What Did Marcion Believe?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ม.ค. 2016
- 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.chrismaghintay.com/
Music: Kevin MacLeod, www.incompetech.com
TH-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
TH-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 TH-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.
I can appreciate Marcion’s point regarding the god of the Old Testament as possessing qualities and behaviors rather unlike those that the god described in the New Testament is said to have.
The god of the old testament is a psycho and derived from a pagan Canaanite myth.
@@trixy8669 No. The God of the Old Testament is righteous aswell.
@@Alex-sq7dx yet a lesser one..
@@trixy8669 The God of the Old Testament was dealing with horrifically corrupt societies, offering their babies on the burning arms of the pagan god Molech etc...so they would be blessed. Yeah, he had the Israelites wipe out the evil. And any god that never deals righteously with evil or calls evil good is the definition of psycho and the height of narcissism; and THAT is not the God of the OT.
@@risenshine7032 So your Jewish God just decided to send jesus and all of a sudden play nice.... right. He got off on blood sacrifices, sounds kinda pagan to me
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
It's actually really funny you uploaded this today. I was just reading about Marcion last night.
+toahordika6 haha perfect timing.
@@ReligionForBreakfast It's like it was meant to be!
that's how google works
Yeah, I’m learning that if you speak a word or look up a word, bingo it pops up all on it’s own in some form on your feed
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.
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?
Loved the video, love the new layout of the episodes, and really appreciate the subject of today's. Keep up the fantabulous work!
I have no clue why this guy's videos were suggested to me, but they're great! Fascinating stuff and much appreciated. Thanks.
TH-cam somehow knew you'd like the academic study of ancient religion. Those algorithms...
Surprised his beleifs arent more popular today. He answers a lot of existential questions Christians have today.
While his beliefs definitely worth reading into , another similar set of beliefs emerged in the east in Ancient India way before , well even Jesus . ( Sorry if this sounds a bit like I'm trying to empower my culture or something ) . In ancient texts called the Upanishads spiritual thinkers wrote about what they considered God to be . What they came up with was something kind of similar to what Gnosticism would be later on , but something that would be even more fundamentally monotheistic than even the Abrahmic religions . Remember these were Ancient Hindu texts , a famously polythiestic religion . According to them God ( called Paramatma , supreme and indivisible , the atma part means indivisible exactly thesame as greek atom ) is in essence everything . Our world and everything in it , our universe and everything beyond is but Him . We are in essence Him . Our souls our Atman , the part of us that transcends death is Him , and so are our bodies that we occupy. Other than Him there is no entity that truly exists .The ultimate goal of the Atman is to slowly transcend its illusionary limitations , like a drop of water return to the Ocean .
Centuries before these thoughts were written down and then popularized by leaders like Gautama Buddha , common Hindus prayed to a pantheon of divinity . Millenials later we still do that . The very idea of Paramatma and rebirth and the Atma forms the core of our philosophy now . But we still pray to our pantheons . Because we love them . Because when we're at our weakest and in desperate need of support and protection we can chant our mantras and count the beads of our rosary and sit in front of our idols and cry our tears to them .
Trying to intellectually conceptualize the nature of God is a luxury afforded only to prosperous civillizations , like the Ancient Greeks , Ancient Romans , Ancient Indians and our modern world . In the deserts of the middle east where war is still very much prevelant , and in our moments of desperate need the love of God shall persist .
What kind of existential questions? The bible answers everything. Did you watched the whole video? Marcio was literaly ignoring or removing what he didnt liked. Instead of beliving everything that pagans tell you, you guys should try studying the bible wich is the true word of God, and studying ancient Israel and the old hebrew also helps. Theres a channel called "bibleproject" and another called" Inspiring philosopy" wich are pretty cool too.
Saklas' followers don't wish the rest of population to see their god's true form.
@@goncalojesus7583 yes, just like your beloved Church fathers. They removed many gospels that they simply didn't like, just like Gospel of Judas. A very important one that displays the true form of the corrupted god.
@@prabhavbhagat292 To be fair, Gnosticism and Marcionism have very similar teachings to Buddhism.
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.
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.
Amazing channel, super glad i found it :) it really deserves more attention and growth. Keep up the great 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
Marcion makes a lot of sense, probably that's why he was attacked so much
Two primary things will get you attacked and deplatformed:
Believe that Jesus Christ is actually the savior of all people
And
Dare to suggest that a God who commands the death and pillage of innocent people might not be the real God.
@@jacksonrelaxin3425and actually admitting it's all fairytales
@@lionzion1879 fairies are real too. It’s spelled “faery” tho. Listen.
@@jacksonrelaxin3425 sure mate😂
I love how you just take the morality Highpoint when that is not the point OK so why was he attacked? Why was he criticized? Why does everybody hate him because he didn’t do his f***ing research that’s why but uh-oh he didn’t believe in our believe go go hit him if that’s what you think. Well, I don’t know what to say but the text the text. Yes you know when he says, whatever he is such a beast the truth is you have to f***ing read the f***ing lines in between
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
I really enjoy your videos - thanks for uploading!
Thank you for your work. Very happy I found you.
As a Christian, I have to admit. Marcion did have a point there. So what was the official apologetic response to his claim?
Lionelson Norbert read against heresies from ireneaus and tertullians writing against marcion if you want to hear how the Orthodox Church responded to him
You do really good work. Thank-you!
This was so interesting! Thank you
This has strange parallels with the gospel of Judas
"... Totally written by Judas."
--Marcion.
Thanks Andrew. I hadn't bumped into Marcion properly before. Now I am interested in finding out more :)
Loving your videos so far! BTW, I appreciate you rocking the Classical Latin accent ;)
The only acceptable Latin accent! ;)
Fantastic.... informative and well presented! How has it taken me this long to find this!?
