The Problem of Paul and Marcionism

[lclapshaw]

If I am mistaken I apologize. Just want to give you a heads up. I would rather you not feel deceived by a simple misunderstanding.

No apologies needed - I'm well aware of the character of the site, which is my interest and is the subject of my postings.

And if I am a Christian, that I may be one of the only ones on the site...

Ok, cool you're not btw.

[StephenGoranson]

"ebion," Sun Jan 14, 2024 12:02 pm, in part:
"....there is an established Christian group/church founded in the18th c. I have had a lot of dealings with over 4 decades,...."

Name of that group?
Do they approve of your assertions?

ps 18th century or 1800s?

[DCHindley]

If I am mistaken I apologize. Just want to give you a heads up. I would rather you not feel deceived by a simple misunderstanding.

No apologies needed - I'm well aware of the character of the site, which is my interest and is the subject of my postings.

And if I am a Christian, that I may be one of the only ones on the site...

My guess would be that there are a lot of practicing, or "accultured" Christians (brought up in Christian culture and at least try to practice their religion by church attendance or holiday observance), that prefer to lurk, if only to learn something, but do not have the time or energy to participate. Many are agnostic, meaning they are not sure that Jesus was a living extension of God rather than a social construct. They know what they were taught in Christian Sunday School or Synagogue Schools as a child, but never got their heads around their church's beliefs. They hear about the Historical Critical approach, find out that a sizable number of Christian critics have also employed it, not just atheists. Apologists will rear their heads in knee jerk reaction. I guess the average person just likes to seek advice without parroting apologists.

Yes, there has been a too ready acceptance of the idealized descriptions of Judeans in general given by Josephus or Philo or the NT or even the Mishna, where there are organized parties called Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, etc. All of authors (or editors) presented idealized pictures of how they want other Judeans or non-Judeans to perceive things. The real life world, when we get a look at it by accidental preservation of relics (receipts, contracts, agreements, personal letters), seems sometimes to have been much different. I think the scholarly reaction to the DSS is a good example, seeing how wild and wooly they seem compared to the tidy picture we have recreated for ourselves.

BTW, I'm not sure what you were referring to by warning me not to use "Jew" before 8th century. My cutoff date is closer to the time of Roman emperor Julian the Apostate, who was the last emperor who kicked around the idea of reconstituting the Judean temple apparatus, but had to give up as impractical. There was no longer a Judean homeland that was recognized as such, so I say "Jews" at that point. If you search my posts for "Jew" you will likely find it only in quotes from others, not in my replies, unless I was referring to the medieval period (about 6th century on until renaissance).

DCH

[lclapshaw]

^ I go a step further and use 'the Jewish People' myself. I've known Jewish people who find the terms Jew and Jews derogatory so I avoid using those descriptors.

[StephenGoranson]

About the above (Sun Jan 14, 2024 12:16 pm), ebion wrote, in part,
"And if I am a Christian, that I may be one of the only ones on the site... "

To which post lclapshaw replied:
"Ok, cool you're not btw."

Without psychoanalyzing, that reply can be read at least two ways:
a) you are not the only Christian here, or
b) you are not a Christian

PS, ebion, I again ask, for what group have you claimed to speak?

[lclapshaw]

About the above (Sun Jan 14, 2024 12:16 pm), ebion wrote, in part,
"And if I am a Christian, that I may be one of the only ones on the site... "

To which post lclapshaw replied:
"Ok, cool you're not btw."

Without psychoanalyzing, that reply can be read at least two ways:
a) you are not the only Christian here, or
b) you are not a Christian

PS, ebion, I again ask, for what group have you claimed to speak?

Satan is in the details!

[lclapshaw]

^ I actually did notice that after I hit the send button but let it ride.

[ebion]

And if I am a Christian, that I may be one of the only ones on the site...

My guess would be that there are a lot of practicing, or "accultured" Christians (brought up in Christian culture and at least try to practice their religion by church attendance or holiday observance), that prefer to lurk, if only to learn something, but do not have the time or energy to participate. Many are agnostic, meaning they are not sure that Jesus was a living extension of God rather than a social construct. They know what they were taught in Christian Sunday School or Synagogue Schools as a child, but never got their heads around their church's beliefs. They hear about the Historical Critical approach, find out that a sizable number of Christian critics have also employed it, not just atheists. Apologists will rear their heads in knee jerk reaction. I guess the average person just likes to seek advice without parroting apologists.

I'm exploring another possibility: they have been misled because what is being presented to them as Christianity is in fact state-supported Constantinianism that pushes Marcionism-Faulunism as Churchianity. If you throw out the Faulines and their Marcionism, and maybe add the best of the NHL, you come to a very different Christianity2.0 that I feel we will need for the next WHO/WEF/BIS plan. We saw the marriage of the state with the Constantinian Churches in the plandemic;I know of only a handful of bishops worldwide that did not go along with the media agenda.

