|
|
Post by phantasman on Sept 16, 2013 11:48:28 GMT -5
Marcion taught strictly Paul (Luke).
Yet I am finding many contradictions between anything Luke wrote, including his Gospel with that of the other Canon Gospels as well as non Canon.
We are in a hot fired thread at CF about what Gospel Paul preached. That he was self authoritative.
Do you believe he could have been false prophet?
|
|
|
|
Post by g_n_o_s_i_s on Sept 16, 2013 13:51:15 GMT -5
My view is that Luke is a modified version of the Gospel of Christ that Marcion used. It is possible that what Marcion had in his possession could have been the "original" gospel and all four of the canonicals are derivative works. I've seen some very interesting comparisons that would make that seem possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by g_n_o_s_i_s on Sept 16, 2013 15:50:31 GMT -5
I also believe that Paul stood closer to "original" Christianity than any of the authors that followed him. No proof, just a hunch.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantasman on Sept 17, 2013 10:32:14 GMT -5
My view is that Luke is a modified version of the Gospel of Christ that Marcion used. It is possible that what Marcion had in his possession could have been the "original" gospel and all four of the canonicals are derivative works. I've seen some very interesting comparisons that would make that seem possible. I am beginning to see a direct conflict between everything Luke authored (Luke, Acts, Epistles) and John, Thomas, Philip and Mark. Marcion seems to have taught strictly Pauls self appointed Apostleship. Paul called himself the father of others. Yet Christ said to call no man father. The more I study the catholic theology, the more is is Paul, and not the words of Christ. Though they claim Apostolic succession from Peter, it is filled with Paul (and Barnabas, Luke). Luke is the only Gospel that has Jesus saying "do this in remembrance of me" to bring about the ritual of Communion. Luke is the only Gospel with Lazarus and the rich man, depicting an idea of hell. There are others. |
|
|
|
Post by Soulgazer on Sept 18, 2013 8:17:16 GMT -5
Most of the confusion arises from unverifiable historical claims put forth by the church; i.e. the church claims it was THE church and everyone else "fell away" from it. The historical reality is that the "church" is an evolutionary product of that which came before it, some of which are those "heresies" that it proclaimed were the ones that "fell away".
When it comes to piecing together early Christianity, you have to take what is written in "scripture" with a grain of salt. While some might find anything spiritually edifying, as historical evidence it is nearly worthless. Look for trends rather than specifics. These trends will be reflected in writings found in the anthology known as the bible, as well as those writings not included in the anthology.
The very first trend is a division around fifty AD. Torah believing Christians vs non Torah believing Christians.
Secondly, remember that the anthology was gathered by people with a specific agenda in mind, and that those writings that did not agree with that agenda were not included. Part of that agenda was to unify the various Christian factions scattered around the Empire; thus not all of the arguments, some rather heated, are common knowledge, and in fact were purposely suppressed to present the world the face of a unified religion.
Another division is one that Paul pointed out, and vehemently opposed. It was to consider Christ "anathema"; as a blood sacrificial animal, or as a friend puts it "dead guy on a stick". In other words, Jesus was sacrificed to appease an angry god in this mindset, the same way that some Hebrews would offer a sacrificial animal. You could no more have a living relationship with this Christ than you could a slaughtered animal.
There were others who became strict vegetarian. There were others who expected a revolt against Rome. Ad infinum.
In other words, early Christianity is a mess with all the complexity of any other organization, compounded with the intentional obfuscations and characterizations of piety. You can't point to one group and say "this is the one".
|
|
|
|
Post by phantasman on Sept 18, 2013 8:28:27 GMT -5
Where can I learn about the differences of what you say here:
The very first trend is a division around fifty AD. Torah believing Christians vs non Torah believing Christians.
|
|
|
|
Post by Soulgazer on Sept 18, 2013 8:35:20 GMT -5
It's university level stuff, but there are a few people that have tried to make it accesable to the rest of us. <iframe width="480" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/GqlOyfIVNDc?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> youtu.be/GqlOyfIVNDc |
|
