Was Marcion of Sinope a Christian? Are catholics Christians? What about Protestants? Gnostics??

[firedragon]

Marcion was a man who had money. according to Caspar Rene Gregory, was "in every way the most active and influential man, bearing the name of Christian, between Paul and Origen." As you as a reader probably would know Marcion could not reconcile between the God of the New Testament (The smaller canon he had, not the current canon) and the God of the "Old Testament" what ever the OT canon he had.

He thought that the OT God was a vengeful, wrathful and murderous God, while the God of the NT is a loving and merciful God. They cannot be reconciled. Thus, he had his eureka moment and decided "they are two Gods". Some of his well known followers like Apelles said the second God or Deus Secondus was a helping angel. This is all because they simply could not reconcile the two.

Of course he was called a Heretic which is obviously expected, but being called a heretic, does that mean you are I have a right to say "he is no Christian"? He was called the First born Satan. But hey, even Arias was called a heretic. The Arian concept became Arian heresy.

Catholics with a large canon of the Bible, and the belief that Mary was Theotokos, and that Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and that science of authenticating a saint is valid, etc, are now called "Not Christian". But strangely I have not really come across too many Catholics making such claims about others though their number is bigger. Maybe their evangelism is not that hammered into adherents so that they are more silent than protestants. For what ever reason, can you play God and say they are not Christian?

Was Arias not Christian because of the difference in his theology? Does not he have a right to call himself what he wishes?

I opened this thread because this very topic came up in another conversation as an example. But I would like to get some exchanges.

 

[danieldemol]

Marcion was a man who had money. according to Caspar Rene Gregory, was "in every way the most active and influential man, bearing the name of Christian, between Paul and Origen." As you as a reader probably would know Marcion could not reconcile between the God of the New Testament (The smaller canon he had, not the current canon) and the God of the "Old Testament" what ever the OT canon he had.

He thought that the OT God was a vengeful, wrathful and murderous God, while the God of the NT is a loving and merciful God. They cannot be reconciled. Thus, he had his eureka moment and decided "they are two Gods". Some of his well known followers like Apelles said the second God or Deus Secondus was a helping angel. This is all because they simply could not reconcile the two.

Of course he was called a Heretic which is obviously expected, but being called a heretic, does that mean you are I have a right to say "he is no Christian"? He was called the First born Satan. But hey, even Arias was called a heretic. The Arian concept became Arian heresy.

Catholics with a large canon of the Bible, and the belief that Mary was Theotokos, and that Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and that science of authenticating a saint is valid, etc, are now called "Not Christian". But strangely I have not really come across too many Catholics making such claims about others though their number is bigger. Maybe their evangelism is not that hammered into adherents so that they are more silent than protestants. For what ever reason, can you play God and say they are not Christian?

Was Arias not Christian because of the difference in his theology? Does not he have a right to call himself what he wishes?

I opened this thread because this very topic came up in another conversation as an example. But I would like to get some exchanges.

To determine whether Marcion was a Christian or not you would have to come up with a definition of what a "Christian" is in some well defined sense as opposed to a vague sense like a "follower of Christ". But it seems that definitions of what constitutes a Christian do vary amongst those who call themselves Christians, so I think it is safer to say he was a heretical (to the main branch) Christian as it seems more objective than making a subjective judgement call on what constitutes a Christian.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Marcion was a man who had money. according to Caspar Rene Gregory, was "in every way the most active and influential man, bearing the name of Christian, between Paul and Origen." As you as a reader probably would know Marcion could not reconcile between the God of the New Testament (The smaller canon he had, not the current canon) and the God of the "Old Testament" what ever the OT canon he had.

He thought that the OT God was a vengeful, wrathful and murderous God, while the God of the NT is a loving and merciful God. They cannot be reconciled. Thus, he had his eureka moment and decided "they are two Gods". Some of his well known followers like Apelles said the second God or Deus Secondus was a helping angel. This is all because they simply could not reconcile the two.

