SirArthur

After a first approach on this subject I got stuck on stockpile of BS coming from Jews claiming Marcionism to be antisemitic and putted it aside and even forget its name, until today when PsiCop finally remembered me of such.

However on this second sight I decided to look a bit further using my own judgment, I haven't find much yet, I'm just starting to this "new ancient World" and as so I used wikipedia as first destination:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism

Under my view those claims of antisemitism just come from radical Jews who wants their Yahweh to be "the only God" no matter what and no matter how incoherent it makes Christianity. Even so, the Marcionism antisemitism can't be compared to Nazism, since by itself Marcionism preaches no hate or kill of anybody, it simply denies any relevance of the "Hebrew Bible" on Christianity.

Can it be the third way of Christianity?

__________________
We can never have an idea of what we can achieve. All we can do is follow an interrogation and see where it may lead us to.

PsiCop

If Marcionism could be a "third way of Christianity," then Montanism might well have been a fourth, some of the Christological heresies (such as Arianism) might have been a fifth. The medieval Waldenses, a sixth. And on it goes.

Most people forget that there has never, ever been, in the entire history of Christianity, a single Christianity. There has always been varied belief abouth Jesus. There has NEVER been a shortage of "ways" of Christianity.

As for whether Marcionism was anti-Semitic ... that is a difficult claim to evaluate, since dislike of Jews was common in his time. (As was the case for most minority ethnic groups ... Greco-Romans were not known for being all that tolerant of strangers!) We would have to come up with some sort of "Jewish antipathy" metric, then compare how Marcionism measures on that scale, to the antipathy of others. Offhand I'd say this would be a very iffy venture at best, and impossible at worst.

What we do know about Marcion himself is that he had a very poor opinion of anyone who did not share his beliefs; he does not appear to have held Jews in much more contempt than he held Christians outside of his own church. It is very likely that his followers may have used his teachings against Jews, yes ... but then, among other Christian communities, other Christian teachers had also written anti-Jewish polemics, and those writings were also used by their followers against Jews.

A good example is Tertullian. He opposed Marcionism as vehemently as anyone else, but simultaneously he also vilified Jews. Terullian's Answer to the Jews, for instance, shows that non-Marcion Christians despised Jews as well, on different grounds than Marcion.

So were Marcion's teachings harsher on Jews than those of other sorts of Christians? Given the historical record, I'd say not.

SirArthur

That seams to be a common ground for most of religions, from Atheists to Believers...

I'm working or organizing ideas about it, yet Catharism and Marcionism seams very related.

For an instance, this part of John's Gospel:

was used by Cathars to justify Yahweh wasn't the same God of Jesus, yet it can be "twisted for both sides".

Turns out difficult on a religion so reviewed to know exactly the meanings, nevertheless, the God described by Christ was a God of Love (and I like that), while the God of the Old Testament wasn't...

__________________
We can never have an idea of what we can achieve. All we can do is follow an interrogation and see where it may lead us to.

PsiCop

What we know of Marcion suggests that he was personally a bit more spiteful than most others. Of course, the historical record on him is littered with the claims of his foes ... but it can be safely said that he personally offended a number of people during his career, and that at least some of his teachings were a contrarian reaction to those of others whom he disliked.

A good number of scholars are now treating Marcionism as distinct from Gnosticism, of which Catharism was a medieval descendant (a couple generations removed). Marcion did not teach a separate, "secret" esoteric doctrine, and it appears he did not have an initiation process any more involved than that of other Christians, i.e. it was baptism (other Gnostic sects had some complex initiation schemes and multiple, layered rites to accomplish them). Marcion also emphasized the power of scripture in determining doctrine whereas for Gnostics, personal experience (or gnosis) of the Divine was paramount.

On these scores Marcionism is, indeed, different from Gnosticism. However, like you I consider them more related than separate; philosophically Marcionism espoused dualism which could be just as pronounced as any Gnostic sect. Marcion's vehement condemnation of the Hebrew god YHWH was also a part of other Gnostic sects. Marcion's morality was also largely Platonic, which again connected it with other Gnostic sects. In many ways one could say the basic worldview of a Marcionist was much more similar to that of another Gnostic, than to other "orthodox" Christians.

There is also a possible historiographical connection between the Cathars and the Marcionites. Marcionism began in Anatolia (its founder was from Sinope on the Black Sea coast, and well-known throughout the Pontus province, even before he emerged as the leader of a new church and moved to Rome to propagate it). Anatolia remained the "seat" of Marcionism after him.

The Cathars, meanwhile, descended from the Bogomils, who in turn descended from the Paulicians. The Paulician sect was the Anatolian remnant of older Gnostic sects, and may very well have included some descendants of Marcionism as well.

