Heresy And Marcionite Bible

[reyb]

The Marcionite bible was assembled by Marcion of Sinope, sometime in the early/mid second century; a full 200 years before the compilation of the bible we now have. The Marcionite bible was not divided into "Old" and "New" testaments like the modern bible, and was dramatically shorter. It was divided into two parts, the gospel (or Evangelion) and the epistles of Paul (or Apostolicon). The Marcionites only recognized one gospel as legitimate; it was calledThe Gospel of the Lord, and it was similar to Luke but significantly shorter. The Marcionite version of the Epistles of Paul was also significantly shorter than the version found in conventional bibles.

The documents that make up the Marcionite bible have not physically survived to modern times; all known copies were destroyed by the religious authorities when the Catholics gained political power in the fourth century. In spite of this destruction, the Marcionite Scriptures can still be restored. Many ancient Christian writers quoted from the extensively, described the differences between them and the official version of the scripture, and even wrote commentaries on them. By using these quotations and descriptions we can reconstruct the Marcionite text. We do not have quotations or descriptions of every verse. But, in most places the Marcionite bible was identical to the corresponding text in the conventional bible, and the ancient writers who quoted from it focused their attention mainly on the controversial passages where there were significant differences between the two versions. This means that in places where the Marcionite text is not known, it was probably identical to text of the conventional bible, and so text from the conventional bible can be used to "fill in the gaps".

(Please see http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/Marcionite_Bible.htm)

-----------------------------------
 

May I know why Catholics destroyed this Marcionite Bible?

Anyone please....... 

 

Edited March 4, 2013 by reyb

[Evangetholic]

Marcion's Bible was our Bible, but limited to the Old Testament if I remember correctly. Let me look some things up.

Marcion's Bible was our Bible, but limited to the Old Testament if I remember correctly. Let me look some things up.

 

Wrong. It was a heretical redaction of both the Old and New Testaments. So you are a gnostic?

Apparently we can thank him for gathering the Pauline texts together though.

[reyb]

Marcion's Bible was our Bible, but limited to the Old Testament if I remember correctly. Let me look some things up.

 

Wrong. It was a heretical redaction of both the Old and New Testaments. So you are a gnostic?

Apparently we can thank him for gathering the Pauline texts together though.

 

Something is not really right. You responded to your own post and then you are asking me if I am a Gnostic? (I almost thought you are accusing me of being a Marcionite).

I am not a Gnostic because I am a Christian. Whether you believe me or not, it is  just the same,  I am a Christian. I will repeat, I am not a Gnostic-Christian like Marcion who believe in a ghost-like-Christ and neither I am a kind of Christian like you who believe in your historical Jesus. Do you think Apostle Paul believe in a ghost-like-Christ? On the other hand, who told you that Apostle Paul is referring to your historical Jesus? Anyway, I will leave it that way for a moment and let us go back to our topic.

I am simply asking why Catholics destroyed Marcionite Bible? May I know why?

Edited March 4, 2013 by reyb

[Evangetholic]

"Our Christ" isn't ghostlike. Where have you gotten this idea? He sits in heaven with a Glorified Body that has been raised from the dead. And I only base my thoughts on what you say. If you are a Christian then you are my brother. I'm sorry that you do not see me as such.

 

Marcion's Bible was a redaction of his own making. He hacked books to pieces. All of the Fathers that mention him say so.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Evangetholic

[reyb]

Marcion's Bible was our Bible, but limited to the Old Testament if I remember correctly. Let me look some things up.

 

Wrong. It was a heretical redaction of both the Old and New Testaments. So you are a gnostic?

Apparently we can thank him for gathering the Pauline texts together though.

 

You said Marcionite Bible is a heretical redaction of your bible. Can you please explain to me how it  become possible since Marcionite Bible was compiled 200 years earlier than that of your bible? They even said your bible is the edited version of Marcionite Bible (meaning the Marcionite bible is the original rather than the other way around.)

 

According to http://www.marcion.info/

 

and I quote.....

