The fictional Pope Peter
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-06-2015, 04:20 PM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(03-06-2015 02:35 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(01-06-2015 12:25 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  Okay, so now that things have settled down, consider this:

http://www.ntcanon.org/Marcion.shtml


Why would Marcion go to Rome for some meshugganah hearing when in reality it seems that Rome was not yet significant in the xtian sphere compared to places such as Antioch and Alexandria? Could this be nothing more than another part of the myth of Roman "primacy" which developed later? Of particular note is the underlined part. Why the fuck would someone from Sinope be a "member" of a Roman church? This stinks.

Marcion is a mystery man. I'm not sure anyone knows exactly why he went to Rome. Maybe because it was the centre of the known world?

I'm not an authority on Marcion, but it doesn't sound as though he's the sort of guy who would become a member of the church he wasn't in charge of.

I had an interesting thought about him. I doubt that he promoted his version of Luke. Paul was Marcion's hero. Marcion allegedly promoted Paul's ten letters. I suspect the church fathers manufactured Marcion's connection to Luke so that it appeared as though Paul knew something of a Jesus. Just a thought.

Whoops. I almost missed this. I was going to start a new thread but this plays into it.

Marcion's Canon comprised 10 so-called pauline epistles and something called the Gospel of the Lord which it turns out is Luke...more or less but not called that.


http://gnosis.org/library/marcionsection.htm

Note that the Gospel of the Lord starts with Luke 3...which leaves out all the embarrassing shit about the nativity (which does not match Matty) and the fictional tax census of Augustus and the genealogy which again does not match Matty, etc., etc. Tertullian claimed that Marcion had edited out the 1 and 2d chapters...but then, why not call it Luke instead of the gospel of "the Lord?" Perhaps the first two chapters were added-on to address certain doctrinal problems which had arisen in the interim? That makes more sense to me. Anyway, look that site over.


Now, I was going to ask about Heresy. Heresy was a big thing for the proto-orthodox especially since they wanted themselves to be othodox and everyone else to be heretics! Consider this from the intro of Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities."




Quote:The Varieties of Ancient Christianity

The wide diversity of early Christianity may be seen above all in the theological beliefs embraced by people who understood themselves to be followers of Jesus. In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in one God. But there were others who insisted that there were two. Some said there were thirty. Others claimed there were 365.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that God had created the world. But others believed that this world had been created by a subordinate, ignorant divinity. (Why else would the world be filled with such misery and hardship?) Yet other Christians thought it was worse than that, that this world was a cosmic mistake created by a malevolent divinity as a place of imprisonment, to trap humans and subject them to pain and suffering.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that the Jewish Scripture (the Christian “Old Testament”) was inspired by the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by the God of the Jews, who was not the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by an evil deity. Others believed it was not inspired.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that Jesus was both divine and human, God and man. There were other Christians who argued that he was completely divine and not human at all. (For them, divinity and humanity were incommensurate entities: God can no more be a man than a man can be a rock.) There were others who insisted that Jesus was a full flesh-and-blood human, adopted by God to be his son but not himself divine. There were yet other Christians who claimed that Jesus Christ was two things: a full flesh-and-blood human, Jesus, and a fully divine being, Christ, who had temporarily inhabited Jesus’ body during his ministry and left him prior to his death, inspiring his teachings and miracles but avoiding the suffering in its aftermath.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that Jesus’ death brought about the salvation of the world. There were other Christians who thought that Jesus’ death had nothing to do with the salvation of the world. There were yet other Christians who said that Jesus never died. How could some of these views even be considered Christian? Or to put the question differently, how could people who considered themselves Christian hold such views? Why did they not consult their Scriptures to see that there were not 365 gods, or that the true God had created the world, or that Jesus had died? Why didn’t they just read the New Testament?

It is because there was no New Testament. To be sure, the books that were eventually collected into the New Testament had been written by the second century. But they had not yet been gathered into a widely recognized and authoritative canon of Scripture.1 And there were other books written as well, with equally impressive pedigrees—other Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses claiming to be written by the earthly apostles of Jesus.

Now the proto-orthodox view was that they were the original, true-believers, and all of their happy horseshit sprang from the mid first century BC. Yet, when you consider the divergent views noted above does that really seem reasonable? They are claiming that in a short space of time people who had heard the Truth had drifted so far away from the mainstream that they are virtually unrecognizable as xtians. Further, it does not seem from any records we have that the proto-orthodox really hit its stride until the late 2d century which suggests that all of these groups had been developing independently until much later on. Until Constantine it is doubtful that there was any "church" to enforce discipline on other sects which is yet another fly in the ointment.

