The History of Marcion proves the bible is not God's word

Staying a tiny bit from the topic of Maricon, I was taught that the basic canon accepted as making up the bible today was hammered Council of Nicea, in 325 A.D. But actually I think scholars now say it took place at the Synod of Laodicea, which met in 365.

Other than that, there were many different groups with their various collections of holy books before, but I don't think you start to get anthing as solid and worked-out on any sort of mass level until the early/mid 4th centruy. Of course a rather strict Christian is likely to tell you that the cannon has always existed because it comes straight from God and it just took man a few centuries to figure it out corrctly. That's not a view I'd subscibe to, myself, but then again I'm not a bibilical literalist or fundametalist, which lends one a whole different cast of mind, so to speak.

[edit on 12/27/09 by silent thunder]

Originally posted by silent thunder
Staying a tiny bit from the topic of Maricon, I was taught that the basic canon accepted as making up the bible today was hammered Council of Nicea, in 325 A.D. But actually I think scholars now say it took place at the Synod of Laodicea, which met in 365.

Other than that, there were many different groups with their various collections of holy books before, but I don't think you start to get anthing as solid and worked-out on any sort of mass level until the early/mid 4th centruy. Of course a rather strict Christian is likely to tell you that the cannon has always existed because it comes straight from God and it just took man a few centuries to figure it out corrctly. That's not a view I'd subscibe to, myself, but then again I'm not a bibilical literalist or fundametalist, which lends one a whole different cast of mind, so to speak.

[edit on 12/27/09 by silent thunder]

The determination was officially announced in a decree of the Council of Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus and confirmed by the Third Council of Carthage in 397.the present list of NT writings was first founded in the Codex Vaticanus around 340 and in St Athanasius Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter 367. source: my catechism.

reply to post by Matthew Dark


Simple. It doesnt. But its called faith for a reason. Its impossible to try argue logic and faith. Its a never ending battle.

Originally posted by oliveoil
He thought the OT to be unimportant or dispensable because it was surpassed by the NT. He is wrong because (as the Catholic Church puts it) "the inspired writings of the OT are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers in them too, also the mystery of our salvation is present"

You're missing the point, before the bible was made to what it is today, there were different beliefs of what Christianity was eg:

Check out the book -

Misquoting Jesus:
The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

jmm.aaa.net.au...

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 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 that 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. 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.

And so, what you have is the Church with all the power calling all the other Christianity's of that time, heretics, again the heretic is just a label the big church outs on the little church. Christianity to day could very different depending on what they chose as god's word.

The old Testament is made manifest of the new. Anyone who reads the OT sees this.

It's funny because christians are the only ones that will agree with you on that. The Jews disagree with you and for goodness sakes it's their book. Not anywhere does the OT mention anything about Jesus.

As far as him writing a new cannon, didn't he use all the ones the church used (and less) but with his name on it?

LOL? Shows how little you know the issue. You really didn't read the op at all. It was marcion building his own bible that lead to the church having to build there own bible as a reaction to him. He built his before the Church, not the other way around.

Anyway, I cant see how this proves the bible is not Gods word

Because it shows that the church only decided to build a bible because others were and what they did eventually choose was only a handful of what was many to be chosen and didn't make the cut, which were burnt by the church or hidden away by the 'heretics' of the time.

Basically your bible is just a compilation of what made the cut in the church's eyes. without any authority by god, they did this of there own accord, they built it using there own standards of what should go in it and what should not go in it.

Now tell me how a book made in such a way could be claimed as God's word?

[edit on 28-12-2009 by andre18]

reply to post by neo5842


If the purpose of the Bible was to control people, what the heck went wrong?

It obviously didn't work. And if it's the fault of these people controlling religion for their own purposes, and they laid unfair laws upon the masses, then those men are to blame for what consequences have come from that.

If this is the case, then why attack the book itself? And why do so many of the masses NOT believe in it, like yourself, and why do so many of these same people who have escaped brainwashing, like yourself, continue to attack the document, and not the nefarious authors (according to your theory)?

And why do some go as far as to attack God? I thought that position would be inherently atheistic? Why so much drama?

If you believe it is what you say it is, then why worry? If the controlling of the masses hasn't worked yet, then what is the problem?

If it has, where's the proof? People are NOT blindly following ANY religious system, friend.

The closest thing to blind obedience any of us knows of is North Korea, and even there, people break free and escape all the time. So much for the controlling of the masses.

