Were Marcionites keepers of the original Christian faith?

[Peter Kirby]

Were the Marcionites the keepers of the original Christian faith?

(1) Was their faith represented by the original Pauline epistles?

If so, where did the author of the original Pauline epistles get his ideas from?

(2) Was the Gospel they used the first written text with an extended story about Jesus?

If so, would the author of the original Pauline epistles have agreed with it?

(3) Was the original belief that there was no messianic prophecy about Jesus?

If so, then was any material considered to be messianic prophecy used to write the first Gospel?

(4) Was the original belief that there was another higher, good God above the creator god of the law?

If so, then do you believe that this was explained clearly in Paul and in the Gospel? If not, why not?

(5) Was the original belief that Jesus came down out of heaven to Palestine?

If so, why would this be so offensive to every other Christian, so that they rejected it and suppressed the story?

[MrMacSon]

Were the Marcionites the keepers of the original Christian faith?
(1) Was their faith represented by the original Pauline epistles?
If so, where did the author of the original Pauline epistles get his ideas from?

Are you referring to the Marcionite versions of the Pauline gospels?
or, Are you referring to a preMarcionite version?
or, Would the Marcionite versions of the Pauline gospels just be the preMarcionite version (if there, indeed, were such a preMarcionite version)?

(5) Was the original belief that Jesus came down out of heaven to Palestine?
If so, why would this be so offensive to every other Christian, so that they rejected it and suppressed the story?

Did 'they' reject it?
Would it have been offensive to those who might have heard it?

Could 'original beliefs' have simply been repurposed?
eg., a change from Marcionite Christianity to orthodox Christianity simply just happened?
Was 'Judaification' a main factor?

[Peter Kirby]

Were the Marcionites the keepers of the original Christian faith?
(1) Was their faith represented by the original Pauline epistles?
If so, where did the author of the original Pauline epistles get his ideas from?

Are you referring to the Marcionite versions of the Pauline gospels?
or, Are you referring to a preMarcionite version?

Original means first version.

The questions are for whoever wants to answer, including: Was the Marcionite version the first version? It's a question.

or, Would the Marcionite versions of the Pauline gospels just be the preMarcionite version (if there, indeed, were such a preMarcionite version)?

Whatever people want to answer. It's a prompt.

(5) Was the original belief that Jesus came down out of heaven to Palestine?
If so, why would this be so offensive to every other Christian, so that they rejected it and suppressed the story?

Did 'they' reject it?
Would it have been offensive to those who might have heard it?

Could 'original beliefs' have simply been repurposed?
eg., a change from Marcionite Christianity to orthodox Christianity simply just happened?
Was 'Judaification' a main factor?

I'm not thinking of just orthodox or Jewish Christianities here.

I'm also thinking of the other named teachers we have, such as Valentinus or Basilides. I'm thinking of those that might be described as against Judaification, not just the Judaification ones. I'm thinking of the non-orthodox ones, not just the orthodox ones. As far as I can tell, a belief that Jesus came down out of heaven to Palestine left a pretty specific footprint, i.e., in the ideas of the Marcionites. If that's the original idea, then it should be asked why it didn't seem to carry over to non-Marcionites.

[maryhelena]

I'm also thinking of the other named teachers we have, such as Valentinus or Basilides. I'm thinking of those that might be described as against Judaification, not just the Judaification ones. I'm thinking of the non-orthodox ones, not just the orthodox ones. As far as I can tell, a belief that Jesus came down out of heaven to Palestine left a pretty specific footprint, i.e., in the ideas of the Marcionites. If that's the original idea, then it should be asked why it didn't seem to carry over to non-Marcionites.

For what its worth....

I find it odd that the gospel in Marcion's possession is read as though Jesus literally came down to Capernaum from heaven - in the form of human flesh. Perhaps a theological interpretation is possible - as with the gospel of John and the Word becoming flesh and lived among us. However, from a rational, logical, perspective, a theological approach is meaningless. It's basically a dead-end approach to early christian origins. That said - the Word becoming flesh, and Marcion's Jesus coming down to Capernaum have left a footprint - but not on the sands of Palestine. The footprint is an intellectual coming down, ideas becoming flesh - it is ideas that move mountains, that move human intellectual evolution.