Curiously, when we see heretical groups in the Middle Ages they are like the Cathars who thought the church was too "worldly" and they were True Christians and they were not the only ones. Even Luther began by attacking the church itself rather than doctrine.

Anyway, let me know what you think.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
04-06-2015, 04:34 PM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(04-06-2015 04:20 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
(03-06-2015 02:35 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Marcion is a mystery man. I'm not sure anyone knows exactly why he went to Rome. Maybe because it was the centre of the known world?

I'm not an authority on Marcion, but it doesn't sound as though he's the sort of guy who would become a member of the church he wasn't in charge of.

I had an interesting thought about him. I doubt that he promoted his version of Luke. Paul was Marcion's hero. Marcion allegedly promoted Paul's ten letters. I suspect the church fathers manufactured Marcion's connection to Luke so that it appeared as though Paul knew something of a Jesus. Just a thought.

Whoops. I almost missed this. I was going to start a new thread but this plays into it.

Marcion's Canon comprised 10 so-called pauline epistles and something called the Gospel of the Lord which it turns out is Luke...more or less but not called that.


http://gnosis.org/library/marcionsection.htm

Note that the Gospel of the Lord starts with Luke 3...which leaves out all the embarrassing shit about the nativity (which does not match Matty) and the fictional tax census of Augustus and the genealogy which again does not match Matty, etc., etc. Tertullian claimed that Marcion had edited out the 1 and 2d chapters...but then, why not call it Luke instead of the gospel of "the Lord?" Perhaps the first two chapters were added-on to address certain doctrinal problems which had arisen in the interim? That makes more sense to me. Anyway, look that site over.


Now, I was going to ask about Heresy. Heresy was a big thing for the proto-orthodox especially since they wanted themselves to be othodox and everyone else to be heretics! Consider this from the intro of Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities."




Quote:The Varieties of Ancient Christianity

The wide diversity of early Christianity may be seen above all in the theological beliefs embraced by people who understood themselves to be followers of Jesus. In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in one God. But there were others who insisted that there were two. Some said there were thirty. Others claimed there were 365.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that God had created the world. But others believed that this world had been created by a subordinate, ignorant divinity. (Why else would the world be filled with such misery and hardship?) Yet other Christians thought it was worse than that, that this world was a cosmic mistake created by a malevolent divinity as a place of imprisonment, to trap humans and subject them to pain and suffering.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that the Jewish Scripture (the Christian “Old Testament”) was inspired by the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by the God of the Jews, who was not the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by an evil deity. Others believed it was not inspired.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that Jesus was both divine and human, God and man. There were other Christians who argued that he was completely divine and not human at all. (For them, divinity and humanity were incommensurate entities: God can no more be a man than a man can be a rock.) There were others who insisted that Jesus was a full flesh-and-blood human, adopted by God to be his son but not himself divine. There were yet other Christians who claimed that Jesus Christ was two things: a full flesh-and-blood human, Jesus, and a fully divine being, Christ, who had temporarily inhabited Jesus’ body during his ministry and left him prior to his death, inspiring his teachings and miracles but avoiding the suffering in its aftermath.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that Jesus’ death brought about the salvation of the world. There were other Christians who thought that Jesus’ death had nothing to do with the salvation of the world. There were yet other Christians who said that Jesus never died. How could some of these views even be considered Christian? Or to put the question differently, how could people who considered themselves Christian hold such views? Why did they not consult their Scriptures to see that there were not 365 gods, or that the true God had created the world, or that Jesus had died? Why didn’t they just read the New Testament?

It is because there was no New Testament. To be sure, the books that were eventually collected into the New Testament had been written by the second century. But they had not yet been gathered into a widely recognized and authoritative canon of Scripture.1 And there were other books written as well, with equally impressive pedigrees—other Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses claiming to be written by the earthly apostles of Jesus.