Of course he was called a Heretic which is obviously expected, but being called a heretic, does that mean you are I have a right to say "he is no Christian"? He was called the First born Satan. But hey, even Arias was called a heretic. The Arian concept became Arian heresy.

Catholics with a large canon of the Bible, and the belief that Mary was Theotokos, and that Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and that science of authenticating a saint is valid, etc, are now called "Not Christian". But strangely I have not really come across too many Catholics making such claims about others though their number is bigger. Maybe their evangelism is not that hammered into adherents so that they are more silent than protestants. For what ever reason, can you play God and say they are not Christian?

Was Arias not Christian because of the difference in his theology? Does not he have a right to call himself what he wishes?

I opened this thread because this very topic came up in another conversation as an example. But I would like to get some exchanges.

The first question I would ask is what disqualifies a person from being a Christian?

 

[Harel13]

This doesn't seem like a Christianity-centric issue. One could probably make the same arguments about other religions.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Marcion was a man who had money. according to Caspar Rene Gregory, was "in every way the most active and influential man, bearing the name of Christian, between Paul and Origen." As you as a reader probably would know Marcion could not reconcile between the God of the New Testament (The smaller canon he had, not the current canon) and the God of the "Old Testament" what ever the OT canon he had.

He thought that the OT God was a vengeful, wrathful and murderous God, while the God of the NT is a loving and merciful God. They cannot be reconciled. Thus, he had his eureka moment and decided "they are two Gods". Some of his well known followers like Apelles said the second God or Deus Secondus was a helping angel. This is all because they simply could not reconcile the two.

Of course he was called a Heretic which is obviously expected, but being called a heretic, does that mean you are I have a right to say "he is no Christian"? He was called the First born Satan. But hey, even Arias was called a heretic. The Arian concept became Arian heresy.

Catholics with a large canon of the Bible, and the belief that Mary was Theotokos, and that Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and that science of authenticating a saint is valid, etc, are now called "Not Christian". But strangely I have not really come across too many Catholics making such claims about others though their number is bigger. Maybe their evangelism is not that hammered into adherents so that they are more silent than protestants. For what ever reason, can you play God and say they are not Christian?

Was Arias not Christian because of the difference in his theology? Does not he have a right to call himself what he wishes?

I opened this thread because this very topic came up in another conversation as an example. But I would like to get some exchanges.

Can one be a Christian if they reject Jesus died for our sins and say that Yahweh is evil and that he is a separate God to Jesus?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can one be a Christian if they reject Jesus died for our sins and say that Yahweh is evil and that he is a separate God to Jesus?

It is a nitpick problem.
As far as I can tell Marcion of Sinope is in the Abrahamic tradition in one sense and not in another. What that makes him as for further classification depends on how you do the classification.

 

[firedragon]

Can one be a Christian if they reject Jesus died for our sins and say that Yahweh is evil and that he is a separate God to Jesus?

I dont know. I dont think I can make a personal judgment like that.

But, if that man calls himself Christian I think he has a right. This is the game of calling others an outsider and everyone calls themselves various things. Its a sectarian game.

Anyway, let me ask you.
1. What does Christian mean in your understanding?
2. Why is that the valid understanding of "Christian"?

 

[firedragon]

The first question I would ask is what disqualifies a person from being a Christian?

I dont know. Thats the question. Why do you think?

 

[firedragon]

To determine whether Marcion was a Christian or not you would have to come up with a definition of what a "Christian" is in some well defined sense as opposed to a vague sense like a "follower of Christ". But it seems that definitions of what constitutes a Christian do vary amongst those who call themselves Christians, so I think it is safer to say he was a heretical (to the main branch) Christian as it seems more objective than making a subjective judgement call on what constitutes a Christian.

1. So what do you think is the "CORRECT" definition of a "Christian"?
2. And how did you arrive at it?

 

[Deeje]

FWIW....my 2 cents worth...