Yes, there has been a too ready acceptance of the idealized descriptions of Judeans in general given by Josephus or Philo or the NT or even the Mishna, where there are organized parties called Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, etc. All of authors (or editors) presented idealized pictures of how they want other Judeans or non-Judeans to perceive things. The real life world, when we get a look at it by accidental preservation of relics (receipts, contracts, agreements, personal letters), seems sometimes to have been much different. I think the scholarly reaction to the DSS is a good example, seeing how wild and wooly they seem compared to the tidy picture we have recreated for ourselves.

And I have it even worse working on the Ebionaens: I study the Panarion about the Ebionaens and Epiphanius hates anything "Jewish". He even views keeping the Sabbath (not on Sunday) as heresy, which makes it hard to mine the early gems in there.

Constantine was even worse: he hated anything Hebrew. And I have an opinion growing that Faul's letters, which reject the Mosaic law of Christianity, served Constantine's agenda of getting worship to be held on Sol-Invictus/Mithras/Sun-day. I feel Faul's teachings after Nicaea got a big boost by the (many) syncophants to Constantine, and that's how the Faulines got taken into the Churchian canon.

To me, theologically it's the NHL that is really wooly, and I love it! And there are some pretty hairy predecessors in the long rich history of Christianity - the Valensians for example.

BTW, I'm not sure what you were referring to by warning me not to use "Jew" before 8th century. My cutoff date is closer to the time of Roman emperor Julian the Apostate, who was the last emperor who kicked around the idea of reconstituting the Judean temple apparatus, but had to give up as impractical. There was no longer a Judean homeland that was recognized as such, so I say "Jews" at that point. If you search my posts for "Jew" you will likely find it only in quotes from others, not in my replies, unless I was referring to the medieval period (about 6th century on until renaissance).

It's wasn't a warning as much as a request for precision: writing here, I'm only interested in early Palestinian/Syrian Hebrews, which was a fractious bunch to say the least. All sorts of other things get lumped into the modern word. What I most want to avoid is the post Babalonian Talmud period where the descent of the Pharisees claim a monopoly on "Judaism" - erasing the Essenes, Samaratains, Kararites and whatever the Early Christian Hebrews were. So I'm sensitive to precise definitions in threads about things like Old Testament/Pentateuch in contrast to the Talmud/oral traditions that Jesus rejected outright.

I would love to know if the Early Ebionaen Christians at Pella had a sizeable Samaratain contingent, because they rejected the Jerusalem temple/Sadducees even before Jesus.

^ I go a step further and use 'the Jewish People' myself. I've known Jewish people who find the terms Jew and Jews derogatory so I avoid using those descriptors.

I'm quite happy to follow in Jesus' footsteps and be even more than derogatory about the Pharisees :-,) It's not the derogatory I'm avoiding - it's the pretence that the modern word represents the Hebrews. Early Ebionaen Christianity was made up largely of Hebrews, but ones that followed in Jesus' footsteps in hating the Pharisees (and probably the Sadducees after the murder of James). And hating/fearing for good reason: i.e. murder / cruxifixion. But it gets complicated in the time of Herod by their various views of the Idumeans which was Herod and his family, and I suspect that that includes Paul.

In reading the NT I have to make the distinctions. For example, the NT speaks kindly of the Samaritans, and as I mentioned upthread, the Samaritans, then and now, reject being called Jews:

Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. (John 4:9 [KJV])

Somehow the Samaritans were special to Jesus: he explicitly asked us to only minister to: "the lost sheep of the house of Israel"

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matthew 10:5-6 [KJV])

[DCHindley]

Ebion,

Are you familiar with The Way, a sect that started by Victor Paul Wierwille, an ordained Evangelical and Reformed Church minister with a ThD degree (1941) from Princeton Theological Seminary?

I ran into their Twig meetings around 1977, and found their world kind of weird. I was brought up as an Episcopalian (= US Anglican) and had some exposure to evangelical style bible studies, and I kind of admired his approach. Unfortunately, they had an instructional model where you would be instructed about their particular beliefs through a succession of courses that you had to pay for. The rate was a little steep for me at that time, so I lost touch until the 1990s.

The Way started with a Radio program in 1942 and in 1957 started to operate from a functioning farm in rural Ohio USA. I had since been there for business (liability insurance audits) twice, and met some of the trustees/directors of the time, particularly L. Craig Martindale & Rosalie F. Rivenbark. This would be sometime between 1991-2003.

The first time (probably between 1991 & 1995) they had all sorts of colleges and programs, but by the 2nd time they had closed most of colleges and facilities down to essentials (there were a couple ministries still operating). One time they had just stopped their longstanding annual music festivals (after hanky panky was detected in 1995), so probably 1997 (I was working elsewhere btw 1995 & 1997).

The reason I mention The Way, is that your beliefs closely resemble theirs, particularly the Aramaic NT, and they had an association with Llamsa, who had spent some time at The Way HQ while working in his edition of the Peshitta.

www.theway.org/

DCH

[ebion]

PS, ebion, I again ask, for what group have you claimed to speak?

Satan is in the details!

I have never claimed to speak for anyone; Satan is in the details.