I want to be honest with you. This is a difficult discussion for me to have and I have thought about today for quite a bit. As you can well imagine--coming out of TWI
into the Christian world at large was a process. Saturated with the secret knowledge, and a gnostic flavored version of TWI bible thumping magic, I felt far superior
to my fellow man for a very long time. Arrogance is a mark of The Way that I believe stems in part from the gnostic aura surrounding their less than conventional
teachings. I have been out for years, but it has not been years since the Ways stink has been washed from me. I clung tightly to my special knowledge. In fact,
when I was accused here of being condescending, it quickly served to remind, sadden and to humble me.
Having had the fairly unique and often horrific Way experience--which is what can often shape us, I have a less than calm and reasoned reaction to Marcion. To
me, and I understand this does not apply to all ex-way, there is no debate here. That is not to say I won't engage you in a bit, but TO ME, it is an untenable position
to support . I also have an emotional response to this topic. I have so far been unbothered by fly by comments and a SOMETIMES less than welcoming response on
this thread--This topic, I react to viserally. It is too reminiscent. I have no respect or patience with gnostic teaching.
Marcion was a gnostic and a heretic.
I immediatley and with dogged tenacity identify with the Apostolic church fathers of the 2nd century. I see the debate over his cannon as a catalyst for good. With
his REWRITTEN cannon he presented a strong case that HAD to be dealt with. I am thankful for this. I don't see it as a strange dispute between factions, I view it as
the oppurtunity for the Church Fathers to deal with it and clarify the same faith that had been PRACTICED and believed for the previous 100 years.
As you might be aware, it is only a small school of scholars who support the position that Marcion was copied by Luke. Don't get me wrong, I understand the
argument. He could have had early access to some documents at Sinope. He left some verses in that did not support his position. . . . . . . Some say it wasn't
even him, but someone at Sinope after he was excommunicated. . . . . . . . There are some okay arguments out there. I have read some of John Knox.
Marcion also took his pen to Pauls work. He tried to errdicate anything too Jewish. I am sure you know he sat under the teachings of Cedro and obtained his own
"Secret Knowledge" He pretty much dismissed the entire OT.
Some of the reasons I dismiss him ARE his teachings. They don't work with the OT---they don't fit with the thread of the bible--its theme if you will. A Savior from
sin, fits . For me he is just too far fetched---an affront to the beauty and reason of the gospel. It is a bizarre doctrine with an incompetent God, a barbarian God of
the OT, a peaceful God saving us from the other God, not our own sin, which we are convicted of. No judgement, no ressurection of the dead. . . He loved the
grace that Paul taught, but twisted the logic and simplicity of it. Funny, he so mirrors The Way. He taught one thing and lived a completely differing lifestyle.
He lived an ascetic life--demanded it of others--FORBIDDING to marry. What really gets me is his claims of Jesus praising the androgenous original man/woman.
Sounds like LCM and his version of original sin. That was okay for a dumb, blonde, blue eyed, 19 year old with no experience of worth with a church, I have grown
up.
Perhaps it is just as it says--a warning for teachings around at the time the epistles were written. Who was around? Where did he learn this stuff. Perhaps Clement
didn't hide away in a cave, but it was Paul who warned us.
Beware of special knowledge Dan. Sometimes things that are taught to us in history are correct. We are free to believe whatever we want, and free to try and
restore the "Good name" of a heretic. But, I have sat under a heretic, I have seen the fruit in his life--destruction and pain. I no longer embrace them, but, do
actively RUN the other way.
I am incredulous that you let this be the straw the broke the camels back for you, but I almost think it is better to not believe for a time--than to believe a cloying
gnostic doctrine.
Anyway, I appreciate the time--it was a painful consideration, but in my lone perspective here--a worthy one!
Let me just add this on--One of the reasons why I give little serious thought to the idea that Luke would have copied Marcion, is that Luke would have reviled him.
Polycarp called him the "first born son of satan". He bought his way into the church at Rome--and soon after they booted him and gave him his money back.
They were hurting after that, but it was better to be rid of him. They despised his teachings which were contrary to the beliefs and practices of the church. The only
good to come out of his churches was celibacy. His churches didn't last. He reminds me of the Way--teach one thing-live another.
Geisha
Anything else you wanna talk about?:) By the way, historians could have saved themselves a bunch of trouble--they could have come to this thread---learned the life expectancy of the average man in the 1st century and threw out the whole thing. I wonder why they didn't consider this?
I regard my opinions and "knowledge" on the subject of Marcion as neither "secret" nor particularly "special" .
But I do think this information may be invaluable for deepening our understanding of Christian history, its beliefs, its literature,
and how all this stuff might even effect us today.
The information relating to this topic is readily accessible to anyone with a few questions and a library card.
There is no reason for anyone to remain uninformed as to this particular chapter of Christian history, whether
or not they like the subject under consideration, or agree or disagree with the doctrines held by a person or movement.
The unbiased historians and textual scholars would inquire: what role - if any - did this particular person or movement play in Christian history, and
did his activity affect the outcome of that version of the NT that's come down to us?
The caricature of "Gnosticism" and any movements placed beneath that unbrella term by the Church Fathers does not render justice to the subject.
Not all "gnostics" subscribed to the idea of salvation via a secret knowledge. The so-called "gnostics" were no more homogenous in their views
than Christians today. And while there were some gnostics which went out their way to avoid persecution, others like the Marcionites accounted for
just as many- if not more - martyrs which sacrificed their lives for their Savior.
The material of the New Testament - depite the homogenity the "orthodox" editors attempted to impose upon it -is essentially an amalgam composed of elements
derived from the different Christian/gnostic movements. That's one reason why many centuries later, -especially among those who derive their beliefs
from an ultra-literal reading and interpretation of the material in the NT - Marcionism will rear its "ugly head" so to speak. This is especially startling
to observe occurring among Christians who know little or even nothing about the topic of Marcionism. How could this be, if the seeds of Marcionism
wasn't already present in some form in the "field" of the New Testament writings?
How did it happen that the Way International - as you so aptly pointed out - arrived to the position of Paul being "the Apostle" for the present church,
a position identical to an ancient heretic's view?
We know that the ultra-literalist Bullinger and his view of dispensationalism was the source here. Without expressing or betraying even an awareness on
the subject of Marcion in his studies (if someone knows otherwise, by all means please let me know), to a remarkable degree, Bullinger "re-created" the doctrines
of Marcion. How would this have been possible if Marcionism or traces thereof wasn't already present within the texts of our NT?
Note the anti-environmentalist positions oft taken by "Bible believing Christians" in our country today, which might be summed in the lyrics, "This world
is not my home - I'm just a passing through" - reflecting the anti-cosmic attitudes of the so-called ancient "gnostics" . These same "Bible-believers"
support anti-environmentalist political figures (like Bush) and neglect this "evil material world" as transient even while the north pole melts away.
Like it or not, such unhealthy "memes" and inclinations are present in the psychology of a many of today's "Bible believing" Christians.
Where did they come from?
Let me also note that the passages I alluded to earlier in this thread- of Jesus railing against his disciples for their lack of believing and perception - might also
be seen as a literary contribution in our NT originating from the Marcionites, which viewed the original disciples as having been blind and unteachable, necessitating
the role of Paul and his "special revelation" in the views of early Christian/gnostics.
I have to work today, and despite my unflappable position on the subject, I wanted to somehow make this point to you. I want to make it in a kind way. Yet, my
first reaction is one of bewilderment. It shouldn't be, given what we all once believed. First, Danny, Bullinger is a fairly lone voice. Christians don't use his bible as
gospel truth. Why do you think VP embraced him? He had "special knowledge" that other learned, thoughtful, contexual critics, don't ascribe to. There is not a huge
movement out here to explore Bullingers work. Not because he is unknown, but because he is dismissed. If you go to a Christian book store, order a Companion
study bible, and the clerk has half a brain, he/she is going to direct you elsewhere. Why? They know it is the favorite bible of CULTS!! WHY???It is easy to come to
similar conclusions of Marcion, if you don't have a basic gospel. An example of "Secret Knowledge"
It is not like Marcion or others are a SECRET to bible scholars Danny. They don't need a library card. I don't need one. He is too easy to dismiss based on his own
version of the gospel. He was not once as easy for us to dimiss. We actually embraced several of his ideas. That is where VP went, from the simple truth laid out
to us, the gospel--- a Savior for sin---to a doctrine of "Free for all Grace" and an "Absent Christ".
Yes, Marcion loved Pauls epistles, with the EXCEPTION of the pastoral epistles. He cherry picked the documents that circulated and he rewrote them. He dismissed
the other gospel writers and focused on Luke, whom he KNEW was Paul's buddy. He was raised by a Christian father in a church established by Paul. Paul--was his
guy!!
There is evidence that he was excommunicated for sins of a sexual nature. "Defiling a virgin". He went up to the church at Rome--gave them a big pile of cash and
stayed there for a time. They booted him as well, and actually gave him his money back!! He had to find a place he belonged. He sat under an identified and
dismissed heretic. He learned "Secret Truth" that is what they themselves called it. He formed his own Church based on these doctrines. And I have to admit to
you---they grew quickly for a time. But, they are gone and Christianity is still here. My point to you was, they rear their ugly heads every so often in the form of
cults. All based on similar beliefs. That is why they are considered cults. That is what gives us our defenition of cults from a Christian perspective. We consider it a
BAD thing. For many reasons, but the most compelling is it is always peversion of a simple truth. Christ-Jesus-God in the flesh came and died for our sins, was
resurrected and will come again.