Originally posted by andre18

I challenge anybody to find anywhere, where god said build this book and this is gong to be my word. He didn't say that, that's not in the bible.

The view for which Marcion was most soundly criticized was not only that he denied any connection between the Old and New Testaments but that he also rejected the Old Testament in its entirety. The God of the Old Testament, his studies led him to assert, was a God of Law and Judgment, completely different from the God of Love and Mercy, the Father of Jesus Christ, as revealed in the New Testament. The former, "Creator God," held mankind in a deceitful grasp from which the "Redeemer God" sought, through the mission of Jesus, to save him.

Andre...A binding does not a book make. The Old Testament are Hebrew "books" -- formerly scrolls -- and pre-Christian. The New Testament is a collection of four gospels containing eye witness accounts of Jesus' life and majority of the remainder are letters to churches. Letters that were passed around and around from church to church and read to churches. The God of both is the same God and a singular thread of love, patience, forebearance, and mercy runs through both. The entire story of God's interaction with the Hebrews is a phenomenal one of unfathomable and enduring love and care.

reply to post by andre18

It's funny because christians are the only ones that will agree with you on that. The Jews disagree with you and for goodness sakes it's their book. Not anywhere does the OT mention anything about Jesus.

Not only does it prophtsize about Jesus it also says that the Gentiles would be called a new name. That would be Christians.

LOL? Shows how little you know the issue. You really didn't read the op at all. It was marcion building his own bible that lead to the church having to build there own bible as a reaction to him. He built his before the Church, not the other way around.

Your acting like he wrote the NT. All he did was compile what was already there.Documents that the Church was already using.

Because it shows that the church only decided to build a bible because others were and what they did eventually choose was only a handful of what was many to be chosen and didn't make the cut, which were burnt by the church or hidden away by the 'heretics' of the time.

Dont you see that the Church wasnt trying to build a Bible,that it was he who was trying to built it.Thats why he was booted out.

Now tell me how a book made in such a way could be claimed as God's word?

The books that were used by the Church were the same if not more than what he used.

Originally posted by oliveoil

Not only does it prophtsize about Jesus it also says that the Gentiles would be
called a new name. That would be Christians.

How about you give me an example.

Your acting like he wrote the NT. All he did was compile what was already there.Documents that the Church was already using.

No, because there were other beliefs of christianity during the time of marcion besides what was eventually chosen at the council hundreds of years later, there were many. What documents he used had no affiliation with any major Christianity of the time. Not until the Council of Nicaea did all of Christendom decide what documents were going to be in the bible.

Other beliefs of christianity at that time used the same documents but for different meaning. Just as marcion did. What the Roman Church excommunicated him for was yes because he had alternative views to the church of the time, but the Roman church still didn't have the same view as what was to became the accepted Christianity after the council. It's not like he was labelled a heretic for being against the Christianity the bible was decided upon.

Dont you see that the Church wasnt trying to build a Bible,that it was he who was trying to built it.Thats why he was booted out.

Wrong, he built one after he was booted a out, he was booted out for having alternative views. It was after he was booted and started his own church that he started his own bible and that's when the church freaked out and began to build there own....

www.answers.com...

".....toward the middle of the 2nd century,......... he gathered followers and in time began publically promulgating his theological views to the Roman Church at large. To his surprise, these views were not received sympathetically, and at the first known Roman synod, Marcion was excommunicated (144). Subsequently he became the founder of the rival Marcionite Church....These views, expounded in Marcion's "Antitheses," led the Marcionite Church to develop its own canon of Scripture, a fact that played no small part in forcing the Christian Church to regularize its own canon"

[edit on 29-12-2009 by andre18]

How sad, to think it is so important for some people to bring down the beliefs of people.

You keep chippin' away there Chief!

Good luck.

reply to post by andre18


I said,
Not only does it prophtsize about Jesus it also says that the Gentiles would be
called a new name. That would be Christians.

You said,

How about you give me an example.

Isaiah 62:2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.

I said
Your acting like he wrote the NT. All he did was compile what was already there.Documents that the Church was already using.

You said

No, because there were other beliefs of christianity during the time of marcion besides what was eventually chosen at the council hundreds of years later, there were many. What documents he used had no affiliation with any major Christianity of the time. Not until the Council of Nicaea did all of Christendom decide what documents were going to be in the bible.

Please list those documents for me and then I will list the ones he used. Also list the different sects.