Marcion wrote the first canon of the New Testament in AD 140. For centuries Marcion has been maligned as a heretic, since the Church Fathers like Tertullian accused him of taking the razor to the Bible and cutting out several of the Pauline epistles; Acts, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. In addition the only Gospel in Marcion's Bible is two thirds of Luke. Actually that's it. One Gospel and ten Pauline epistles, which means no Revelations and no Old Testament.

Christians like to tell us that Marcion changed the Bible to suit his theology. However it appeared to me from the beginning that before Marcion there was no documented history of Christianity as we know it. So for example there are no reliable historical contemporary accounts of Paul, Peter, Luke, Mark or even the Jesus that we think of today. Likewise archaeological New Testament fragments have been dated starting around 190 AD, again consistent with the first New Testament being written 140 AD.

In addition Bible scholars who actually question things have come to the conclusion that some of the Pauline epistles were added later than whoever wrote the first ones. Their conclusions are consistent with Marcion's Bible being the original text.

....end of quote.

Edited March 4, 2013 by reyb

[Evangetholic]

Compiled and written are not the same. And no reputable source, not even one's very hostile to Christianity regards Marcion's texts as being original. If there is such a source I haven't found it. And I'm literally drowning in texts (ok not literally) on Christianity its history and doctrines. 

[Evangetholic]

You are aware that Marcion thought the God of the Old Testament distinct from the God of the New and evil?

Edited March 4, 2013 by Evangetholic

[reyb]

Compiled and written are not the same. And no reputable source, not even one's very hostile to Christianity regards Marcion's texts as being original. If there is such a source I haven't found it. And I'm literally drowning in texts (ok not literally) on Christianity its history and doctrines. 

 

Of course, 'compiling' is different from writing. And I do not think that web site is truly saying Marcion wrote that Marcionite Bible because they are mentioning about Luke and Apostle Paul in that Marcionite Bible. 

Edited March 4, 2013 by reyb

[reyb]

You are aware that Marcion thought the God of the Old Testament distinct from the God of the New and evil?

 

Yes, (Of course that is according to your early fathers because we cannot find any letter from Marcion himself). This is one the reasons why I am asking.....

 

Why Catholics destroyed Marcionite Bible (and other Marcionite notes or letters or whatever). Can you please give me a clear explanation why they did it?

Edited March 4, 2013 by reyb

[Evangetholic]

Reyb. Rather than you starting this insane bullspit up again where you ask the same friggin question over and over again, which wears on a man's nerves. Why do you think Catholics destroyed Marcion's Bible? You obviously wish to progress further in this conversation, but your skills are to limited to do so. I have answered this question. It was destroyed because it was a perverse text. It was destroyed because it was not the whole Bible. It was destroyed because its redactor thought Jesus Christ was a different being than the God of the Old Testament and it even dared to call God evil. It was destroyed because Holy Church does not aid the proliferation of heretical documents.

[Apotheoun]

Reyb, define what you mean by "historical Jesus."  

 

If by the term "historical Jesus" you mean that Catholics believe that the eternal Son of God became incarnate, that is, that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us; then yes, Catholics believe in the historicity of the birth of Jesus from the Virgin Mary as described in the Gospel narratives.  So yes, Catholics really do believe that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary and lived as a man among men, and He gathered a group of disciples around Him, and appointed twelve apostles to continue His ministry after His death, resurrection, and ascension into heavenly glory.  

 

That being said, if you reject the idea that Christ's incarnation is a true historical event (i.e., that it really happened), and that He lived and walked around in the Holy Land imparting His teaching about the Father to anyone who would listen to Him, and that He was eventually crucified, died, and was buried, and that three days after His death He rose again from the dead and conversed with His apostles, and then ascended into glory, if you deny all of that then we do not share anything in common.

 

So again, please define your use of the phrase "historical Jesus."

 

 

[reyb]

Reyb, define what you mean by "historical Jesus."  