Danny, do you know what really gets me upset? I, without objectively looking at it, and with the word of a pervert VP, believed that the Church Fathers were bad.
That they tried to supress poor Marcion and others. That early Christians did not believe that Jesus was God. That the doctrine and practice of Christians today
is based on a lie---the winning team getting their way. I bought that garbage hook-line-and sinker. Too lazy to look myself and decide what I really thought.
Let's look at it. Marcion, --Defiling a virgin, VP-defiling a church secratary---Marcion--looking for a place to go--VP the same---Marcion--sitting under a teacher with
secret knowledge. VP-Stiles, Lenoard, Bullinger(Secret knowledge) Remember, the rest of Christianity is clueless. Marcion, taking his secret knowledge and
starting his own churches. VP-PFAL and the Way---MArcion, big for a time--planted churches like weeds. VP - the way at its height, there was growth.
Marcion, peverting grace into a sinless doctrine. VP the same--there is no sin anymore. It is grace. Marcion-preaching grace while putting his followers under the
strictest legalism. VP--well we all know that one. It is Grace, but did you turn in your schedule, sell your house, and sleep with your wife last night? or how many
drinks did you Way Corps have--you are moving here, did you jog today?
Why do I think gnostic doctrine is bad? I think so, not only because the bible tells me, but I can see the result of its grip on the lives of its ascribers. What
transformation? Where is the community? What happens to those who participate? Where is the salvation? Where is the truth-Jesus Christ? Where is He relagated? I
could go on, but in the end this word sums it up. Fruit. What is the fruit of the gnostic tree? That is why the warnings -- the stark and dire warnings. It is a
permeating belief system that ends in disaster--here and beyond.
I would lovingly and with the most hopeful of heart Danny, submit to you, that you threw out the bible and the beauty and heart of God for YOU--based on a
cultivated and fertile presupposed mindset. You didn't uncover some long untapped historical data written up by German scholars in a persuasive and scholarly
manner that you looked at objectively. Or that the rest of Christian scholars missed. You were ripe with their perspective from the start. The sarcastic soliloquy of
Clement in the cave was not lost on me. If you were in the Way, you were half way there. I say this as a participant--not an observer, which I hope in some small
way lets you hear me.
I love your questions about Jesus. They don't offend me or send me into a full blown lock-down mode. I am not so jazzed on your assertions about Marcion
as equal in merit to the church fathers or their contemporary Christian faithful. My perpective there has expanded, I look with less ex-way vision. It has no real
substantive weight, and therefore easily dimissed in my mind. However, I know what it is for ex-way to let go of their secret knowledge and one doctrine in
paticular. The one that leads to salvation. Which is why I get chills at the very name Marcion in connection with ex-way.
He is where he belongs-in the garbage dump of church history, but the defense that his ideas have merit, or somehow his gnostic view was the same thing as
the Church fathers -- by someone who doesn't believe either rings hollow. If you are going to take that view, take both sides of the issue--evaluate the doctrine
--seek out the reasons they were so opposed and then throw them out if that is still your desire.
Danny--I really do think you are a thoughtful man--it is for this reason I answer you.
Cman-Just look at these terms as descriptive necessities, and not as labels. I consider them valid labels, but maybe that will help you not to be offended.
Far from assuming that the "Church Fathers" are "bad", I've derived considerable pleasure and learning from their works. Tertullian can be a blowhard at times, but he had a sharp sense of humor, besides the fact he is an indispensable source in reconstructing the texts and views of his opponents. St. Ephraem was very eloquent, even when discussing his rivals. Likewise the same with the Armenian Eznik de Kolb.
Epiphanius of Salamis - would never have beer with - extremely nasty and mean-spirited. Heck, let alone me, he would have found sufficient reason to burn even you at the stake as well.
All in all, one cannot study early Christian history without the writings of the Church Fathers. The works however weren’t always written from a “fair and balanced” perspective. The writers naturally stood for their [version of] faith over against other versions. I can’t fault them for that.
The reason I jokingly referred to "St. Clement" earlier was because having read his 1st epistle, I was struck with the stylistic similarities his work shared with those of the Pastorals, and assumed him (as have other scholars) as a possible candidate for having actually produced the Pastoral material.
FYI, most standard introductions on the New Testament - from Goodspeed to Kummel to the more recent works of Bart Ehrman - all categorize the Pastoral epistles as Pseudo-Pauline (the same questions also persist on the authorship of Ephesians and Colossians).
Kummel's volume is good because he does address the different theories behind the Pastorals that have been set forth over the years.
The accusations no doubt flew back and forth between the different Christian movements and churches. They were as nasty toward one another as political candidates running for office in our own country, where one candidate will often resort to exaggerating the “badness” of their opponents, and vice versa. It’s a shame that more literature from the heretics didn’t survive, to provide us the benefit of a “widescreen” version of church history, rather than the “pan & scan” output of only one side. But given the scientific advances that have been made in studying ancient manuscripts, where a mss. may x-rayed to reveal any underwriting, this situation may improve considerably. Not to overlook how much our understanding of early Christian and Jewish history has been enhanced with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library the past century.
FYI, as obscure as the topic may be, more works on the Marcionites are still forthcoming. I see a more recent work released on Amazon, entitled Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle . Someone recently informed me of another newer work that proposes the theory that a disciple of Marcion wrote the Gospel of John, picking up once again the investigation begun by Joseph Turmel and Robert Eisler many years ago.
And I've still yet to release my reconstruction of the Apostolikon.
But there's generally been far more interest in the subject overseas than there has been in the US. But that's all gradually changing.
Here is what I am trying to say. Revisionist historians provide a valuable service. I admire anyone who will take on this task, with objectivity. When new evidence
comes to light, evaluation is crucial. History is crucial IMHO. Having said that, perspective and agenda HAVE to be looked at. They HAVE to. My perspective is
different than yours. We are going to draw different conclusions from the same evidence if we allow our predisposed ideas
to enter into the process. Revising history objectivley is almost impossible to do, if you have a BIG dog in the race.
So, when I say to you---look at the big picture, including doctrine and evaluate, this is what I am saying.
Perhaps they were more than ------like warring political factions.
There may be things that don't fit in Marcions theology--with the rest of the bible. These guys used OT. Marcion diminished its importance. yada yada. Perhaps.
there is something there you missed. AND, if you came out of a gnostic cult who exerted influence over you in matters of faith. . . . . . . hmmm it REALLY is
something to honestly re-think.
You were able to discard the entire matter of God on some thin evidence that a heretic was copied by Luke. Fine, but Luke would have reviled him.
Because of theology.
As far as the epistles go, it is telling to me, that you are not remotely giving the document the benefit of the doubt. Meaning, it says I Paul, and you are saying, in
essence, I whoever but Paul. That is why I mentioned the wisecrack about Clement in the cave. You give the document the benefit of the doubt . You don't
show your disdain for one side over the other. Not, if you want to be credible. It told me something.
Now, couple that with what we were involved in. Step back and look at what we were taught to believe. Add in a healthy dose of psuedo mind control, and
consider the task.
That is all I am trying to say to you. Read, agree, and enjoy Knox et al---------- But, honestly, given our history, consider why you do.
Let's look at it. Marcion, --Defiling a virgin, VP-defiling a church secratary---Marcion--looking for a place to go--VP the same---Marcion--sitting under a teacher with
secret knowledge. VP-Stiles, Lenoard, Bullinger(Secret knowledge) Remember, the rest of Christianity is clueless. Marcion, taking his secret knowledge and
starting his own churches. VP-PFAL and the Way---MArcion, big for a time--planted churches like weeds. VP - the way at its height, there was growth.
Marcion, peverting grace into a sinless doctrine. VP the same--there is no sin anymore. It is grace. Marcion-preaching grace while putting his followers under the
strictest legalism. VP--well we all know that one. It is Grace, but did you turn in your schedule, sell your house, and sleep with your wife last night? or how many
drinks did you Way Corps have--you are moving here, did you jog today
I'm looking at the posts to Danny's Marcion posts and seeing a lot of the above and little objective debate over the topic. Can you see from the post above and many others that perhaps you yourself have a biased view of this, a "big dog in the race"? Can you see that I can just as easily make the argument that since you were apart of a religious group that was so horrible that you see all similar views from other sources as just as horrible and might want to run in the other theological direction? I see this all the time here frankly. That, because I was in a cult, I am now agnostic or atheist or give Marcion credit. Because I was in a legalistic cult, I sought out a less judgmental group. Why doesn't it seem to work the other way around? Objectivity is never 100% but give us a little more credit, at least as much as you've given yourself.
Wouldn't it be more objective to look at Marcion and realize first that most of what we know of him is from his detractors and keep that in mind when we read what the "church fathers" had to say?
Was Polycarp's claimed insult as the "first-born son of Satan" (Antichrist?) true or just an insult? Seems like just an insult to me.
You can't imagine how long it has taken me just to get this little bit down. I keep have to get up and do and deal with other things. Alas I have to go again. I'll try to spend more time on this later.
I could once show you scholarship for The Myth of the 6 Million.