I said
Dont you see that the Church wasnt trying to build a Bible,that it was he who was trying to built it.Thats why he was booted out.

You said

Wrong, he built one after he was booted a out, he was booted out for having alternative views. It was after he was booted and started his own church that he started his own bible and that's when the church freaked out and began to build there own...

List the documents that he used then match up what the church used and everyone else used and you will see that the books were the same just different views.

reply to post by andre18


It doesn't take Marcion to show the Bible isn't the word of God, all it really takes is simple historical knowledge and a little logic.

The Bible is a work of fiction that has more plot holes than your average Hollywood Blockbuster. It contradicts itself every other page and presents a deity who fluctuates between mercy, love and forgiveness and eternal damnation, vengeance, infanticide (and child killing) on a regular basis making God one of the least consistently characterized literary characters in history.

Finding gems of wisdom in the Bible is fine, there are lot's of proverbs many of which still ring true, and enjoying the sci-fi big budget action scenes (fire and brimstone, global floods, 10 plagues of Egypt including that one where God deems it necessary to kill all the first born CHILDREN) is fine with me but the fact there are those out there who believe the book is literally true on all levels is disturbing on a fundamental level..

And yes if the logic doesn't help the history of how the Romans hijacked Christ's philosophy of love and used it as their state-sponsored religion should help (mixed in a whole lot of pagan elements, crosses and altars and such). Also that throughout it's history as a state-sponsored religion the Bible and Christianity were used to uphold

Genocide

Racism

Burning of Witches

Torture or execution of those who supported theories that did not fit with the Church's stances on various things

Slavery

War

Edit to Add: Forgot Tyranny, that should be on the list. The Bible was used to uphold the "divine right" of Kings to hold absolute power.

They took one carpenter's philosophy on how we should love each other and mucked it up royally. The only thing that Christians should be following is Christ. The Gospels we have aren't 100% the words of God by any stretch of the imagination, they are second hand accounts, so believing the rest of the book, stitched together from ages and ages of myths and fairy tales, is the word of God is just silly.

Marcion ain't the half of it

[edit on 30-12-2009 by Titen-Sxull]

Originally posted by oliveoil

Not only does it prophtsize about Jesus it also says that the Gentiles would be
called a new name. That would be Christians.


Isaiah 62:2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.

Biblical prophecy, indeed ALL prophecy, is supremely vague. This prophecy doesn't say anything specific about the name itself being "Christian" so it's only assumed, based on the fact that Christianity did get spread to the Gentiles, that the verse is referencing Christians.

Also, the Gospels we have, are, for the most part, written long after Jesus's death in a time when memories, heck LIFESPANS, were notoriously short. Ever heard of the rumor line? One end starts with a story and by the time it ends up at the other end the story is different, elements have become exaggerated or even fabricated. Since we have no first hand Gospel, no disciple was writing AS he followed Jesus (or if they were we have no evidence of it) we have to assume that some elements of the story are exaggerated while others are fabricated.

My guess is that many of the elements that are supernatural were added over time as Christianity branched out and got blended with other belief systems. This can be seen even today as Christians in Ethiopia likely practice a different Christianity than we do here, they even believe they have the ark of the covenant and keep a replica at every church. In fact there are countless denominations, believing all sorts of variations of the Bible and Jesus story even today.

Anyway my point got lost in all that, my basic point was that the elements which seem to line up with prophecy, if they aren't due to coincidence, vagueness of the prophecy itself, or self-fulfilling prophecy (ie that many would-be Messiah's probably ordered their lives around the prophecies) than they are probably a result of the story changing. Whoever wrote the versions of the Gospels we go on today could have easily added in the parts that seem to line up to the prophecies in order to make the story seem more believable and make Jesus the definitive Messiah. Makes a much more convincing story than "He was a great philosopher who got wrongfully executed and will be greatly missed."

I think that in focusing on the supernatural elements people forget the profound wisdom in Jesus's teachings. It's clear that these more mundane parts are more likely based in truth and are more morally important that the supernatural stuff. After all Jesus taught that it wasn't religious ritual that got you salvation, it was love.



[edit on 30-12-2009 by Titen-Sxull]

Please list those documents for me and then I will list the ones he used. Also list the different sects.

Well, when i said documents, i was referring to 60 something books in the bible. There's no need to list all those. My point was, those books chosen for the bible back then during the council of Nicaea were chosen by different sects of Christendom eg: Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Lutherans, Calvinists. To each sect they had the same books but applied different views to them.