On it's own, either a philosophical approach (as I suggest) or a theological approach to Marcion and gJohn - is not enough to sustain a long innings. Ideas come and they go. The Word, as gJohn says, - became flesh. Ideas don't take on human flesh they take on 'flesh' in the sense of taking concert form. An employe could come up with a great idea - and be told by his boss to put some bones on it, to put some flesh on the idea. Nothing other-worldly will do - ideas need to become 'flesh' if they are to provide value for living on terra-firma.

As to the issue of Judaification: Basically a question of 'flesh' verse ideas. Yes, Christianity needed to break away from the OT structures and focus on intellectual freedom. But that did not mean rejecting the 'womb' from which it was born. It did not mean rejecting it's origins in Jewish history. One might grow away from ones parents but to deny their relevance to ones life would be mistaken. Consequently, the 'Judaizers' were always going to win out against a purely spiritual/theological approach to Jesus came down to Capernaum or the Word became flesh.

Unfortunately, the Christian 'Judaizers' went too far - rather than remembering Jewish history and it's role in their own origins - they chose instead to read the literary gospel story as the history of a flesh and blood Jesus. Thus, in effect, negating the intellectual freedom they sought - confining themselves to a new law of their own making.

[davidmartin]

No the Odes are just not having it. The Odes say they are the original keepers so by definition the answer is no to that

Were the Marcionites the keepers of the original Christian faith?

Therefore No, only to the extent they kept certain parts unchanged from the 'spiritual' side of things
One can't deny anything original that by luck happened to remain the same

(1) Was their faith represented by the original Pauline epistles?

"Dependent on" more than "identical with". Yes but with room for innovation

If so, where did the author of the original Pauline epistles get his ideas from?

He got them from on-going theological speculation and "religioning" that was happening around the pre-existing movement
Exactly the same as other groups that appeared and gave the impression they were the originals (without saying they were literally, because they couldn't.. the pre-existing movement was known to have been first)

(2) Was the Gospel they used the first written text with an extended story about Jesus?

You mean the Evangelion. Probably not, the origins of these texts are murky and disappear into lost early layers we don't have access to. Even if it was the first written text it would be based on earlier texts or traditions

If so, would the author of the original Pauline epistles have agreed with it?

No, he'd have banned it and forbidden its use. The epistles work fine without any gospel about Jesus and the 'host body' shouldn't have a gospel about him. Marcion or whoever it was hit on the magic formula to combine the 2. Hence the epistles don't know the gospel and vice versa.

(3) Was the original belief that there was no messianic prophecy about Jesus?

Not a simple yes/no question. There was a mystery involved relating to ideas found in scripture that in a certain way of interpretation and within this special schema certain things could be said about Jesus with reference to prophecy. But how we know the later statements made about messianic prophecy fulfilled are the original ones? For example the original mystery could be "The Messiah is God's Spirit" poured out as per prophecy. Fast forward to the church fathers and the Messiah is Jesus himself and things have changed. All unclear, all uncertain.

If so, then was any material considered to be messianic prophecy used to write the first Gospel?

Yeah, but not the stuff proving X was the Messiah, but the stuff proving the Messianic age had come and begun (which got pushed to the 2nd coming later on). The Odes are interested mostly in that the messianic age has begun, here, right now in this moment. It's accomplished fact, all of it

(4) Was the original belief that there was another higher, good God above the creator god of the law?
If so, then do you believe that this was explained clearly in Paul and in the Gospel? If not, why not?

No that presupposes dualism has all the answers. The original belief was it's the correct higher good Gnosis of the one God is above flawed lower Gnosis of the one God. There is no "God of the law", that's just gossip

(5) Was the original belief that Jesus came down out of heaven to Palestine?