I bet you, that at one time, if not believed it-----you seriously considered it. We ALL did.Perhaps we were PROGRAMMED to question the established
history for less than NOBLE terms. Possibly, just possibly, I looked at this idea while looking at the evidence presented to me. That may in SOME SMALL
way allow me to see things without as much previous predjudice.
It is a KIND piece of advice given with guileless motives. Discarded with so much as consideration. That tells me something.
Revising history, or believing those that do, and drawing definitive conclusions based on a reworking of the same evidence, is quite a feat. You HAVE to ask
yourself what draws you to the ANTI-established ideas. Were we trained to be ANTI-establishment? :) Are you predisposed to easily accept these ideas?
It is not a dig or an insult. These are not MAINSTREAM theories.
My question of why Polycarp would call him "The first born son of Satan" is VALID. My point that Luke would have DESPISED the doctrine of Marcion and others is
VALID. Based on the theology.
But, to believe any of your THEORY you have to discard affirmations of the Apostolic Fathers as too bias for real consideration. You have to give nothing
written the benefit of the doubt, and draw conclusions. I am saying that not only is the internal evidence questioned, so is the external. To far-fetched when you
add in the theology which is VALID.
How can this POSSIBLY be offensive or incredible to you for even consideration? UNLESS--you have discarded something so wonderful and so precious
on the idea the bible was not written by EXACTLY who it says or teaches us it is. Previously believing at least the idea was possible.
That by any stretch of the imagination, gives you a rather LARGE stake in the outcome.
I am shocked that the "Mystery Religions" have not entered the discussion. When I said this was reminiscent---I meant it. To consider what I said would have leant
you much more credibility in my eyes. What would it have cost you, pride? You are willing to believe revisionist history on slim evidence, but someone who shared
a very similar and SHAPING cult experience, because she still believes in God, has questionable motives? I believe in God and it holds me accountable to love you.
To care about complete strangers. Our SHARED experience only serves to make that easier.
Just a thought. Please remember--there is NO animosity in me toward you--no condescenion. Is it even possible that these are issues that must be CONSIDERED?
Being able to discuss them with you may be a clue as to my having asked the same questions of myself.
Have you ever really heard the gospel--the one everyone else hears---spoken from a voice of love. It is reasonable ?
I could once show you scholarship for The Myth of the 6 Million.
I bet you, that at one time, if not believed it-----you seriously considered it. We ALL did.
And you would loose that bet. Not everyone considered and believed it. I didn't, mostly because I never read the book and it differed too much from what I had seen for years in school and had read and the pictures and video I had seen. No doubt though, some people did just take the MOG's word for it, but I would not assume that everyone did.
Perhaps we were PROGRAMMED to question the established
history for less than NOBLE terms. Possibly, just possibly, I looked at this idea while looking at the evidence presented to me. That may in SOME SMALL way allow me to see things without as much previous predjudice.
No I don't think we were programmed to think that way. I'm not convinced that's even possible. I do think many people valued the MOG and the associated God more than most things and believed the MOG without an ounce on critical thinking and discarded reason out of hand.
It is a KIND piece of advice given with guileless motives.
I don't doubt that.
Discarded with so much as consideration. That tells me something.
No need to jump to conclusions. Your advise is rather presumptive about some of us posters here. You seem to think that because some of us have come to different conclusions that we have not considered the evidence objectively as you claim to have. THAT is what is a little insulting and turning people like Danny off here. I won't loose any sleep over it though.
Revising history, or believing those that do, and drawing definitive conclusions based on a reworking of the same evidence, is quite a feat. You HAVE to ask yourself what draws you to the ANTI-established ideas. Were we trained to be ANTI-establishment? Are you predisposed to easily accept these ideas?
Maybe. I think those that chose to be in a cult with non-mainstream ideas might have that predisposition. I don't know that we were trained to be anti-establishment, but it seems the higher up you went in TWI the more it was taught to you. Plus, it's biggest growth period was out of the anti-establishment hippie-Jesus-freak movement. Of course, it could be rebellious youthfulness for many. Some of us have grown up. I grew up in TWI. So, I didn't exactly choose it because of it's fringe teachings. I decided to leave because my view of God had changed over time. Looking back at my diary at the time, I am surprised at how reasonable I was.
Revising history has brought us better and differing perspectives on things like the discovery of North America, WWII, slavery, Native Americans, lost civilizations, Christopher Columbus, George Washington and the founding fathers, evolution, Kings, Queens, etc etc. Sometimes it is from new evidence sometimes it is from a fresh perspective. Sometimes that comes from crazier-than-average people sometimes it comes from very smart people.
It is not a dig or an insult. These are not MAINSTREAM theories.
I didn't think you intended it at such. I don't think it is a bad thing to be outside the mainstream. Everything needs to be looked at on it's own merits. Being in the majority does not make something true nor does it mean that the majority has looked at the subject objectively. I would put money down on a bet saying that most Christians know little to none of the history of their church, much less the Christian church, yet accept most things about it without question. I think I would make good money on that bet.
My question of why Polycarp would call him "The first born son of Satan" is VALID.
Then make that case.
My point that Luke would have DESPISED the doctrine of Marcion and others is VALID. Based on the theology.
Then make that case.
But, to believe any of your THEORY you have to discard affirmations of the Apostolic Fathers as too bias for real consideration. You have to give nothing written the benefit of the doubt, and draw conclusions. I am saying that not only is the internal evidence questioned, so is the external. To far-fetched when you add in the theology which is VALID.
Don't just tell me it's valid, make the case. And capitalizing "theory" doesn't make my theory any more a theory than your theory.
How can this POSSIBLY be offensive or incredible to you for even consideration?
I think I covered that.
UNLESS--you have discarded something so wonderful and so precious on the idea the bible was not written by EXACTLY who it says or teaches us it is.
I'm not sure how it is wonderful and precious. It is either true or it isn't or it is partially true. One thing that being in a cult has done for me is that I don't take people's word for it just because they say so. That skepticism makes me not jump to conclusions when the Gospels, for example, don't internally point to a specific author and are not referred to with their current titles (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) anywhere until the late second century. Shall we just assume? We also have the synoptic problem. So I think those that accept the current titles as the authors are making a leap where those that leave the options open are not. In my experience, those with a "big dog in the race" (as you put it), like say redemption and eternal life, are far less likely to leave their options open.
Previously believing at least the idea was possible.
That by any stretch of the imagination, gives you a rather LARGE stake in the outcome.
That previous view, for me, was based on total ignorance. Welcome to most of Christianity. I have no stake in this because I do not believe and, you have not convinced me otherwise, that the Bible is 100% true, historical or not. Without a belief in eternal life and God, I have far less at stake in this than you and others do. I have only things to gain if it is true. Christians, on the other hand, have, in comparison to eternity, nearly everything to loose if you are wrong. Of course, if you are wrong there was nothing to loose to begin with except a faith in a false perception of reality. Kinda like Pascal's Wager in reverse, but not. This is more of an equation in which the amount in which you have to loose, is proportional to your objectivity.
I am shocked that the "Mystery Religions" have not entered the discussion. When I said this was reminiscent---I meant it. To consider what I said would have leant you much more credibility in my eyes. What would it have cost you, pride? You are willing to believe revisionist history on slim evidence, but someone who shared a very similar and SHAPING cult experience, because she still believes in God, has questionable motives? I believe in God and it holds me accountable to love you. To care about complete strangers. Our SHARED experience only serves to make that easier.
I don't believe in gods. No one holds me accountable to love others and care about strangers... yet I do it anyway. I don't question your motives. I sincerely believe you have what you think is our best interests at heart and I very much appreciate that. Just give us a little more credit. None of us regulars down here just got out of a cult yesterday. We haven't even begun to actually talk about the issues without assuming things about the reasoning capacities of others. Make a case and rebut the cases of others without assuming that they are approaching it with "waybrain." People who were never involved in a cult come to strikingly different opinions. We are no different.
Just a thought. Please remember--there is NO animosity in me toward you--no condescenion. Is it even possible that these are issues that must be CONSIDERED?
Like I said, I believe that about you. The issues of our cult influence must be considered as we move on and for most of us are considered and reconsidered all the time. I don't think it is an issue you or anyone else here needs to assume about our decision process without knowing our decision process in detail. Plus, religious views are subjective and everything influences us to a degree and blaming it all on a cult is relatively superficial. We are all much, much, more complex than that.
Being able to discuss them with you may be a clue as to my having asked the same questions of myself.
Have you ever really heard the gospel--the one everyone else hears---spoken from a voice of love. It is reasonable ?
I think I have heard it from a number of different voices including a loving voice and I think I have heard that voice of love from people in TWI and from people outside of TWI. I think there are plenty of reasonable things in the Gospels and the Bible, but that does not make it God breathed so to speak. There are also things in there that don't sound reasonable, as Danny pointed out earlier.
We're talking about an ancient church that was once upon a time, Catholicism's most serious and powerful contender during the first three to four centuries of Christianity, before dying out by the tenth. A church which by the middle of the second century, according to Justin Martyr, had spread throughout every part of the then known world - an extraordinary feat if Marcion's Church had actually began at about the time Justin wrote this(!)(?) But also according to Justin - "Marcion is still with us" - suggesting a very aged man.