 

If by the term "historical Jesus" you mean that Catholics believe that the eternal Son of God became incarnate, that is, that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us; then yes, Catholics believe in the historicity of the birth of Jesus from the Virgin Mary as described in the Gospel narratives.  So yes, Catholics really do believe that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary and lived as a man among men, and He gathered a group of disciples around Him, and appointed twelve apostles to continue His ministry after His death, resurrection, and ascension into heavenly glory.  

 

That being said, if you reject the idea that Christ's incarnation is a true historical event (i.e., that it really happened), and that He lived and walked around in the Holy Land imparting His teaching about the Father to anyone who would listen to Him, and that He was eventually crucified, died, and was buried, and that three days after His death He rose again from the dead and conversed with His apostles, and then ascended into glory, if you deny all of that then we do not share anything in common.

 

So again, please define your use of the phrase "historical Jesus."

Yes. You are correct. That is my meaning of historical Jesus. 

[Evangetholic]

Reyb you haven't answered the question.. Which are you assenting to? Christological orthodoxy or heterodoxy?

[Apotheoun]

Yes. You are correct. That is my meaning of historical Jesus. 

Correct in what sense? Your "answer" has clarified nothing.

 

Do you believe that Christ truly became incarnate by taking flesh from the Virgin Theotokos?

[reyb]

Let us not use the word ‘Christological orthodoxy or heterodoxy’ because according to wiki Heterodoxy in the Roman Catholic Church refers to views that differ from strictly orthodox views, but retain sufficient faithfulness to the original doctrine to avoid heresy. While The word orthodox, from Greek  orthos ("right", "true", "straight") + doxa ("opinion" or "belief", related to dokein, "to think"),is generally used to mean the adherence to accepted norms, more specifically to creeds, especially in religion. In the narrow sense the term means "conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early Church".

Let me put it this way. I termed this Catholics’ Jesus as historical Jesus because just like you said ‘Catholics believe that the eternal Son of God became incarnate, that is, that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us; then yes, Catholics  believe in the historicity of the birth of Jesus from the Virgin Mary as described in the Gospel narratives.  So yes, Catholics really do believe that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary and lived as a man among men, and He gathered a group of disciples around Him, and appointed twelve apostles to continue His ministry after His death, resurrection, and ascension into heavenly glory.'  

So to make it short, you are correct that is the Jesus I called ‘historical Jesus’.  And again you are correct, I do not accept this 'historical Jesus' as the true Jesus Christ mentioned by all God's witnesses like Apostle Paul, Luke, Jonah, Abraham...etc.

 

 

Edited March 4, 2013 by reyb

[Evangetholic]

Well then. What do you believe?

[Evangetholic]

Besides that only God can reveal His Christ. (Which is what we believe as well.)

[reyb]

Well then. What do you believe?

That this historical Jesus is a lie or a non-existing Jesus Christ in our world of reality. Meaning, there is no historical Jesus at all. But there is ‘another’ Jesus Christ different from this historical Jesus who is the true and real one and only God can reveal him.

Luke’s testimony is just a story or a narration of the coming of Christ in a form of historical reality just like when Jonah wrote his testimony about the coming of Christ in a form of a big fish where he is 3 days and 3 nights inside the belly of this big fist. It is the same thing when Moses wrote about the burning bush in the mount of Sinai and many other written ‘stories’. All of them are referring to the one and the same ‘coming of the Christ of God’ but written in different narration and in different times although this ‘coming’ is just once and for all and seen by all witnesses at that one time. Nevertheless, none of them are ‘historical realities’ because all of them are just 'stories or narration'. You will never find this big fish, burning bush, light in damascus (in the case of Apostle Paul), and Luke’s historical Jesus in our world of realities.

 

And this is what I believe. If only you earnestly seek him - meaning the truth from God himself - you will find him. By the grace of God, He will reveal his Christ to you because he is not too far from us. He is actually in us.

 

Edited March 4, 2013 by reyb

[Apotheoun]

Let us not use the word ‘Christological orthodoxy or heterodoxy’ because according to wiki Heterodoxy in the Roman Catholic Church refers to views that differ from strictly orthodox views, but retain sufficient faithfulness to the original doctrine to avoid heresy. While The word orthodox, from Greek  orthos ("right", "true", "straight") + doxa ("opinion" or "belief", related to dokein, "to think"),is generally used to mean the adherence to accepted norms, more specifically to creeds, especially in religion. In the narrow sense the term means "conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early Church".