Now the proto-orthodox view was that they were the original, true-believers, and all of their happy horseshit sprang from the mid first century BC. Yet, when you consider the divergent views noted above does that really seem reasonable? They are claiming that in a short space of time people who had heard the Truth had drifted so far away from the mainstream that they are virtually unrecognizable as xtians. Further, it does not seem from any records we have that the proto-orthodox really hit its stride until the late 2d century which suggests that all of these groups had been developing independently until much later on. Until Constantine it is doubtful that there was any "church" to enforce discipline on other sects which is yet another fly in the ointment.

Curiously, when we see heretical groups in the Middle Ages they are like the Cathars who thought the church was too "worldly" and they were True Christians and they were not the only ones. Even Luther began by attacking the church itself rather than doctrine.

Anyway, let me know what you think.

"Perhaps the first two chapters were added-on to address certain doctrinal problems which had arisen in the interim? That makes more sense to me."

Agreed. As far as I'm aware there is no evidence of the first two chapters in Luke prior to Marcion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2015, 05:01 PM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2015 05:29 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(04-06-2015 04:20 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
(03-06-2015 02:35 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Marcion is a mystery man. I'm not sure anyone knows exactly why he went to Rome. Maybe because it was the centre of the known world?

I'm not an authority on Marcion, but it doesn't sound as though he's the sort of guy who would become a member of the church he wasn't in charge of.

I had an interesting thought about him. I doubt that he promoted his version of Luke. Paul was Marcion's hero. Marcion allegedly promoted Paul's ten letters. I suspect the church fathers manufactured Marcion's connection to Luke so that it appeared as though Paul knew something of a Jesus. Just a thought.

Whoops. I almost missed this. I was going to start a new thread but this plays into it.

Marcion's Canon comprised 10 so-called pauline epistles and something called the Gospel of the Lord which it turns out is Luke...more or less but not called that.


http://gnosis.org/library/marcionsection.htm

Note that the Gospel of the Lord starts with Luke 3...which leaves out all the embarrassing shit about the nativity (which does not match Matty) and the fictional tax census of Augustus and the genealogy which again does not match Matty, etc., etc. Tertullian claimed that Marcion had edited out the 1 and 2d chapters...but then, why not call it Luke instead of the gospel of "the Lord?" Perhaps the first two chapters were added-on to address certain doctrinal problems which had arisen in the interim? That makes more sense to me. Anyway, look that site over.


Now, I was going to ask about Heresy. Heresy was a big thing for the proto-orthodox especially since they wanted themselves to be othodox and everyone else to be heretics! Consider this from the intro of Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities."


Quote:The Varieties of Ancient Christianity

The wide diversity of early Christianity may be seen above all in the theological beliefs embraced by people who understood themselves to be followers of Jesus. In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in one God. But there were others who insisted that there were two. Some said there were thirty. Others claimed there were 365.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that God had created the world. But others believed that this world had been created by a subordinate, ignorant divinity. (Why else would the world be filled with such misery and hardship?) Yet other Christians thought it was worse than that, that this world was a cosmic mistake created by a malevolent divinity as a place of imprisonment, to trap humans and subject them to pain and suffering.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that the Jewish Scripture (the Christian “Old Testament”) was inspired by the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by the God of the Jews, who was not the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by an evil deity. Others believed it was not inspired.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that Jesus was both divine and human, God and man. There were other Christians who argued that he was completely divine and not human at all. (For them, divinity and humanity were incommensurate entities: God can no more be a man than a man can be a rock.) There were others who insisted that Jesus was a full flesh-and-blood human, adopted by God to be his son but not himself divine. There were yet other Christians who claimed that Jesus Christ was two things: a full flesh-and-blood human, Jesus, and a fully divine being, Christ, who had temporarily inhabited Jesus’ body during his ministry and left him prior to his death, inspiring his teachings and miracles but avoiding the suffering in its aftermath.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that Jesus’ death brought about the salvation of the world. There were other Christians who thought that Jesus’ death had nothing to do with the salvation of the world. There were yet other Christians who said that Jesus never died. How could some of these views even be considered Christian? Or to put the question differently, how could people who considered themselves Christian hold such views? Why did they not consult their Scriptures to see that there were not 365 gods, or that the true God had created the world, or that Jesus had died? Why didn’t they just read the New Testament?

It is because there was no New Testament. To be sure, the books that were eventually collected into the New Testament had been written by the second century. But they had not yet been gathered into a widely recognized and authoritative canon of Scripture.1 And there were other books written as well, with equally impressive pedigrees—other Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses claiming to be written by the earthly apostles of Jesus.