Add to this the curious tale, preserved in ancient church paintings and statues and in some editions of the old Latin gospel prologues, of Marcion having worked as a scribe for the Apostle John (!) We're not talking about a cornfield cult here, but a well organized church comprising of ministers and priests and deacons (which, much to the horror of his orthodox opponents, included women in those offices), and churches so numerous that the warning was issued to their parishioners that when going through any village, to avoid walking into a Marcionite Church by mistake. In many respects the Marcionite and Catholic churches were identical in their appearances and practices. Yes, the Marcionites practiced celibacy, as was also a practice among orthodox Christians of the time, despite what their reasonings might have been (the practice still survives in the Catholic Church today). As far as history is concerned, the founder of the Marcionites published the earliest known New Testament canon. As I recall, John Knox suggested a dating of 130 AD, and according to the Catholic scholar John Clabeaux, may have been compiled in Marcion's native Sinope, from whence he brought it with him to Rome.
Our knowledge of the Syrian Cerdo, who is said to have introduced to Marcion the antithesis between the Old and New Testament gods, is unfortunately scant.
Marcion's alleged rape of "the Virgin" (=the Great Church?) and expulsion by his father, his recanting of his views on his deathbed - ?
But being that they came out about 75 years after his death (Tertullian) and in another case about 300 years (Epiphanius), might give one pause to be cautious here.
Because yes, for all we know - Marcion may have been every bit the rotten human being as these writers made him out to be - but lest we forget, these writers were also just as human, their words and their deeds comprising just as much a mix of wheat and tares. I am not perfect. Neither are you. And neither were the writers of old.
In fact, I think it somewhat even cruel to the writers themselves to entirely "deify" them through their works, attributing a certain godship to their every jot and tittle, and in the process giving blind eye to those things which make them human, both the good (love, hope, faith, joy, patience)- and the bad (hatred, anger, prejudice, intolerance).
These attributes inevitably find their way into any set of sacred scriptures, because one cannot entirely nor sucessfully extract human nature from the process.
I sent one of your apostles off to a cave. You sent mine off to the garbage heap. How human we are indeed.
:)
This "son of Satan" also shared your noble love and "care about complete strangers":
"One work is sufficient for our God: He has delivered man by His supreme and most excellent goodness, which is preferable to the creation of all the locusts. A primary and perfect goodness is shed voluntarily and freely upon strangers without any obligation of friendship, on the principle that we are bidden to love our enemies, who as such on that very account are strangers to us."
I am thankful to Tertullian for preserving this statement from "the antichrist", and that not everything on this topic has been lost to the "garbage heap of history".
On the other hand, the excavation of ancient garbage heaps have yielded fantastic discoveries, as of course, have also caves.
I apologize. I told you I have a viseral response. I am sure you have read Dr. Sanday(SP)and his work on Luke, which is what settles this matter for most. That of Luke and his gospel. I too am thankful for the writings we have because it establishes for us after our investigation of internal evidence, the matter for many.
Luke is mentioned 4 times in NT, but he is mentioned 2 or 3? times externally
Knox came along and questioned Sanday's work on language he used to establish certain things. I don't mean to be vague, but it has been a few years. It might
surprise you to hear I didn't react so radically to Knox, he was not conclusive or dogmatic, and his work spurred little real conversation.
Until-Greasespot, Kruger(SP) some german scholars, you and others who agree. That means little or nothing to the reality of God. OR the reliability of the bible.
It is an intellectual debate--which has gone on for years--critics of the bible--trying to disprove the existence of God or the reliability of Scripture. I don't mind most
debates. But, I came out of a destructive gnostic cult. I saw the result of this belief system. For me it must be a discussion of the theology as well as history, does
that make sense? It is as valid a consideration as what they said. Why did they say it? For a time, Marcion was pretty big. He was leading a large sect. Even after his death the same group continued and we know the outcome--again.
You yourself said there is little left of Marcions writing. We can put together a slight history of his life. I would disagree that gnosticism like Marcions was as powerful
a contender into History as you put forth--up to the tenth century. But, I MUST agree that it was a very powerful contender in the 1st and 2nd. Which is why
we have to understand WHAT they were contending for as much as THAT they were contending. Hence, my reaction.
I know that quote by Justin Martyr--yes Marcion was big. His churches spread like wildfire--for a time. And?. . . . I told you this already. There is evidence he hung around with Paul too. He was a church Bishop---He was once part of the christian church. Which he why he was given the latitude he was in the beginning. To question him was a BIG deal. His father was a Bishop at Sinope where he was raised for goodness sake. I don't dispute this in the LEAST.
I am not a catholic, although confirmed at one point. They might still count me in as lapsed, but I believe they screwed up pretty badly as doctrine became corrupted.
Yes, information on Cedro is little. And? He was considered a gnostic. Again. . . . .why was he outside the mainstream? What secret knowledge did he have. Well,
if Marcion trained under him--we have a good indication.
The deathbed thing is a bit iffy IMHO but I threw that in to illustrate a point. There are those that believe he did this. Something made him fall out with his father and get the boot. It could not have been good??
None of this is in dispute. My point to you has been the same as well, the why?? Must be looked at. What causes one to react with such vehemence? Money?
Marcion was wealthy--a ship owner. He shored up the church in Rome for awhile--they gave him a refund. Was it the money he pulled away from the church?
Or was it something else? Look at the internal evidence. Take Marcions theology and that of the apostles and fathers. Work it with the OT---well not Marcions--he got rid of that. And all things Jewish, or most. According to him--Chreestos--Christos--Jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah. Faced with many problems, he had to come up with a winner of a theology--Because of this. . . Luke would have despised him. Luke was a skeptic. He looked at everything. He was logical. Luke was a bright guy.
While we are on the subject here. So are you--a bright guy I mean. Too bright to let this talk you right out of God. The bible has had better critics than you over the years. It is has survived. It continues to teach and transform lives. It is too powerful for you to disprove. But, you can look at Marcion and this history from gnostic
shaded glasses and see just what you want. You may take a few with you--to what end? Just make sure you understand all the perspectives. There is one you may have missed.
Love is not deaf, dumb or blind Dan, there is a reason for everything. I slam VP on this site as well, with not one ounce of regret or guilt. Why? I am to love the
Lord with my whole heart, soul, MIND, and strength. Many Christians forget the mind part IMHO. Part of loving him is recognizing those who try to destroy his people, and speak accordingly. Jesus called Peter Satan. I am not a wishy washy person. I call them like I see them. When it is people like you--who I believe are innocent and honest--I make a logical distinction. Sue me. I have a brain--I try to exercise it on occasion.
All in all, one cannot study early Christian history without the writings of the Church Fathers. The works however weren’t always written from a “fair and balanced” perspective. The writers naturally stood for their [version of] faith over against other versions. I can’t fault them for that.
The writers of the epistles (correct me if I'm wrong) and really, if you think about it, the writers of the entire Bible were Jewish. Or at least, came from a Jewish background. It could then, be beneficial to understand a bit more about the perspective/background in this regard.
In addition to the OT, the Jewish people have many writings that they rely upon and teach from. Most of these writings are arguments/debates about what one thing or another means, and how it is to be applied in ones life. The only text that I know of that is absolute (as in though shall obey) are the laws and even in that there is much debate as to how those laws are to be followed and applied in our lives today.
At the center of Jewish thought (regardless if one is Ultra-Orthodox or Ultra-Liberal) is to love God and love your neighbor (as Jesus taught). To be a member of your community and give back to that community, improve that community. Really, most everything else just comes down to HOW to love God and love your neighbor. People have been arguing about the "how" pretty much since "in the beginning." Even the stories of Adam and Lilith come down to how were these two people to love each other - Lilith apparently did not feel loved and rebelled.
And again, in the early days of Christianity, within the writings of Paul, one can see there was still argument and debate about the "how."
I like to think as people we have evolved in this regard. That we are learning and growing as a species in the how. Nevertheless, I think we will continue to debate the "how" until the "new heaven and new earth" is here.
Anamchara did we entice you over to this thread with all the talk of a civil discussion?
(((Oak)))) I have missed this place, and you. :)
I wanted to add to my previous post - I am of the opinion that regardless of what one believes or doesn't believe, whether one labels themself agnostic, athiest, Christian, Muslem, Hindu, etc. etc. - If they are loving their neighbor and taking care of the planet and creatures that have been placed here, then they are loving God. Where else would God dwell??
It is a shame you misunderstand me. I give Danny way more credit than you think I do. I assume he understands Church history. He has shown me he does.
I also assume that he is interested enough to look at all the angles of a subject to glean a better understanding. Am I overreaching here?
Guess what? It is possible --- just possible he missed one. Horror of horror, I might have a different perspective to share with him.
Now, I might have the Christian perspective. Offensive for some to hear, but I doubt to Dan it would be. I might understand a bit differently why the reaction to
Marcion was so volitale. What issues and doctrines were so offensive and why? WHY is important to understanding most anything. You might be able to rattle them
off---but I have been in both camps. For the record and so I am clear on this-- TWI was NOT a Christian anything. It denied that Jesus was God. Sound familar--
who else did this?