Marcion could not reconcile between the God of the New Testament (The smaller canon he had, not the current canon) and the God of the "Old Testament" what ever the OT canon he had.

He thought that the OT God was a vengeful, wrathful and murderous God, while the God of the NT is a loving and merciful God. They cannot be reconciled. Thus, he had his eureka moment and decided "they are two Gods". Some of his well known followers like Apelles said the second God or Deus Secondus was a helping angel. This is all because they simply could not reconcile the two.

Reconciling the God of ancient Israel with the God of Jesus in the first century is not difficult at all. Different times called for different revelations, different circumstances and a greater understanding of the "sacred secret" (Matthew 13:11; Colossians 2:2) that had been gradually unfolding over centuries. There was also adjustments to the institution of a new covenant, dispensing with the old one and its 'curse'. (Galatians 3:10; 13) There is no need to create myths to explain the misinterpretation of scripture IMO.

Jesus represented his Father very well in my view. He was kind to those who wanted to hear what he had to say, but not so kind to the hypocrites who led the Jews in a corrupted form of worship. (Matthew 23) He demonstrated compassion to those who were struggling with their own imperfections....but he expressed anger towards those who wanted to turn his Father's house into "a cave of robbers". He depicted his Father as merciful and kind, but not a mamby-pamby all forgiving sop. If you did things God's way you earned his favor, but if you worked against the will of God, woe betide you. (Matthew 7:21-23)

Of course he was called a Heretic which is obviously expected, but being called a heretic, does that mean you are I have a right to say "he is no Christian"? He was called the First born Satan. But hey, even Arias was called a heretic. The Arian concept became Arian heresy.

The whole idea of heresy was ridiculous in the centuries following Jesus' death...that is when we saw a steady decline in the caliber of those who called themselves "Christians". The declaration of Roman Catholicism as the state religion of the Roman Empire in the fourth century was a travesty because the Christian faith had suffered from the influence of apostates for hundreds of years (which was prophesied) ......they then gladly accepted the fusion of weakened Christianity and pagan Roman sun worship. They made Zeus fit the model of Jesus Christ and adopted all manner of false teachings to glorify Jesus' mother rather than his Father. How could they call anyone a heretic when those who pointed accusing fingers at everyone else were the worst heretics themselves? History was repeating.

"By their fruits" Jesus said we could identify his true disciples in a field of "weeds". These ones would not have blood on their hands, even though they may have had their own blood shed for daring to question the authority of "the church".

Catholics with a large canon of the Bible, and the belief that Mary was Theotokos, and that Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and that science of authenticating a saint is valid, etc, are now called "Not Christian".

What does God call them? That is the most important question. If their beliefs are not traceable back to Jesus Christ, but found in pagan religions, what place do they have in Christian worship? (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

Does God have three heads and three personalities who can be in different places at the same time? Jesus never taught about such a god. Was Mary the Mother of God? How ridiculous! Jesus said that she was his mother but never once said that he was God. Would God torture souls in hell? There was no such place in Jewish beliefs because there was no belief in an immortal soul...that came later, adopted from Greek Platonism.

For what ever reason, can you play God and say they are not Christian?

No one has to play God but God....but we do have to evaluate the Bible's teachings for ourselves and see what Jesus taught.....we have to allow God to lead us, which he said he will do if we have the correct response to his message of salvation. (John 6:44)

Was Arias not Christian because of the difference in his theology? Does not he have a right to call himself what he wishes?

We can all call ourselves anything we want....but God is not a reader of labels, he is a reader of hearts. He knows who is serving his interests and who is not....he knows whose worship is genuine and whose is false......he will draw those in whom he find a love of truth (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12).....nobody fools him. (John 6:65)

That is what I believe....

 

[Marcion]

Marcion was a man who had money. according to Caspar Rene Gregory, was "in every way the most active and influential man, bearing the name of Christian, between Paul and Origen." As you as a reader probably would know Marcion could not reconcile between the God of the New Testament (The smaller canon he had, not the current canon) and the God of the "Old Testament" what ever the OT canon he had.