Now the proto-orthodox view was that they were the original, true-believers, and all of their happy horseshit sprang from the mid first century BC. Yet, when you consider the divergent views noted above does that really seem reasonable? They are claiming that in a short space of time people who had heard the Truth had drifted so far away from the mainstream that they are virtually unrecognizable as xtians. Further, it does not seem from any records we have that the proto-orthodox really hit its stride until the late 2d century which suggests that all of these groups had been developing independently until much later on. Until Constantine it is doubtful that there was any "church" to enforce discipline on other sects which is yet another fly in the ointment.

Curiously, when we see heretical groups in the Middle Ages they are like the Cathars who thought the church was too "worldly" and they were True Christians and they were not the only ones. Even Luther began by attacking the church itself rather than doctrine.

Anyway, let me know what you think.

Agreed.

Only from the fourth century onwards was there an obviously dominant, unified, institutionalized form of Christianity – Catholicism. The Catholic Church insinuated itself into the political establishment and insisted on the strict obedience of church leaders. Scores of other Christian cults still existed, but became less important after the Catholics oppressed them.

Catholic bishops met and decided what everyone should and should not believe. They adopted doctrines that set moral codes and behavioral standards and condemned egalitarianism and the esoteric ideas of the Gnostics. These doctrines became known as creeds.

It was only nearly three centuries after the death of Jesus that the Catholic Church decided what were the “facts” about Jesus’ life and his teachings. The stories thus generated became Church dogma. The set of four reports about Jesus, the Gospels, were said to be the true accounts of his life, and it was then touted that these had been told right from when the events supposedly had occurred. Yet the historical records of the previous three hundred years fail to confirm that claim.

In a series of councils over the next few hundred years, more dogma was thrashed out by opposing factions and presented to the public as the truth.

In 313 CE, the Emperor Constantine (reigned from 306–337 CE) reversed the government’s policy of hostility to Christianity in his “Edict of Milan.” Constantine was a highly superstitious man and a Mithraic. Constantine probably respected all religious cults, and interestingly, he saw no contradiction in championing both Mithraism and Christianity. Constantine held the title “Pontifex Maximus,” high priest of the cult of the state, for himself. This title was to be later taken by the Popery.

Constantine’s government embraced Christians as allies. In 320 CE he declared himself a Christian and fashioned himself as a priest-king who was the thirteenth apostle of Jesus. Christianity was given a colossal leg up by becoming the official religion of the empire. The new faith went into partnership with the political masters of the Western world. The Empire now had a universal religion to unite most of its people. It was a marriage of convenience that suited both parties. It was due to this symbiotic connection that Christianity was established and given the means to flourish.

What made Constantine embrace Christianity? His mother was a Christian. The Catholic Church was springing up strongly. The Church was wide reaching and well organized, as it had modeled its hierarchy on Roman (not Jewish!) principles. It had a clerical class, and a chain of command that was competent at controlling conflicts. The bishops had a level of legal autonomy allowing them to interpret law. The Christians accepted people from all parts of the empire and respected Roman rule. All this was attractive to Constantine because he wanted stability. In the preceding decades civil wars and external enemies had challenged the Pax Romana. Constantine was overseeing a massive, disparate empire, so the social cohesion made possible by a universal monotheism was appealing.

Constantine was a smart man; he knew the people were easier to control if they all shared the same religion.

The Christian hierarchy received economic favors from the government. The money that had previously gone to pagan priests now went to Christian bishops. Later in the fourth century all other pagan cults were suppressed or destroyed, although many of their traditions were absorbed into Christianity. Those foolhardy enough to hold onto their old beliefs were persecuted.

Wealthy people commonly left one third of their property to the church and the Christian clergy were exempt from paying some taxes. To be a bishop became a ticket to affluence, and an appointment as such was highly sought after. Bribery and tax evasion were common. Inevitably, it was the rich and well-connected who became bishops, and many were lured from the army or navy.

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/milan.stm

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a104.htm

http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/arc/constant...ntine.html

The Catholic Church became very wealthy and powerful.

As a consequence of Paul’s amorphous Christ concept, there was much contention as to whether Christ was a god, spirit, mortal man, or all three. Arius, a presbyter from Libya, gained followers around the empire by insisting

“there was a time when the Son was not,”

in other words, the son was a creation, and in some way inferior to, the father. Others said the son was of the same substance as the father. The argument spread, threatening to rip the church in two.