BTW Many of the issues you discuss have been researched and written about and conclusions have been drawn. I am sorry, but there is some great work on the
synoptic problem and historically speaking--the 2nd century is not a long time. Do we know anything about the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. These were not
cavemen. They knew how to read and write. There is internal and external evidence for who wrote the gospels--which is why
we call them-Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. Do you honestly think that this has not been shown beyond a reasonable doubt? Read Sanday. It is where Knox and
many others begin. That must mean it is a respected peice of scholarship. I am sorry it is not good enough, but we get those conclusions somewhere.
Also for the record--I never said the bible was God Breathed. I said you can know absolute truth in the PERSON of Jesus Christ. It might surprise you to hear
my perspective on the providence of God and the written words of men. But, you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about me.
What is it you think I have to lose? My humanity? What do you know of me?
Of course I haven't convinced you of ANYTHING--it has never been my aim. I said I would defend my faith beyond a reasonable doubt. For you to accept that or
not is your choice. I have not even said word ONE about Christianity. We are stuck in the same place we got bogged down in while in TWI. I don't know about you,
but I took the Advanced Class
This is similar in many respects. We still have people promoting the same kinds of out of the mainstream, in the same dogged manner--The mainstream must be
suspected. Of course it might be the mainstream for a reason. Oh and the reason I don't make a case is this argument is so esoteric and farfetched to me it holds
no real merit. Dan, I assume, knows the opposing historical data, or he couldn't accept his version as true. I was trying to give him another perspective. The why
of the reaction to Marcion, but that involves theology. So, I was slowly trying to bring that in as not to cram it down anyones throat. We might have had to
mention the God word, and if we can't get past the idea that the bible was written by the authors, well I figured I might have to ease into that. And you wonder why
I assume you still look at things through a narrow prism?????
I offered to share a different perspective with you. It was my mistake.
You may have NEVER heard of Christianity as many practice it--I blame-snake charmers and evangelicals for that.
Sorry to have offended with my presence and my naivite.
Just wanted to add that, if taking the work of some little known scholars with an, out of the mainstream theory, and blowing it up to epic purportions ---isn't a
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
24
30
42
21
Popular Days
Jun 28
23
Jun 27
18
Jun 30
17
Jul 1
17
Top Posters In This Topic
Oakspear 24 posts
Caveman 30 posts
geisha779 42 posts
cman 21 posts
Popular Days
Jun 28 2008
23 posts
Jun 27 2008
18 posts
Jun 30 2008
17 posts
Jul 1 2008
17 posts
Popular Posts
geisha779
Hi Invisible Dan You said "When you gather all the citations from the gospels of such cases, it presents us a rather unsettling depiction. Unsettling in the fact that it's all too familiar." I have
geisha779
Hi Oakspear, Badgering me? I hardly see your discussion as such!! I had better be able to tell you WHY I believe the bible is true, and correct in its declarations of God. That it is His declaration
geisha779
Again--missing my point. I truly understand why. I could once show you scholarship for The Myth of the 6 Million. I bet you, that at one time, if not believed it-----you seriously considered it.
TheInvisibleDan
Would be delighted. I'm enjoying everyone's discussion here.
I would like to briefly touch on the first example you cited - Luke 3:1.
This in itself is a re-working of material from Marcion's earlier gospel, which began (minus the virgin birth material of the preceding
two chapters),
"In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, during the time of Pilate in Judea,
He descended from heaven, and appeared at Capernaum, a village of Galilee..."
Marcion's gospel set the Capernaum episode before Nazareth, whereas "Luke" sets
Nazareth before Capernaum.
But "Luke" let slip by the passage (ch.4): "Whatever things we heard you accomplish at Capernaum -
do likewise here!" -providing internal evidence in support of the arrangement of material of Marcion's text having
antedated the arrangement of our version of "Luke".
"Luke" was consciously playing the role of a Christian Josephus, writing against contemporaries "who had undertaken to draw up an account".
= the many gospels and writings in circulation of the various Christian movements at the time.
I think we're already in the second century here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi Dan
I want to be honest with you. This is a difficult discussion for me to have and I have thought about today for quite a bit. As you can well imagine--coming out of TWI
into the Christian world at large was a process. Saturated with the secret knowledge, and a gnostic flavored version of TWI bible thumping magic, I felt far superior
to my fellow man for a very long time. Arrogance is a mark of The Way that I believe stems in part from the gnostic aura surrounding their less than conventional
teachings. I have been out for years, but it has not been years since the Ways stink has been washed from me. I clung tightly to my special knowledge. In fact,
when I was accused here of being condescending, it quickly served to remind, sadden and to humble me.
Having had the fairly unique and often horrific Way experience--which is what can often shape us, I have a less than calm and reasoned reaction to Marcion. To
me, and I understand this does not apply to all ex-way, there is no debate here. That is not to say I won't engage you in a bit, but TO ME, it is an untenable position
to support . I also have an emotional response to this topic. I have so far been unbothered by fly by comments and a SOMETIMES less than welcoming response on
this thread--This topic, I react to viserally. It is too reminiscent. I have no respect or patience with gnostic teaching.
Marcion was a gnostic and a heretic.
I immediatley and with dogged tenacity identify with the Apostolic church fathers of the 2nd century. I see the debate over his cannon as a catalyst for good. With
his REWRITTEN cannon he presented a strong case that HAD to be dealt with. I am thankful for this. I don't see it as a strange dispute between factions, I view it as
the oppurtunity for the Church Fathers to deal with it and clarify the same faith that had been PRACTICED and believed for the previous 100 years.
As you might be aware, it is only a small school of scholars who support the position that Marcion was copied by Luke. Don't get me wrong, I understand the
argument. He could have had early access to some documents at Sinope. He left some verses in that did not support his position. . . . . . . Some say it wasn't
even him, but someone at Sinope after he was excommunicated. . . . . . . . There are some okay arguments out there. I have read some of John Knox.
Marcion also took his pen to Pauls work. He tried to errdicate anything too Jewish. I am sure you know he sat under the teachings of Cedro and obtained his own
"Secret Knowledge" He pretty much dismissed the entire OT.
Some of the reasons I dismiss him ARE his teachings. They don't work with the OT---they don't fit with the thread of the bible--its theme if you will. A Savior from
sin, fits . For me he is just too far fetched---an affront to the beauty and reason of the gospel. It is a bizarre doctrine with an incompetent God, a barbarian God of
the OT, a peaceful God saving us from the other God, not our own sin, which we are convicted of. No judgement, no ressurection of the dead. . . He loved the
grace that Paul taught, but twisted the logic and simplicity of it. Funny, he so mirrors The Way. He taught one thing and lived a completely differing lifestyle.
He lived an ascetic life--demanded it of others--FORBIDDING to marry. What really gets me is his claims of Jesus praising the androgenous original man/woman.
Sounds like LCM and his version of original sin. That was okay for a dumb, blonde, blue eyed, 19 year old with no experience of worth with a church, I have grown
up.
Perhaps it is just as it says--a warning for teachings around at the time the epistles were written. Who was around? Where did he learn this stuff. Perhaps Clement
didn't hide away in a cave, but it was Paul who warned us.
Beware of special knowledge Dan. Sometimes things that are taught to us in history are correct. We are free to believe whatever we want, and free to try and
restore the "Good name" of a heretic. But, I have sat under a heretic, I have seen the fruit in his life--destruction and pain. I no longer embrace them, but, do
actively RUN the other way.
I am incredulous that you let this be the straw the broke the camels back for you, but I almost think it is better to not believe for a time--than to believe a cloying
gnostic doctrine.
Anyway, I appreciate the time--it was a painful consideration, but in my lone perspective here--a worthy one!
Geisha
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Let me just add this on--One of the reasons why I give little serious thought to the idea that Luke would have copied Marcion, is that Luke would have reviled him.
Polycarp called him the "first born son of satan". He bought his way into the church at Rome--and soon after they booted him and gave him his money back.
They were hurting after that, but it was better to be rid of him. They despised his teachings which were contrary to the beliefs and practices of the church. The only
good to come out of his churches was celibacy. His churches didn't last. He reminds me of the Way--teach one thing-live another.
Geisha
Anything else you wanna talk about?:) By the way, historians could have saved themselves a bunch of trouble--they could have come to this thread---learned the life expectancy of the average man in the 1st century and threw out the whole thing. I wonder why they didn't consider this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I am thankful for Danny giving so much of this that he has learned.
As well as Geisha.
I do not approve of any labeling of groups or people as heretics.
It is not godly at all to me and separatist and exclusionary.
Nor do I like the term 'Church Fathers', The are not the fathers of my 'church'.
Nor is there much of an understanding of church or it's synonyms.
Revelations was almost left out of the 'cannon' back then.
Which is not surprising to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Geisha,
Thank you for your very thoughtful reply.
I regard my opinions and "knowledge" on the subject of Marcion as neither "secret" nor particularly "special" .
But I do think this information may be invaluable for deepening our understanding of Christian history, its beliefs, its literature,
and how all this stuff might even effect us today.
The information relating to this topic is readily accessible to anyone with a few questions and a library card.
There is no reason for anyone to remain uninformed as to this particular chapter of Christian history, whether
or not they like the subject under consideration, or agree or disagree with the doctrines held by a person or movement.
The unbiased historians and textual scholars would inquire: what role - if any - did this particular person or movement play in Christian history, and
did his activity affect the outcome of that version of the NT that's come down to us?
The caricature of "Gnosticism" and any movements placed beneath that unbrella term by the Church Fathers does not render justice to the subject.
