reyb Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangetholic Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted March 4, 2013 Author Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangetholic Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) "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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted March 4, 2013 Author Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangetholic Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangetholic Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted March 4, 2013 Author Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted March 4, 2013 Author Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangetholic Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted March 4, 2013 Author Share Posted March 4, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangetholic Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Reyb you haven't answered the question.. Which are you assenting to? Christological orthodoxy or heterodoxy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted March 4, 2013 Author Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now