So what happened was Marcion had different views to the Roman Church, they kicked him out. He started his own church and his own bible. His bible contained the same books as the Roman Church's but so what? The current bible hadn't been built yet so there was no authority view in Christendom of what Marcion was using. Other Church's were using the same books as well but had different views. The Books weren't used by any church with an authority view. Not until 325.

List the documents that he used then match up what the church used and everyone else used and you will see that the books were the same just different views.

I agree with you, there's no argument there. The point you made was that he was kicked out for making a bible, were as you were wrong, he was kicked out for having alternative views and built a bible after.

But you know there's more to it then that, we don't have the original manuscripts we have copies of copies of copies of ancient greek manuscripts that have literally thousands of discrepancies between them.

Many of which show signs of later interpolation, which is to say people added passages that then became part of the Cannon. There are whole books of the Cannon like the book of revelation which for hundreds of years were not included because they were deemed false gospel.

There were other books like the Shepherd of Hermas which you probably haven't heard of, that for centuries was considered part of the cannon and then later jettisoned as later false gospel.

We have all these issues with the bible and yet you think labelling it 'the word of god' is appropriate?

Christianity has been humming along for 2000 years and a couple of 13 year old athiests on this thread have just destroyed it by telling people that the BOOKS of the Bible were compiled into one BOOK by a *gasp* Church!

Why is it so important for militant atheists(not all athiests) to be obsessed with anything that has to do with God?

But who am I to talk, I never recieved my PHD in Internet Researching with a minor in Google Science.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

Biblical prophecy, indeed ALL prophecy, is supremely vague. This prophecy doesn't say anything specific about the name itself being "Christian" so it's only assumed, based on the fact that Christianity did get spread to the Gentiles, that the verse is referencing Christians

.

What other name could Isaiah be speaking of ?

Also, the Gospels we have, are, for the most part, written long after Jesus's death in a time when memories, heck LIFESPANS, were notoriously short. Ever heard of the rumor line? One end starts with a story and by the time it ends up at the other end the story is different, elements have become exaggerated or even fabricated. Since we have no first hand Gospel, no disciple was writing AS he followed Jesus (or if they were we have no evidence of it) we have to assume that some elements of the story are exaggerated while others are fabricated.

Your "rumor line" in this case does not apply. The Gospels were written by four individuals who wrote the exact same thing.(except John) How many people can do that off of shear memory?

My guess is that many of the elements that are supernatural were added over time as Christianity branched out and got blended with other belief systems. This can be seen even today as Christians in Ethiopia likely practice a different Christianity than we do here, they even believe they have the ark of the covenant and keep a replica at every church. In fact there are countless denominations, believing all sorts of variations of the Bible and Jesus story even today.

Its the same book. However, the interpretations of said doctrines do differ.ex. My Girlfriend is straight from Cuba and believes in the one true God but practices a form of Santaria from Africa(praying to the Saints) Guess what Bible she uses?. That's right, the same one I use, the same one used over thousands of years ago.

Anyway my point got lost in all that, my basic point was that the elements which seem to line up with prophecy, if they aren't due to coincidence, vagueness of the prophecy itself, or self-fulfilling prophecy (ie that many would-be Messiah's probably ordered their lives around the prophecies) than they are probably a result of the story changing. Whoever wrote the versions of the Gospels we go on today could have easily added in the parts that seem to line up to the prophecies in order to make the story seem more believable and make Jesus the definitive Messiah. Makes a much more convincing story than "He was a great philosopher who got wrongfully executed and will be greatly missed."

The Bible we use today is the same Bible used thousands of years ago.
Please show me different.

I think that in focusing on the supernatural elements people forget the profound wisdom in Jesus's teachings. It's clear that these more mundane parts are more likely based in truth and are more morally important that the supernatural stuff. After all Jesus taught that it wasn't religious ritual that got you salvation, it was love.

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

reply to post by andre18


The positive texts on EARTH are ALL designed to guide those who want to get back home were they belong but have problems finding the ONLY PATH. Text from all religions carry this underlying message be good to your surroundings* and those you encounter* respect the CREATOR OF ALL* and do your best not to be distracted in the midst of all the darkness and unknown*. So I disagree that the bible text you speak of are not of the "GOD" origin.

[edit on 12/31/09 by Ophiuchus 13]