Not all "gnostics" subscribed to the idea of salvation via a secret knowledge. The so-called "gnostics" were no more homogenous in their views
than Christians today. And while there were some gnostics which went out their way to avoid persecution, others like the Marcionites accounted for
just as many- if not more - martyrs which sacrificed their lives for their Savior.
The material of the New Testament - depite the homogenity the "orthodox" editors attempted to impose upon it -is essentially an amalgam composed of elements
derived from the different Christian/gnostic movements. That's one reason why many centuries later, -especially among those who derive their beliefs
from an ultra-literal reading and interpretation of the material in the NT - Marcionism will rear its "ugly head" so to speak. This is especially startling
to observe occurring among Christians who know little or even nothing about the topic of Marcionism. How could this be, if the seeds of Marcionism
wasn't already present in some form in the "field" of the New Testament writings?
How did it happen that the Way International - as you so aptly pointed out - arrived to the position of Paul being "the Apostle" for the present church,
a position identical to an ancient heretic's view?
We know that the ultra-literalist Bullinger and his view of dispensationalism was the source here. Without expressing or betraying even an awareness on
the subject of Marcion in his studies (if someone knows otherwise, by all means please let me know), to a remarkable degree, Bullinger "re-created" the doctrines
of Marcion. How would this have been possible if Marcionism or traces thereof wasn't already present within the texts of our NT?
Note the anti-environmentalist positions oft taken by "Bible believing Christians" in our country today, which might be summed in the lyrics, "This world
is not my home - I'm just a passing through" - reflecting the anti-cosmic attitudes of the so-called ancient "gnostics" . These same "Bible-believers"
support anti-environmentalist political figures (like Bush) and neglect this "evil material world" as transient even while the north pole melts away.
Like it or not, such unhealthy "memes" and inclinations are present in the psychology of a many of today's "Bible believing" Christians.
Where did they come from?
Let me also note that the passages I alluded to earlier in this thread- of Jesus railing against his disciples for their lack of believing and perception - might also
be seen as a literary contribution in our NT originating from the Marcionites, which viewed the original disciples as having been blind and unteachable, necessitating
the role of Paul and his "special revelation" in the views of early Christian/gnostics.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi Danny,
I have to work today, and despite my unflappable position on the subject, I wanted to somehow make this point to you. I want to make it in a kind way. Yet, my
first reaction is one of bewilderment. It shouldn't be, given what we all once believed. First, Danny, Bullinger is a fairly lone voice. Christians don't use his bible as
gospel truth. Why do you think VP embraced him? He had "special knowledge" that other learned, thoughtful, contexual critics, don't ascribe to. There is not a huge
movement out here to explore Bullingers work. Not because he is unknown, but because he is dismissed. If you go to a Christian book store, order a Companion
study bible, and the clerk has half a brain, he/she is going to direct you elsewhere. Why? They know it is the favorite bible of CULTS!! WHY???It is easy to come to
similar conclusions of Marcion, if you don't have a basic gospel. An example of "Secret Knowledge"
It is not like Marcion or others are a SECRET to bible scholars Danny. They don't need a library card. I don't need one. He is too easy to dismiss based on his own
version of the gospel. He was not once as easy for us to dimiss. We actually embraced several of his ideas. That is where VP went, from the simple truth laid out
to us, the gospel--- a Savior for sin---to a doctrine of "Free for all Grace" and an "Absent Christ".
Yes, Marcion loved Pauls epistles, with the EXCEPTION of the pastoral epistles. He cherry picked the documents that circulated and he rewrote them. He dismissed
the other gospel writers and focused on Luke, whom he KNEW was Paul's buddy. He was raised by a Christian father in a church established by Paul. Paul--was his
guy!!
There is evidence that he was excommunicated for sins of a sexual nature. "Defiling a virgin". He went up to the church at Rome--gave them a big pile of cash and
stayed there for a time. They booted him as well, and actually gave him his money back!! He had to find a place he belonged. He sat under an identified and
dismissed heretic. He learned "Secret Truth" that is what they themselves called it. He formed his own Church based on these doctrines. And I have to admit to
you---they grew quickly for a time. But, they are gone and Christianity is still here. My point to you was, they rear their ugly heads every so often in the form of
cults. All based on similar beliefs. That is why they are considered cults. That is what gives us our defenition of cults from a Christian perspective. We consider it a
BAD thing. For many reasons, but the most compelling is it is always peversion of a simple truth. Christ-Jesus-God in the flesh came and died for our sins, was
resurrected and will come again.
Danny, do you know what really gets me upset? I, without objectively looking at it, and with the word of a pervert VP, believed that the Church Fathers were bad.
That they tried to supress poor Marcion and others. That early Christians did not believe that Jesus was God. That the doctrine and practice of Christians today
is based on a lie---the winning team getting their way. I bought that garbage hook-line-and sinker. Too lazy to look myself and decide what I really thought.
Let's look at it. Marcion, --Defiling a virgin, VP-defiling a church secratary---Marcion--looking for a place to go--VP the same---Marcion--sitting under a teacher with
secret knowledge. VP-Stiles, Lenoard, Bullinger(Secret knowledge) Remember, the rest of Christianity is clueless. Marcion, taking his secret knowledge and
starting his own churches. VP-PFAL and the Way---MArcion, big for a time--planted churches like weeds. VP - the way at its height, there was growth.
Marcion, peverting grace into a sinless doctrine. VP the same--there is no sin anymore. It is grace. Marcion-preaching grace while putting his followers under the
strictest legalism. VP--well we all know that one. It is Grace, but did you turn in your schedule, sell your house, and sleep with your wife last night? or how many
drinks did you Way Corps have--you are moving here, did you jog today?
Why do I think gnostic doctrine is bad? I think so, not only because the bible tells me, but I can see the result of its grip on the lives of its ascribers. What
transformation? Where is the community? What happens to those who participate? Where is the salvation? Where is the truth-Jesus Christ? Where is He relagated? I
could go on, but in the end this word sums it up. Fruit. What is the fruit of the gnostic tree? That is why the warnings -- the stark and dire warnings. It is a
permeating belief system that ends in disaster--here and beyond.
I would lovingly and with the most hopeful of heart Danny, submit to you, that you threw out the bible and the beauty and heart of God for YOU--based on a
cultivated and fertile presupposed mindset. You didn't uncover some long untapped historical data written up by German scholars in a persuasive and scholarly
manner that you looked at objectively. Or that the rest of Christian scholars missed. You were ripe with their perspective from the start. The sarcastic soliloquy of
Clement in the cave was not lost on me. If you were in the Way, you were half way there. I say this as a participant--not an observer, which I hope in some small
way lets you hear me.
I love your questions about Jesus. They don't offend me or send me into a full blown lock-down mode. I am not so jazzed on your assertions about Marcion
as equal in merit to the church fathers or their contemporary Christian faithful. My perpective there has expanded, I look with less ex-way vision. It has no real
substantive weight, and therefore easily dimissed in my mind. However, I know what it is for ex-way to let go of their secret knowledge and one doctrine in
paticular. The one that leads to salvation. Which is why I get chills at the very name Marcion in connection with ex-way.
He is where he belongs-in the garbage dump of church history, but the defense that his ideas have merit, or somehow his gnostic view was the same thing as
the Church fathers -- by someone who doesn't believe either rings hollow. If you are going to take that view, take both sides of the issue--evaluate the doctrine
--seek out the reasons they were so opposed and then throw them out if that is still your desire.
Danny--I really do think you are a thoughtful man--it is for this reason I answer you.
Cman-Just look at these terms as descriptive necessities, and not as labels. I consider them valid labels, but maybe that will help you not to be offended.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I'm not offended.
Why are you baseing everything off of twi and wierwille?
That is what it seems you are doing.
As a 'heretic' standard to go by.
Like I've said before.
All faiths or whatever you believe will cross paths and meet together eventually.
I do not need to recruit any to my thinking, it will just happen.
And already has plenty.
Your defense of whatever you are defending is not being attacked.
All so called Christian groups have their skeletons in the closet.
Murders, mass annihilation of those that believe differently.
Islam is a valid Spiritual religion.
Just as valid as Christians.
The mass murders done in the name of Christianity happened from those who held to the current canon of the scriptures.
And funny how both groups still kill to make their word come out on top.
This is not Christ which is in Islam as well as Christianity. And More.
But in a language few can hear.
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I'm going on vacation in a few days, try not to have any fun here without me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Geisha,
Far from assuming that the "Church Fathers" are "bad", I've derived considerable pleasure and learning from their works. Tertullian can be a blowhard at times, but he had a sharp sense of humor, besides the fact he is an indispensable source in reconstructing the texts and views of his opponents. St. Ephraem was very eloquent, even when discussing his rivals. Likewise the same with the Armenian Eznik de Kolb.
Epiphanius of Salamis - would never have beer with - extremely nasty and mean-spirited. Heck, let alone me, he would have found sufficient reason to burn even you at the stake as well.
All in all, one cannot study early Christian history without the writings of the Church Fathers. The works however weren’t always written from a “fair and balanced” perspective. The writers naturally stood for their [version of] faith over against other versions. I can’t fault them for that.
The reason I jokingly referred to "St. Clement" earlier was because having read his 1st epistle, I was struck with the stylistic similarities his work shared with those of the Pastorals, and assumed him (as have other scholars) as a possible candidate for having actually produced the Pastoral material.