Interesting and thought provoking as always... Breakfast will never be the same again
I enjoy your historical academic perspective on topics that can become very easily heated. Keep up the good work.
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
"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.. 🤔
Did Hellenism and Zoroastrism influence Marcion?
He was Hellenistic but unclear if Zoroastrianism influenced him. This is implicit in Jesus' message: "scrap all that, I bring you a simple more advanced command of love". Certainly Christians would fare better if they scrapped the OT altogheter, it only gets people confused.
@@LuisAldamiz you are a liar and you will get your judgement for your attempts in this comment section and every other attempt, even the ones you forgotten.
Was Marcion a contemporary of Mani?
@@syntheretique385 Thanks for the info!
The Demiurge is right out of Plato's Timaeus
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.
Amazing video, and extremely informative in a vivid and concise manner.
What an awesome summary, thanks.
Wow. This touched upon and affirmed some of my core beliefs, academically. I wish I could chat with you.
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?
1:34 Jesus Christ Tertulian. Literally burst out laughing with that quote. Savage af. Great video Andrew!
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.
Great video.
Actually Marcian's ideas make more sense than our current ones.
The guy was an antisemitic gnostic. That's literally it
@@justinstewart4889 Was Marcion antisemitic or Jews and Yahveh racist misanthropes?
Got tricked by the thumbnail, thought that was marcion😄
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!
Excellent work Thanks.
Tenak Talk channel explains also
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.
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?
This is a good video, education is best to reward all research...
John Romer talks about Marcion in the BBC Testament series but you explain Marcion in more detail. Thanks R4B
"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.
So the tendency in Matthhew to make Jesus Jewish may be a reaction to Marcion by the early Christians.
First, his ideas doesn’t sound strange to me at all. They make actually a lot of sense.
Second, I think a lot of Christians agree. A lot of them make the distinction between the Old Testament god and the New Testament god. I heard mention the idea that the vision of Paulus, where he was told he could eat anything, was more or less a message that the OT is replaced by the NT.
There's a book by Pamela Eisenbaum that deals with this: _Paul Was Not A Christian_. She's a New Testament scholar, employed in a Christian theology school, and a practising orthodox Jew. I think it was actually Peter who had the vision you're thinking of (Acts 10:9-16), and from Acts and the authentic Pauline letters, it looks as though Peter wasn't settled about how far Gentiles had to follow the Law.
The guts of Eisenbaum's book, as I take it (and only on one reading) is that none of the first followers of Jesus was rejecting the Law, still less God as seen in the Hebrew bible (they were, after all, Jews, and didn't proclaim themselves as having stopped being Jews); the question was how far Gentiles had to follow Jewish practice to be accepted as followers of Jesus. In the end, it got to be decided that keeping kosher (for instance) was a part of Jewish identity and the specific covenant, but not necessary for following YHWH through Jesus.
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
Awesome vid...the fact that everybody hated his guts makes me yearn to read Marcion...
On the surface it all sounds like kings and warlords arguing over the same stuff we argue over today.great info though..I need to learn more about this.
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?
Excellent!
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.
Systematic Theology books will outright state that God’s revelation to humanity was progressive. This would imply that the OT revelation of God was incomplete. But the doctrine that the Bible is the Word of God and inerrant makes one have to treat the OT with the same importance as the NT.
❤ way cool to take something so complicated and make it understandable! For the average person who has an interest in is.
Still watching you in #2020
How does one account for the 2 distinct Creation stories, sets of Genealogies, Flood stories, etc., interwoven throughout the Hebrew text of Genesis?
Marcion sounds cool
well explain, thank you.
Good information.
The Demiurge has his tentacles in it all
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.
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.
*Very* interesting!
Marcion kind of sounds like a 2nd Century Thomas Jefferson, trying to edit out of the Bible things that he didn't like.
That makes no sense. There was no Bible in the time of Marcion.
And they were both right.
@@johnnykay7411 no both are wrong.
@@getasimbe The New Testament was written in The First Century, and was collected in The First Century.
Mister Magician, what? No it wasn’t not even close
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.
given how different the "old testament god" and "new testament god" sound this isn't the craziest theory, ngl
Either it's a scam made by a sect or there are more than one god
I've head sooooo many times alleged catholics that, when confronted with the violent, envious, childish and vengeful nature of God in the Old Testament, say "But the god of the NT is different than the god of the OT"...
Marcionism was labeled as heresy and was prosecuted and "offically" destroyed, but marcionist ideas are still much more alive than trinitarians would like to admit.
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.
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'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?
Really great video✌🏼
I recommend you to read the manifest of democratic civilization
agree with your comment but I'd take it further, it's not just understandable that a literal reading of the old testament leads to the concept of a demiurge, it really is the only explanation
If theres an Evil god, then the true God cannot defeat the Evil god because he is also a creator. God cannot be 2.
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.
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 reminds me of RATM in the song "killing in the name of"
Love the band.
I went to Catholic Schools and we studied Christian history and other religions, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc in religion classes. I've never heard of this Marcion until this TH-cam video.
That's sad
Thanks!
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."
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!
If I'm not mistaken the gospel of Judas was believed penned at that time. It's suggested it could be a copy of earlier work, but it references a mad creator deity. Could be work of Marcion
Love fullfils the Law.
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.
Nice Essay.
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?
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.
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 view along with anti nomianism is being revived at Grace Christian University in Wyoming Michigan. They are Ultra or hyper dispensationalist and Dipper from Dallas Theological Seminary and Moody Bible Institute in that Grace Christian University and the hyper dispensationalist see the church beginning with Paul in Acts chapter 9 for Acts chapter 13.
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.
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...
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