Constantine disapproved of the conjecture and called the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE to rectify the rift. ( the-christian-emperor.html ) was the first ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, and Constantine attended, which confirms how close church and state had become.

There was a belligerent atmosphere at the council. ( http://www.cristoraul.com/ENGLISH/readin...ofHistory/ CONSTANTINE_THE_GREAT/11.html ) resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine; that Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit were all of the same substance, a belief that became known as the Nicene Creed. ( http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm ). Those who voted against it were banished.

Prior to the Council of Nicaea, Jesus had most often been perceived as an intermediary between man and God; the council decided that he was actually equal to God. The core character of Christianity was created: Jesus the Son of God. This Nicaean formula clearly was not founded on Yeshua. It was nothing more than a contorted creation invented to unify some of the opinions about Jesus.

It is interesting that the bishop of Rome did not attend the council of Nicaea. He did send a few representatives, yet they did not have any particular authority. In the early fourth century Rome was just one of the many big cities vying for authority in the Christian world.

Some authors claim that there were not only Christian commanders at this council, but leaders from many other cults, sects and religions too, including those of Apollo, Demeter/Ceres, Dionysus, Janus, Jupiter, Zeus, Osiris and Isis. ( http://www.northernway.org/pagandna.html )
( http://www.examiner.com/article/1st-coun...ly-church- )
( http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/the_...11/05/137-
state-alliance-produces-1200-yrs-of-censorship-death-part-014 )

The council contrived to coalesce these competing cults under one “Catholic” (i.e. “universal”) church to be controlled by the Constantine government. Their gods were subjugated under the name of the new god, Jesus Christ. If this were true, it would help explain how “Jesus” blended the religious formulas of China, India, Persia, Egypt, Greece, Rome and Palestine into a single sect suitable for all.

Forget Christmas; the Council of Nicea marked the true birth of Jesus Christ.

Any texts that contradicted what the clergy had chosen as canonical were labeled as subversive. Old copies of the Gospels were recalled and scribes were co-opted to make revised copies suitable for consumption throughout Christendom. ( http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblia...zar_40.htm ) ( http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/fabrication of the galilaeans. htm ).

In 335 CE, a mere ten years after the council of Nicea, all of a sudden Jesus was not of the same substance as God any more. A second Council, also convened by Constantine, that of Tyre, reversed the conclusion of the first, and Aryanism, the belief that Jesus was subordinate to the Father, became the brand new dogma. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Synod_of_Tyre )

This decision lasted until Constantine’s death in 337 CE, after which the empire was split into a Nicene West and an Arian East. There was no universal consensus about Jesus’ status for the next forty years or so.

In 381 CE, the emperor Theodosius convened an ecumenical council at Constantinople, resulting in the ratification of the first Nicene formula.

The Roman world was at last given a definitive triune god—an intellectually challenging spiel about three characters in one that is still promoted by churches today. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII6-IyaT3o ).

The uneducated citizens of the Empire, impressed with the promise of a heavenly paradise, and intimidated with violence if they were not, were easy pickings for the Catholic Church, although some of the braver rural people hung on to many of their pagan traditions.

The vastness of the Roman Empire allowed Christianity to spread throughout much of Europe. An infrastructure under the umbrella of one god and emperor was convenient.
Before the Roman Empire declined in Europe, Christianity was firmly established in many of the key regions that would shape the history of the western world.

It is evident that the burgeoning power of Christianity had nothing to do with the inherent truth of the dogma and everything to do with politics and power.

It was Pope Damasus (304–384 CE) ( http://www.nndb.com/people/956/000096668/ ) who first used the “Peter/rock” story in Matthew 16:13–20 in an attempt to assert his supremacy over Christendom. Pope Damasus urged bishops in the east to come to Rome to sort out difficulties and disputes, yet they held a council of their own and, unanimously told him to mind his own business.

In the latter half of the fourth century the bishops or patriarchs of the five major centers of Christianity—Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem—were vying with each other for supreme leadership of the Church. Bishops of Constantinople considered themselves the supreme authority right up until the 12th century.