FYI, most standard introductions on the New Testament - from Goodspeed to Kummel to the more recent works of Bart Ehrman - all categorize the Pastoral epistles as Pseudo-Pauline (the same questions also persist on the authorship of Ephesians and Colossians).
Kummel's volume is good because he does address the different theories behind the Pastorals that have been set forth over the years.
The accusations no doubt flew back and forth between the different Christian movements and churches. They were as nasty toward one another as political candidates running for office in our own country, where one candidate will often resort to exaggerating the “badness” of their opponents, and vice versa. It’s a shame that more literature from the heretics didn’t survive, to provide us the benefit of a “widescreen” version of church history, rather than the “pan & scan” output of only one side. But given the scientific advances that have been made in studying ancient manuscripts, where a mss. may x-rayed to reveal any underwriting, this situation may improve considerably. Not to overlook how much our understanding of early Christian and Jewish history has been enhanced with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library the past century.
FYI, as obscure as the topic may be, more works on the Marcionites are still forthcoming. I see a more recent work released on Amazon, entitled Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle . Someone recently informed me of another newer work that proposes the theory that a disciple of Marcion wrote the Gospel of John, picking up once again the investigation begun by Joseph Turmel and Robert Eisler many years ago.
And I've still yet to release my reconstruction of the Apostolikon.
But there's generally been far more interest in the subject overseas than there has been in the US. But that's all gradually changing.
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Geisha,
I hope you don't stop posting.
I'm pointing out that all sides of the scripture battles back then had their problems.
As they do today.
For us to side with one group over another without a full disclosure would be premature. And really prejudiced which serves evil and not good.
And taking it a bit further one can come to their own conclusions,
which can include none at all.
Peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Said it better in less words=below
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
There, showered, changed and not rushed.
Here is what I am trying to say. Revisionist historians provide a valuable service. I admire anyone who will take on this task, with objectivity. When new evidence
comes to light, evaluation is crucial. History is crucial IMHO. Having said that, perspective and agenda HAVE to be looked at. They HAVE to. My perspective is
different than yours. We are going to draw different conclusions from the same evidence if we allow our predisposed ideas
to enter into the process. Revising history objectivley is almost impossible to do, if you have a BIG dog in the race.
So, when I say to you---look at the big picture, including doctrine and evaluate, this is what I am saying.
Perhaps they were more than ------like warring political factions.
There may be things that don't fit in Marcions theology--with the rest of the bible. These guys used OT. Marcion diminished its importance. yada yada. Perhaps.
there is something there you missed. AND, if you came out of a gnostic cult who exerted influence over you in matters of faith. . . . . . . hmmm it REALLY is
something to honestly re-think.
You were able to discard the entire matter of God on some thin evidence that a heretic was copied by Luke. Fine, but Luke would have reviled him.
Because of theology.
As far as the epistles go, it is telling to me, that you are not remotely giving the document the benefit of the doubt. Meaning, it says I Paul, and you are saying, in
essence, I whoever but Paul. That is why I mentioned the wisecrack about Clement in the cave. You give the document the benefit of the doubt . You don't
show your disdain for one side over the other. Not, if you want to be credible. It told me something.
Now, couple that with what we were involved in. Step back and look at what we were taught to believe. Add in a healthy dose of psuedo mind control, and
consider the task.
That is all I am trying to say to you. Read, agree, and enjoy Knox et al---------- But, honestly, given our history, consider why you do.
Take Care
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Geisha,
With all due respect, I liked your morning post far better.
How often has it turned out to be the case that the advice a person metes out to another
is precisely what one should heeding themselves?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I'm looking at the posts to Danny's Marcion posts and seeing a lot of the above and little objective debate over the topic. Can you see from the post above and many others that perhaps you yourself have a biased view of this, a "big dog in the race"? Can you see that I can just as easily make the argument that since you were apart of a religious group that was so horrible that you see all similar views from other sources as just as horrible and might want to run in the other theological direction? I see this all the time here frankly. That, because I was in a cult, I am now agnostic or atheist or give Marcion credit. Because I was in a legalistic cult, I sought out a less judgmental group. Why doesn't it seem to work the other way around? Objectivity is never 100% but give us a little more credit, at least as much as you've given yourself.
Wouldn't it be more objective to look at Marcion and realize first that most of what we know of him is from his detractors and keep that in mind when we read what the "church fathers" had to say?
Was Polycarp's claimed insult as the "first-born son of Satan" (Antichrist?) true or just an insult? Seems like just an insult to me.
You can't imagine how long it has taken me just to get this little bit down. I keep have to get up and do and deal with other things. Alas I have to go again. I'll try to spend more time on this later.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Again--missing my point.
I truly understand why.
I could once show you scholarship for The Myth of the 6 Million.
I bet you, that at one time, if not believed it-----you seriously considered it. We ALL did.Perhaps we were PROGRAMMED to question the established
history for less than NOBLE terms. Possibly, just possibly, I looked at this idea while looking at the evidence presented to me. That may in SOME SMALL
way allow me to see things without as much previous predjudice.
It is a KIND piece of advice given with guileless motives. Discarded with so much as consideration. That tells me something.
Revising history, or believing those that do, and drawing definitive conclusions based on a reworking of the same evidence, is quite a feat. You HAVE to ask
yourself what draws you to the ANTI-established ideas. Were we trained to be ANTI-establishment? :) Are you predisposed to easily accept these ideas?
It is not a dig or an insult. These are not MAINSTREAM theories.
My question of why Polycarp would call him "The first born son of Satan" is VALID. My point that Luke would have DESPISED the doctrine of Marcion and others is
VALID. Based on the theology.
But, to believe any of your THEORY you have to discard affirmations of the Apostolic Fathers as too bias for real consideration. You have to give nothing
written the benefit of the doubt, and draw conclusions. I am saying that not only is the internal evidence questioned, so is the external. To far-fetched when you
add in the theology which is VALID.
How can this POSSIBLY be offensive or incredible to you for even consideration? UNLESS--you have discarded something so wonderful and so precious
on the idea the bible was not written by EXACTLY who it says or teaches us it is. Previously believing at least the idea was possible.
That by any stretch of the imagination, gives you a rather LARGE stake in the outcome.
I am shocked that the "Mystery Religions" have not entered the discussion. When I said this was reminiscent---I meant it. To consider what I said would have leant
you much more credibility in my eyes. What would it have cost you, pride? You are willing to believe revisionist history on slim evidence, but someone who shared
a very similar and SHAPING cult experience, because she still believes in God, has questionable motives? I believe in God and it holds me accountable to love you.
To care about complete strangers. Our SHARED experience only serves to make that easier.
Just a thought. Please remember--there is NO animosity in me toward you--no condescenion. Is it even possible that these are issues that must be CONSIDERED?
Being able to discuss them with you may be a clue as to my having asked the same questions of myself.
Have you ever really heard the gospel--the one everyone else hears---spoken from a voice of love. It is reasonable ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
edited for the purposes of editing... duh!
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
We're talking about an ancient church that was once upon a time, Catholicism's most serious and powerful contender during the first three to four centuries of Christianity, before dying out by the tenth. A church which by the middle of the second century, according to Justin Martyr, had spread throughout every part of the then known world - an extraordinary feat if Marcion's Church had actually began at about the time Justin wrote this(!)(?) But also according to Justin - "Marcion is still with us" - suggesting a very aged man.
Add to this the curious tale, preserved in ancient church paintings and statues and in some editions of the old Latin gospel prologues, of Marcion having worked as a scribe for the Apostle John (!) We're not talking about a cornfield cult here, but a well organized church comprising of ministers and priests and deacons (which, much to the horror of his orthodox opponents, included women in those offices), and churches so numerous that the warning was issued to their parishioners that when going through any village, to avoid walking into a Marcionite Church by mistake. In many respects the Marcionite and Catholic churches were identical in their appearances and practices. Yes, the Marcionites practiced celibacy, as was also a practice among orthodox Christians of the time, despite what their reasonings might have been (the practice still survives in the Catholic Church today). As far as history is concerned, the founder of the Marcionites published the earliest known New Testament canon. As I recall, John Knox suggested a dating of 130 AD, and according to the Catholic scholar John Clabeaux, may have been compiled in Marcion's native Sinope, from whence he brought it with him to Rome.
Our knowledge of the Syrian Cerdo, who is said to have introduced to Marcion the antithesis between the Old and New Testament gods, is unfortunately scant.
Marcion's alleged rape of "the Virgin" (=the Great Church?) and expulsion by his father, his recanting of his views on his deathbed - ?
But being that they came out about 75 years after his death (Tertullian) and in another case about 300 years (Epiphanius), might give one pause to be cautious here.
Because yes, for all we know - Marcion may have been every bit the rotten human being as these writers made him out to be - but lest we forget, these writers were also just as human, their words and their deeds comprising just as much a mix of wheat and tares. I am not perfect. Neither are you. And neither were the writers of old.
In fact, I think it somewhat even cruel to the writers themselves to entirely "deify" them through their works, attributing a certain godship to their every jot and tittle, and in the process giving blind eye to those things which make them human, both the good (love, hope, faith, joy, patience)- and the bad (hatred, anger, prejudice, intolerance).
These attributes inevitably find their way into any set of sacred scriptures, because one cannot entirely nor sucessfully extract human nature from the process.