Let me put it this way. I termed this Catholics’ Jesus as historical Jesus because just like you said ‘Catholics believe that the eternal Son of God became incarnate, that is, that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us; then yes, Catholics  believe in the historicity of the birth of Jesus from the Virgin Mary as described in the Gospel narratives.  So yes, Catholics really do believe that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary and lived as a man among men, and He gathered a group of disciples around Him, and appointed twelve apostles to continue His ministry after His death, resurrection, and ascension into heavenly glory.'  

So to make it short, you are correct that is the Jesus I called ‘historical Jesus’.  And again you are correct, I do not accept this 'historical Jesus' as the true Jesus Christ mentioned by all God's witnesses like Apostle Paul, Luke, Jonah, Abraham...etc.

Okay, that clarifies matters, because clearly we have nothing in common.

 

 

As St. John said:  "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of anti-christ, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already."

 

You deny that Christ has come in the flesh, while I accept the teaching enunciated by St. John in his epistle.

[Evangetholic]

Else where Reyb I said this tor you, part six is currently relevant:

 

I've numbered your post to better help anyone interested following
this do so. (the mealy mouthed and easily shocked should skip part six)

 

1.
Based on this then you are my brother and a brother to most of the good
people here. Why do you trouble us? (Then I got to sections 4 and 5
where I discovered that you are not a Christian according to the
commonly understood [[theological rather than sociological] meaning this
word.)
 

2. Enoch is not a Biblical text. The only Enoch mentioned in the Bible walked with God long before the Incarnation.

 

3.
You seem to be describing a visionary experience related to your
conversion, many people have had such, but neither dreams, nor visions
are to govern the Christian life. We are not to build doctrines on these
and certainly not to speak to our brothers as if they are not our
brothers because they haven't had this favor granted them by God.

 

4
and 5. Oh I see. You really do sound like one of the (I cannot find a
neutral and inoffensive term to describe them, so take this as it is
intended) heretics of the early centuries of Christianity. You are a
basic anti-materialist--a Manachaean or a Gnostic. What does Paul say of
those who either preach another Gospel than the one we have first come
to believe or who deny that Christ, who I assure you Paul understood as
the Second Person of the Trinity, came in the flesh.

 

6.
Know that you preach a kind of rank heresy the Church (by which thing I
mean to include Catholics, but do not exclusively mean them) defeated by
the Power of the Holy Ghost with pure Biblical light a millennium ago.
Know that I am in no way your brother. There is no secular brotherhood
of mankind. These men are my brothers because we share a Father, a
brother in the Biblical and Historical God-Man, and are the dwelling
place of the Holy Ghost.

 

I do not seek visions, though
many Christians of all traditions have had them. I do not seek another
Lord. The Grace of God invaded my life, and made the scales fall from my
eyes, I have beheld the One By Whom Men Might Be Saved. He is "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting
Father, Prince of Peace." And was born by the power of the Holy Ghost
of the Blessed Virgin Mary. A real and true human baby, yet He is not
merely human. He had a heart that beat, a mouth that
sought His Mother's Breast, He had flesh, feet, arms, legs, a penis,
toes, a brain, a significant amount of His DNA was shared with
chimpanzees, and yet still He is not merely human.

 

Hear me Reyb, GOD PUT ON FLESH. God became man. He ate, spat, urinated, defecated, bled, felt pain, and even died.
Jesus, called the Christ, became MAN. Do not build some disembodied
spiritualism for yourself when He has revealed Himself. Do not chase
idols, and religious system's of man's devising when "His burden is easy. And His yoke is light."

 

Faith
is only as good as the object of that faith. You have placed your faith
in an  unworthy object either gotten directly from the ancients or
devised by yourself. Trust in the Common Christ all Christendom adores.

 

7. Correct Eucharistic doctrine is plainly taught in John 6.