No, that's Marcionite ramblings and a later idea. These later ideas went that either the 'host body' got chosen and Christ went into it, or there was no 'host body' and Christ descended whole from heaven (Marcionite). All this stuff is later. Originally it was the Spirit that came down out of heaven (ding ding, that's what happens in the gospel right?) to humans including Jesus who seem to have been chosen by it, or some such. The Marcionites had a problem to solve and went for the "came down from heaven" option. The Spirit still comes down from heaven though that bit never got changed

[Secret Alias]

Yes they were. Philonic and Pauline. It was the beginning. The one place Acts doesn't go. Marcion was Alexandrian.

[davidmartin]

Yes they were. Philonic and Pauline. It was the beginning. The one place Acts doesn't go. Marcion was Alexandrian.

nope. nah, i see where you're going wrong though
its true Philo and what-not, Pauline you call it, are part of this identifiable trend going on that's philosophical
and is the origins of Christianity involved in this trend? sure they are, cause what is that trend but another way to say 'what the heck was going on back then'. everyone and their dog was involved in it, for, against, whatever. even saying "I refute the trend" makes you part of it
a connection to this doesn't mean anything. shit was happening
that the Marcionites align to a certain piece of it, so what, it doesn't establish their credentials other than they were part of it as well
what i mean is, one can so easily postulate earlier and different origins that are in some way related to the zeitgeist but just because the Marcionites are as well doesn't automatically make them the originals. you're jumping to conclusions here because you see a genuine similarity but one doesn't equal the other
i mean the Marcionites can just as easily be jumping on the bandwagon and rolling out new ideas within the paradigm - and that's exactly what it looks like they are doing - and not just them

[dabber]

Hi there, hope all's well. My take is as follows:

"Were the Marcionites the keepers of the original Christian faith?"
No I think they were later on the scene. Still early, but not the earliest. They wrote the first "Luke".

"(1) Was their faith represented by the original Pauline epistles? If so, where did the author of the original Pauline epistles get his ideas from?"

I think Paul's genuine epistles were the first Christian writings. I think his ideas were from his study of Jewish scriptures, heavily influenced by Greco-Roman son of God mystery religions.

"(2) Was the Gospel they used the first written text with an extended story about Jesus? If so, would the author of the original Pauline epistles have agreed with it?"

I think Mark was earliest but that Paul would have disagreed with it. Paul was very much mine is the true Gospel and all others ate false.

"(3) - (5) Was the original belief that Jesus came down out of heaven to Palestine?"

I think earliest belief was a mythological Jesus per Paul's original letters, as explained by Richard Carrier's Jesus from Outer Space. And Mark's gospel was the earliest biographical account.
Cheers Adam

[davidmartin]

I think Paul's genuine epistles were the first Christian writings

except the genuine epistles constantly claim and confirm (affirm) they are not the first or original membership of the group in question
how can you say they are genuine and not also accept their claim that they are not the start of it?
how can they be the first Christian writings when they say that they are not the first Christians?

that is the elephant in the room with the the idea the epistles represent the first Christian writings when they admit they are not part of the original grouping of Christians and present a new revelation that wasn't known before the author revealed it
so, on what basis does one accept the claim of the epistles in regard to what they are saying one should believe and on the other ignore what they are saying as regard to their origins?

it's funny how the first Christian writings admit they are not in fact the original Christians and yet people seem ok with assuming they are the first Christian writings

[Giuseppe]

Were the Marcionites the keepers of the original Christian faith?

The best reconstruction of Christian Origins under the hypothesis that anti-demiurgism was the original Christianity has been already given by Jean Magne, Georges Ory and recently Martijn Linssen.

I think that their case is serious but unfortunately it is not attractive for contingent political reasons. In addition the evidence for a such case has been already collected entirely by the authors I have just mentioned, so there is no more "fun" in the scenario.
In addition, the world has a sincere interest to understand Jesus under the hypothesis that the Origins were Jewish ("YHWH is the supreme god"), so I deal with it willingly. For example, I would like to read this book even if his author probably is "not worthy to stoop down and untie the straps of the sandals" of Martijn Linssen.