I sent one of your apostles off to a cave. You sent mine off to the garbage heap. How human we are indeed.
:)
This "son of Satan" also shared your noble love and "care about complete strangers":
"One work is sufficient for our God: He has delivered man by His supreme and most excellent goodness, which is preferable to the creation of all the locusts. A primary and perfect goodness is shed voluntarily and freely upon strangers without any obligation of friendship, on the principle that we are bidden to love our enemies, who as such on that very account are strangers to us."
I am thankful to Tertullian for preserving this statement from "the antichrist", and that not everything on this topic has been lost to the "garbage heap of history".
On the other hand, the excavation of ancient garbage heaps have yielded fantastic discoveries, as of course, have also caves.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi Dan
I apologize. I told you I have a viseral response. I am sure you have read Dr. Sanday(SP)and his work on Luke, which is what settles this matter for most. That of Luke and his gospel. I too am thankful for the writings we have because it establishes for us after our investigation of internal evidence, the matter for many.
Luke is mentioned 4 times in NT, but he is mentioned 2 or 3? times externally
Knox came along and questioned Sanday's work on language he used to establish certain things. I don't mean to be vague, but it has been a few years. It might
surprise you to hear I didn't react so radically to Knox, he was not conclusive or dogmatic, and his work spurred little real conversation.
Until-Greasespot, Kruger(SP) some german scholars, you and others who agree. That means little or nothing to the reality of God. OR the reliability of the bible.
It is an intellectual debate--which has gone on for years--critics of the bible--trying to disprove the existence of God or the reliability of Scripture. I don't mind most
debates. But, I came out of a destructive gnostic cult. I saw the result of this belief system. For me it must be a discussion of the theology as well as history, does
that make sense? It is as valid a consideration as what they said. Why did they say it? For a time, Marcion was pretty big. He was leading a large sect. Even after his death the same group continued and we know the outcome--again.
You yourself said there is little left of Marcions writing. We can put together a slight history of his life. I would disagree that gnosticism like Marcions was as powerful
a contender into History as you put forth--up to the tenth century. But, I MUST agree that it was a very powerful contender in the 1st and 2nd. Which is why
we have to understand WHAT they were contending for as much as THAT they were contending. Hence, my reaction.
I know that quote by Justin Martyr--yes Marcion was big. His churches spread like wildfire--for a time. And?. . . . I told you this already. There is evidence he hung around with Paul too. He was a church Bishop---He was once part of the christian church. Which he why he was given the latitude he was in the beginning. To question him was a BIG deal. His father was a Bishop at Sinope where he was raised for goodness sake. I don't dispute this in the LEAST.
I am not a catholic, although confirmed at one point. They might still count me in as lapsed, but I believe they screwed up pretty badly as doctrine became corrupted.
Yes, information on Cedro is little. And? He was considered a gnostic. Again. . . . .why was he outside the mainstream? What secret knowledge did he have. Well,
if Marcion trained under him--we have a good indication.
The deathbed thing is a bit iffy IMHO but I threw that in to illustrate a point. There are those that believe he did this. Something made him fall out with his father and get the boot. It could not have been good??
None of this is in dispute. My point to you has been the same as well, the why?? Must be looked at. What causes one to react with such vehemence? Money?
Marcion was wealthy--a ship owner. He shored up the church in Rome for awhile--they gave him a refund. Was it the money he pulled away from the church?
Or was it something else? Look at the internal evidence. Take Marcions theology and that of the apostles and fathers. Work it with the OT---well not Marcions--he got rid of that. And all things Jewish, or most. According to him--Chreestos--Christos--Jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah. Faced with many problems, he had to come up with a winner of a theology--Because of this. . . Luke would have despised him. Luke was a skeptic. He looked at everything. He was logical. Luke was a bright guy.
While we are on the subject here. So are you--a bright guy I mean. Too bright to let this talk you right out of God. The bible has had better critics than you over the years. It is has survived. It continues to teach and transform lives. It is too powerful for you to disprove. But, you can look at Marcion and this history from gnostic
shaded glasses and see just what you want. You may take a few with you--to what end? Just make sure you understand all the perspectives. There is one you may have missed.
Love is not deaf, dumb or blind Dan, there is a reason for everything. I slam VP on this site as well, with not one ounce of regret or guilt. Why? I am to love the
Lord with my whole heart, soul, MIND, and strength. Many Christians forget the mind part IMHO. Part of loving him is recognizing those who try to destroy his people, and speak accordingly. Jesus called Peter Satan. I am not a wishy washy person. I call them like I see them. When it is people like you--who I believe are innocent and honest--I make a logical distinction. Sue me. I have a brain--I try to exercise it on occasion.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
The writers of the epistles (correct me if I'm wrong) and really, if you think about it, the writers of the entire Bible were Jewish. Or at least, came from a Jewish background. It could then, be beneficial to understand a bit more about the perspective/background in this regard.
In addition to the OT, the Jewish people have many writings that they rely upon and teach from. Most of these writings are arguments/debates about what one thing or another means, and how it is to be applied in ones life. The only text that I know of that is absolute (as in though shall obey) are the laws and even in that there is much debate as to how those laws are to be followed and applied in our lives today.
At the center of Jewish thought (regardless if one is Ultra-Orthodox or Ultra-Liberal) is to love God and love your neighbor (as Jesus taught). To be a member of your community and give back to that community, improve that community. Really, most everything else just comes down to HOW to love God and love your neighbor. People have been arguing about the "how" pretty much since "in the beginning." Even the stories of Adam and Lilith come down to how were these two people to love each other - Lilith apparently did not feel loved and rebelled.
And again, in the early days of Christianity, within the writings of Paul, one can see there was still argument and debate about the "how."
I like to think as people we have evolved in this regard. That we are learning and growing as a species in the how. Nevertheless, I think we will continue to debate the "how" until the "new heaven and new earth" is here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Anamchara did we entice you over to this thread with all the talk of a civil discussion?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
(((Oak)))) I have missed this place, and you. :)
I wanted to add to my previous post - I am of the opinion that regardless of what one believes or doesn't believe, whether one labels themself agnostic, athiest, Christian, Muslem, Hindu, etc. etc. - If they are loving their neighbor and taking care of the planet and creatures that have been placed here, then they are loving God. Where else would God dwell??
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
If believing that knowing God is called special knowledge.
Then I would agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi Lindyhopper,
Sorry, missed your post the first time.
It is a shame you misunderstand me. I give Danny way more credit than you think I do. I assume he understands Church history. He has shown me he does.
I also assume that he is interested enough to look at all the angles of a subject to glean a better understanding. Am I overreaching here?
Guess what? It is possible --- just possible he missed one. Horror of horror, I might have a different perspective to share with him.
Now, I might have the Christian perspective. Offensive for some to hear, but I doubt to Dan it would be. I might understand a bit differently why the reaction to
Marcion was so volitale. What issues and doctrines were so offensive and why? WHY is important to understanding most anything. You might be able to rattle them
off---but I have been in both camps. For the record and so I am clear on this-- TWI was NOT a Christian anything. It denied that Jesus was God. Sound familar--
who else did this?
BTW Many of the issues you discuss have been researched and written about and conclusions have been drawn. I am sorry, but there is some great work on the
synoptic problem and historically speaking--the 2nd century is not a long time. Do we know anything about the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. These were not
cavemen. They knew how to read and write. There is internal and external evidence for who wrote the gospels--which is why
we call them-Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. Do you honestly think that this has not been shown beyond a reasonable doubt? Read Sanday. It is where Knox and
many others begin. That must mean it is a respected peice of scholarship. I am sorry it is not good enough, but we get those conclusions somewhere.
Also for the record--I never said the bible was God Breathed. I said you can know absolute truth in the PERSON of Jesus Christ. It might surprise you to hear
my perspective on the providence of God and the written words of men. But, you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about me.
What is it you think I have to lose? My humanity? What do you know of me?
Of course I haven't convinced you of ANYTHING--it has never been my aim. I said I would defend my faith beyond a reasonable doubt. For you to accept that or
not is your choice. I have not even said word ONE about Christianity. We are stuck in the same place we got bogged down in while in TWI. I don't know about you,
but I took the Advanced Class
This is similar in many respects. We still have people promoting the same kinds of out of the mainstream, in the same dogged manner--The mainstream must be
suspected. Of course it might be the mainstream for a reason. Oh and the reason I don't make a case is this argument is so esoteric and farfetched to me it holds
no real merit. Dan, I assume, knows the opposing historical data, or he couldn't accept his version as true. I was trying to give him another perspective. The why
of the reaction to Marcion, but that involves theology. So, I was slowly trying to bring that in as not to cram it down anyones throat. We might have had to
mention the God word, and if we can't get past the idea that the bible was written by the authors, well I figured I might have to ease into that. And you wonder why
I assume you still look at things through a narrow prism?????
I offered to share a different perspective with you. It was my mistake.
You may have NEVER heard of Christianity as many practice it--I blame-snake charmers and evangelicals for that.
Sorry to have offended with my presence and my naivite.
Take Care
Geisha
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Lindyhopper
Just wanted to add that, if taking the work of some little known scholars with an, out of the mainstream theory, and blowing it up to epic purportions ---isn't a
TWI trait and mindset than I don't know what is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.