While you are correct that Cathars cited "orthodox" scripture this way, one must take care not to go too far with this. For Cathars, as with other Gnostics, the "ultimate" doctrinal authority was not scripture, it was, rather, personal experience of the Divine. Yes, the Cathars had scripture of their own, particularly The Gospel of the Secret Supper and the Book of the Two Principles (unfortunately the text of neither is online, since they are reconstructed documents and remain in the hands of academics at the moment). These works merely exemplified their beliefs, and did not define them. Much of what they taught was conveyed in person, and medieval Cathars themselves often claimed that the only way to "know" their beliefs would be to undergo consolamentum (i.e., to convert and become initiated). Backing this up is the fact that the spiritual authority of the perfecti/parfais lay in their having gone through consolamentum, rather than from having studied writings or being able to recite doctrine. Initiation, for Cathars, was the gateway that opened up "knowledge" of God, and that was what they considered most important.

The Cathars who cited scripture in the way you cite, were really trying to show that they weren't all that divergent from the Catholics. In other words, they were using passages like the above apologetically, rather than authoritatively. It was their use of such apologetics that convinced pro-Catholic missionaries like St Dominic Guzman that ultimately the Cathars could not be persuaded out of their heresy. That determination, once it was adopted by the whole Church itself, led to the Inquisitions.

Outside of movements such as Marcionism and most types of Gnosticism, recognition that the OT and NT gods are two different beings, is largely a modern phenomenon. The reasons for this are complex. In at least some cases it was motivated by contrarianism ... i.e. people like Tertullian argued along these lines:

1. Marcion said the OT and NT gods are different
2. Marcion is always wrong because he's a heretic
3. Therefore the OT and NT gods must be the same being

Yes, it's irrational and fallacious reasoning, but it's powerful. It's partly because people like Marcion taught duality, that "orthodox" Christians dug their heels in even harder on the issue and adopted unity instead.

SirArthur

Well, that kind of arguments doesn't stand anymore. One for be heretic the mainstream has to be sure to be right. Since there're no certain on God matters, #2 voids, by accumulation #3 is voided as well. As you said, it's irrational.

I hope in the future, with Islam defeated or resumed to marginal groups for good, Christianity can come closer to Buddhism. Its aberrant to have a violent Christianity taken for the character of Christ, but I understand it to be needed due to its neighborhood.

__________________
We can never have an idea of what we can achieve. All we can do is follow an interrogation and see where it may lead us to.

PsiCop

I'd much rather see humanity shake off its need for ANY metaphysics -- whether it's Christianity, Buddhism, or something else.

AB517

"What we do know about Marcion himself is that he had a very poor opinion of anyone who did not share his beliefs;"

lmao,

sounds like us here. Some of us think of our beliefs as facts.

SirArthur

I've no problem with anyone else's spiritual beliefs... my only problem is with those who wishes to impose spiritual beliefs by violence.
So, if all religions assume a Buddhist-like behavior I won't bother with them nor bother them anymore.

__________________
We can never have an idea of what we can achieve. All we can do is follow an interrogation and see where it may lead us to.

PsiCop

Are you SURE you want Christian metaphysics replaced by Buddhist metaphysics? It's not appreciably more rational, even if historically it has not caused as much atrocity.

I can think of few examples of the foolishness and irrationality of Buddhist metaphysics, than the way in which the Dalai Lama reached office. You see, the 13th Dalai Lama had died in 1933 and the monks who ran Tibet started roaming Tibet for his reincarnation, each armed with one or two of the late Dalai Lama's things. In 1937 a monk entered a hovel where a 2-year-old boy named Lhamo Thondup spotted what the monk carried and said "That's mine!"

Yep. You heard that right. A two-year-old laying claim to some trinket, identified him ... in terms of Buddhist metaphysics, wherein people are reincarnated repeatedly ... as the ruler of Tibet.

It's not a Monty Python skit. It really happened. I am NOT kidding. The people of Tibet REALLY chose their ruler that way.

Make sense? Only if you accept the veracity of Buddhist metaphysics, but even then I can't see it as anything other than irrational. If you think the world would be better off in the hands of people who think this way ... well, best of luck to you. As for me, I stand by my earlier statement that humanity would be FAR better off without ANY of this nonsensical metaphysical crap.

SirArthur

You got it wrong, I don't care much for metaphysics, superstitions and alike. When I referred a Buddhist-like behavior I meant on the pacifism way, not on Christianity using the same metaphysic methods and beliefs of Buddhism.
Christ wasn't Buddha.

__________________
We can never have an idea of what we can achieve. All we can do is follow an interrogation and see where it may lead us to.