One might expect that a religion that sometimes preached forgiveness and love would inspire the believers to live in harmony with one another, but it did not. The belief in brotherhood was extended only to Catholics, and even they had fierce factional fights among themselves. All Christians not part of one’s own clique were called heretics and were heading for hell. The numerous camps hated one another with an intensity that inspired the ridicule of critics. They rioted against and persecuted each other, the details of which appear in many pages of ecclesiastical history of the time. This embarrassed Eusebius, the Church’s chief historian.

Julian, Roman emperor from 361-363 CE, who was well educated in Greek philosophy, was less than impressed with Christianity, and may have written

“If anyone should wish to know the truth with respect to you Christians, he will find your impiety to be made up partly of the Jewish audacity, and partly of the indifference and confusion of the gentiles, and that you have put together not the best, but the worst characteristics of them both.”



Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2015, 11:57 PM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
I've been out all night so I'll take an in depth look at this tomorrow.

There is another line of shit that xtians fall for in Acts.

Quote:9 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

So...c 50 AD some smelly Jew is going to go all the way to Damascus to kidnap people and bring them back to Jerusalem? And the government of Damascus, a more or less self-governing city under the aegis of the Imperial Legate of Syria was just going to sit on their asses and let it happen?

Once again, this story seems to reflect a much later time when the church thought it could do whatever the hell it wanted to do.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
05-06-2015, 11:04 AM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(04-06-2015 04:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(04-06-2015 04:20 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Whoops. I almost missed this. I was going to start a new thread but this plays into it.

Marcion's Canon comprised 10 so-called pauline epistles and something called the Gospel of the Lord which it turns out is Luke...more or less but not called that.


http://gnosis.org/library/marcionsection.htm

Note that the Gospel of the Lord starts with Luke 3...which leaves out all the embarrassing shit about the nativity (which does not match Matty) and the fictional tax census of Augustus and the genealogy which again does not match Matty, etc., etc. Tertullian claimed that Marcion had edited out the 1 and 2d chapters...but then, why not call it Luke instead of the gospel of "the Lord?" Perhaps the first two chapters were added-on to address certain doctrinal problems which had arisen in the interim? That makes more sense to me. Anyway, look that site over.


Now, I was going to ask about Heresy. Heresy was a big thing for the proto-orthodox especially since they wanted themselves to be othodox and everyone else to be heretics! Consider this from the intro of Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities."





Now the proto-orthodox view was that they were the original, true-believers, and all of their happy horseshit sprang from the mid first century BC. Yet, when you consider the divergent views noted above does that really seem reasonable? They are claiming that in a short space of time people who had heard the Truth had drifted so far away from the mainstream that they are virtually unrecognizable as xtians. Further, it does not seem from any records we have that the proto-orthodox really hit its stride until the late 2d century which suggests that all of these groups had been developing independently until much later on. Until Constantine it is doubtful that there was any "church" to enforce discipline on other sects which is yet another fly in the ointment.

Curiously, when we see heretical groups in the Middle Ages they are like the Cathars who thought the church was too "worldly" and they were True Christians and they were not the only ones. Even Luther began by attacking the church itself rather than doctrine.

Anyway, let me know what you think.

"Perhaps the first two chapters were added-on to address certain doctrinal problems which had arisen in the interim? That makes more sense to me."

Agreed. As far as I'm aware there is no evidence of the first two chapters in Luke prior to Marcion.

There is no evidence that anyone used the name "Luke" prior to Irenaeus c 185.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2015, 05:47 PM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
I am always a bit skeptical about these claims of Constantine because the vast majority come from the xtian hangers-on around him. Constantine was mainly a thug. If he saw religion as a way of unifying the empire or if the idea was presented to him by the jesus freaks themselves is something we'll never know. As you say, xtianity was not unified itself.

What is true is that he and Licinius did legalize the cult with the Edict of Milan in 313. He also provided financial support but perhaps this should be seen as a redistribution of "spoils" to loyal supporters taken from the losses of those who backed Maxentius? Permitting xtians to spread their bullshit was far from the worst of the mistakes which Constantine made. The dumbing down of the army was perhaps the worst move ever made by any emperor.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2015, 01:39 AM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(05-06-2015 11:04 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  
(04-06-2015 04:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "Perhaps the first two chapters were added-on to address certain doctrinal problems which had arisen in the interim? That makes more sense to me."

Agreed. As far as I'm aware there is no evidence of the first two chapters in Luke prior to Marcion.

There is no evidence that anyone used the name "Luke" prior to Irenaeus c 185.

Yes. Agreed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: