp at anything to make a point and yet make none. Dear huxley, Christianity does not mix with Docetist paganism. . . you can't even look into the texts of the New Testament there and defend that idea. Even today, new heretical doctrines are emerging within mainline Christianity - we are familiar with the sad case of a shade of prosperity gospel that is neither prosperous nor a gospel. But does that mean that these fellows who preach these forms of doctrines are actually promoting the NT doctrine of salvation and grace?

Why the emotional posturing? Why the use of words like "desperate", "grasping", etc.  Can you not debate without such emotionalism?

The earliest Chriatian apologist admitted coping a great deal of their beliefs from pagan cults of the day. Have you ever heard of the apologist called Justin Martyr, from whom the word martyr is derived.  Have your seen his defense of Christianity where the concept of Diabolical Mimicry in Anticipation is expounded?

Look at this thread where I discussed the origin of Christianity.

@huxley,

huxley:

Look at this thread where I discussed the origin of Christianity.

I have seen it before you recommended it; but I'm sorry to disappoint you that I don't draw my lessons from sources as such - and I have said that to you directly sometime ago, No?

huxley:

How is this a gnostic claim?  Gnosticism makes no claims about who wrote the bible or gospels.  How is this gnostic claim?

It is it actually a gnostic claim in the sense that people who make such statements would have us believe that the authors of the Biblical documents could not be ascertained and yet these same fellows have no clue who those authors were. It is easy to deny authorship - but for people who do so to then go one step further and ascertain their authors for us becomes a problem to them, and nothing has been substantial than their musings and guesses. Why 'gnostic claim'? If you did a bit more reading, you would understand that those who come up with such assertions group their inferences under gnostic studies. An example? The Gospel of Thomas Judas Didymus - which most secular sources would assert its author to be the apostle Thomas (one of the Twelve); whereas these same researchers pressing these assertions would never see reason to understand that the document leaves a lot of holes to be attributed to that apostle. How could they be asserting such a document was written by Thomas the apostle, and yet have problems with the authors of other documents of the NT? These inconsistencies only tells me that as long as these fellows would grasp at just about anything to push their agenda, it suits them well - which is why I don't settle my thoughts on such inconsistencies.

huxley:

How does that invalidate the point I made about Paul's lack of knowledge about the human Jesus?   Although there are some disagreement in the scholarly community about the authorship of some of the books ascribed to Paul, I have not raised that here.  So where have I deny the authorship.  If you were refering to this statement, then technically you have a point. This statement is not very well defined and specific;

Lol, did you see the verses I quoted earlier of Paul's statements about the humanity of Jesus?

huxley:

I should have said:

Just about the same thing I just discussed above.

huxley:

Why the emotional posturing? Why the use of words like "desperate", "grasping", etc.  Can you not debate without such emotionalism?

I could - and I suppose that you have been heeding your own advice in the way you react to discussions from Christians in recent times? As per the 'desperate grasping', it seems to me that you're pushing your assertions and just being disinclined to look into the texts themselves - that was why my statements.

huxley:

The earliest Chriatian apologist admitted coping a great deal of their beliefs from pagan cults of the day. Have you ever heard of the apologist called Justin Martyr, from whom the word martyr is derived.  Have your seen his defense of Christianity where the concept of Diabolical Mimicry in Anticipation is expounded?

For one, there are various sources quoting that line and using it to fit their arguments; for another, the whole context in translation is open to debate. If one would use such a line of argument, there are many such careless statements among the writings of the early Church 'fathers' - and in discussions with Catholics I have hinted about this very problem of careless statements from such men which have no bearings on the teachings of the apostles - one such example again, though not a church father, is the same Marcion that we have been discussing.

The same careless statements could be found in some other writings of , eg., Clement of Alexandra who tried to unite Greek philosophical traditions with Christian doctrine as early as the 3rd century. That we find these statements from such men does not strengthen the idea that Christianity derived from paganism, not even from Docetist paganism, any more than one could push the idea that Marcion was teaching true Christian doctrine - which sadly up until now we have not seen any defence from those pushing that idea.

LOL.

Please Pilgrim. What are these sects that survived Catholic persecution?
You make the early Church sound like it embraced it's competitors rather than being the overwhelming destroyer of anything that stood in it's way.
The Church itself viewed Marcionism as it's most dangerous foe. Would it really hold this view if Marcionism was a crack-pot sect that would die out naturally? Your claim is utterly illogical.

You keep saying "Go to the texts". I've been there. They prove nothing that you're preaching. So how about you pull something from the texts rather than bleating the same thing over and over again?

Please. Less hiding behind eloquent wordplay and more truth.

Finally:

People seem to blame everything on the "brute force" of Catholicism; but I don't take that approach.

You don't? Then which planet have you been living on? Of all the statements you've made, this one displays utter ignorance and totally disregards history. Even with the Church writing most of that history, we can see that it controlled every single aspect of a human being's life for centuries and we have records of how it treated dissenters.