He thought that the OT God was a vengeful, wrathful and murderous God, while the God of the NT is a loving and merciful God. They cannot be reconciled. Thus, he had his eureka moment and decided "they are two Gods". Some of his well known followers like Apelles said the second God or Deus Secondus was a helping angel. This is all because they simply could not reconcile the two.

Of course he was called a Heretic which is obviously expected, but being called a heretic, does that mean you are I have a right to say "he is no Christian"? He was called the First born Satan. But hey, even Arias was called a heretic. The Arian concept became Arian heresy.

Catholics with a large canon of the Bible, and the belief that Mary was Theotokos, and that Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and that science of authenticating a saint is valid, etc, are now called "Not Christian". But strangely I have not really come across too many Catholics making such claims about others though their number is bigger. Maybe their evangelism is not that hammered into adherents so that they are more silent than protestants. For what ever reason, can you play God and say they are not Christian?

Was Arias not Christian because of the difference in his theology? Does not he have a right to call himself what he wishes?

I opened this thread because this very topic came up in another conversation as an example. But I would like to get some exchanges.

When Marcion lived, there was no Christian Bible.
In fact Marcion was the one who created the first Christian Bible by binding gLuke and the oldest (parts of) letters of Paul together in one book.

He must have rejected gMatthew and was not so interested in gMark (because it lacks a lot of the sayings of Jesus).

The Jewish scriptures were the holy texts of Jewish Christians but they did not yet have a Christian Bible.
So Marcion was the first who decided about a canon for the Christian Bible and his Church community may have for a long time been larger than all of the rest of the Christian Church.

The Christianity centered on Rome however did not continue with the choice that Marcion had made, they decided that certain Jewish scriptures, gMatthew and gMark werd also sacred scriptures and they wrote extensions to gLuke and to the letters of Paul and also added extra pseudo-graphical letters and Acts to give their religion a mythical history.

Later Church fathers would accuse Marcion (long after he died) of shortening gLuke and removing letters (and parts of letters) by Paul. But in fact, the versions which Marcion used had been the more original ones and it was the later Church centered on Rome which had added newer texts.

They also accused Marcion of being a heretic for rejecting the Old Testament God but in fact it was the Church centered on Rome that had merged the two different views about God into one new theology about God which made it acceptable to combine a so-called "Old Testament" and "New Testament" into one merged "Holy Scripture" which Marcion would not have been able to accept had he known it.

The Church fathers had to call Marcion a heretic who forged the scriptures in order to claim the superiority of the Church centered on Rome and its Scriptures. But their arguments are simply lies and if you read them you will see how unlikely/impossible it is that Marcion had known and abused their versions of gLuke and the (so-called) letters by Paul. Those versions simply did not exist in Marcion's time.

The oldest parts of the letters of Paul may have originated in a gnostic section of Christianity that had Simon of Samaria ("the Magician") as their founding father. He had claimed to be on the same level as Christ and created that peculiar type of Christianity which does not center itself on the teachings of Jesus.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I dont know. Thats the question. Why do you think?

At its bare bones it is denying that Jesus died to redeem you of sin and that Jesus was manifest in the flesh. Also, that the God of the OT is the True God and that salvation is only through Christ.

 

[Samael_Khan]

1. What does Christian mean in your understanding?

It means follower of the Christ. But it was coined as a term for people who specifically followed Jesus and said that he died to redeem others of sin and that salvation is only through him.

2. Why is that the valid understanding of "Christian"?

In terms of what? Just the name or all the other baggage associated with the group that it applies to?

 

[firedragon]

At its bare bones it is denying that Jesus died to redeem you of sin and that Jesus was manifest in the flesh. Also, that the God of the OT is the True God and that salvation is only through Christ.

Whats the source of this? Scripture, thought, or majority view? When did this view begin? Whats the material that says so?

 

[firedragon]

It means follower of the Christ. But it was coined as a term for people who specifically followed Jesus and said that he died to redeem others of sin and that salvation is only through him.

Where is that said? Lets say this word was coined by the non-CHristians to address the followers of Christ in Turkey! Who said that they coined it to mean "as a term for people who specifically followed Jesus and said that he died to redeem others of sin and that salvation is only through him." like you said? Those in Antioch never said that or is not recorded in the NT. So where did you get that from?

In terms of what? Just the name or all the other baggage associated with the group that it applies to?

What ever your perspective is. Now above you said "as a term for people who specifically followed Jesus and said that he died to redeem others of sin and that salvation is only through him.". So I think that answers the question.

Whats the source for that as I asked above?

 

[firedragon]

When Marcion lived, there was no Christian Bible.
In fact Marcion was the one who created the first Christian Bible by binding gLuke and the oldest (parts of) letters of Paul together in one book.

Exactly.

He must have rejected gMatthew and was not so interested in gMark (because it lacks a lot of the sayings of Jesus).

Maybe he never knew them. Same as the pastoral letters attributed to Paul.

The Jewish scriptures were the holy texts of Jewish Christians but they did not yet have a Christian Bible.
So Marcion was the first who decided about a canon for the Christian Bible and his Church community may have for a long time been larger than all of the rest of the Christian Church.

The Christianity centered on Rome however did not continue with the choice that Marcion had made, they decided that certain Jewish scriptures, gMatthew and gMark werd also sacred scriptures and they wrote extensions to gLuke and to the letters of Paul and also added extra pseudo-graphical letters and Acts to give their religion a mythical history.

Later Church fathers would accuse Marcion (long after he died) of shortening gLuke and removing letters (and parts of letters) by Paul. But in fact, the versions which Marcion used had been the more original ones and it was the later Church centered on Rome which had added newer texts.

They also accused Marcion of being a heretic for rejecting the Old Testament God but in fact it was the Church centered on Rome that had merged the two different views about God into one new theology about God which made it acceptable to combine a so-called "Old Testament" and "New Testament" into one merged "Holy Scripture" which Marcion would not have been able to accept had he known it.

The Church fathers had to call Marcion a heretic who forged the scriptures in order to claim the superiority of the Church centered on Rome and its Scriptures. But their arguments are simply lies and if you read them you will see how unlikely/impossible it is that Marcion had known and abused their versions of gLuke and the (so-called) letters by Paul. Those versions simply did not exist in Marcion's time.

The oldest parts of the letters of Paul may have originated in a gnostic section of Christianity that had Simon of Samaria ("the Magician") as their founding father. He had claimed to be on the same level as Christ and created that peculiar type of Christianity which does not center itself on the teachings of Jesus.

All good.

Thus how do you respond to the OP?

 

[danieldemol]

1. So what do you think is the "CORRECT" definition of a "Christian"?
2. And how did you arrive at it?

1. I don't think there is a correct definition, I'm content to call a person a Christian if they consider themselves a Christian.
2. I didn't arrive at it (see number 1)

 

[Samael_Khan]

Whats the source of this? Scripture, thought, or majority view? When did this view begin? Whats the material that says so?

The earliest manuscripts of the Bible.
The earliest records of Christians.
Historian consensus of what the early christians believed.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Where is that said? Lets say this word was coined by the non-CHristians to address the followers of Christ in Turkey! Who said that they coined it to mean "as a term for people who specifically followed Jesus and said that he died to redeem others of sin and that salvation is only through him." like you said? Those in Antioch never said that or is not recorded in the NT. So where did you get that from?

The term was applied to a specific group. Therefore we can say that that groups believes gel with the classification. Christianity wasn't even the original name of the group. It was known as the Way according to the NT.

 

[firedragon]

1. I don't think there is a correct definition, I'm content to call a person a Christian if they consider themselves a Christian.
2. I didn't arrive at it (see number 1)

Great. Thanks. In my eye, you nailed it.