Fascist Russian Empire wrote:Tarsonis Survivors wrote:Not really. Christianity, like virtually all religions, is a tradition and precedent based system. Any new doctrine cannot simply be invented with any credulity, new doctrine must be invented within a conceivable relation to existing precedent. Therefore the claim that your position has no historical backing does stand as a potentially legitimate critique of your position. However, it also does not adequately dismiss your position, as precedent as a concept can and often is over turned by new precedent. Whether precedent can be overturned in the religious context is a different argument.
This critique however also falls flat on its face because there
is historical precedent. Marcion was a real person. He had a position which he taught and defended. However his rejection by the Christian community at the time also undermines your position, though not dispelling it. The real problem is not much of the first two centuries is known, and true marcionism isn't known as well, just like true pelegianism isn't known. No collection of their teachings exists, all that we know of their teachings is known through their critics, which, well, aren't a great representation of anything.
And traditions and precedents aren't typically established by popular opinion regarding them; in most religions, Christianity included, they come from prophets and or scriptures. If the prophet Zoroaster said something, it would be precedent for establishing a doctrine within Zoroastrianism; if the Qu'ran said something, it would be a precedent for establishing a doctrine within Islam. In the case of some of Churches, such as the Church of Rome, traditions and precedents are also established by the clerical elite.
Not just prophets,
certain prophets. For instance, for the early Israelites, there were dozens if not hundreds of prophets at any one time.
" 13 Has it not been told my lord what I did when Jezebel killed the prophets of the Lord, how I hid a hundred of the Lord’s prophets fifty to a cave, and provided them with bread and water? "
Yet with all these hundreds of prophets through the years, we only codify the words of a few? Who made that choice? Who decided these prophets and not those? People did. Specifically, political and clerical elite.
But no religion creates traditions and precedents based solely on the majority-opinion of laymen.
This statement, makes this statement:
And as for Marcion being rejected by the Christian community, it should be worth mentioning that Marcionism was initially a rather popular doctrine; a not-insignificant portion of the Christian community agreed with him.
Irrelevant.
His doctrines didn't fall from popularity because everybody was convinced Nicene Christianity was the right path, they fell from popularity because of political repression and utilization of violence by political authorities.
It was popular with gentiles, ignorant of Jewish doctrine. However, it was suppress because the
Clergy Elite, denounced the teachings of Marcion. And because the Clergy denounced it, and Marcion left the Church, Marcionism died a long drawn out death, despite its initial popularity.
The same applies to the Cathars (a demographic which agreed with Marcion's theory of two Gods); they were a widespread movement, and non-violent attempts to counter their theology failed,, thus the Church resorted to genocide.
That's not a testament to their authenticity, it's only a testament to their zealotry, and political control. You're drastically simplifying the events surrounding the Cathars, when the truth is this wasn't simply a theological dispute, it was a sociopolitical issue that intersected all aspects of Medieval European society: religious, political, legal, etc.
And also to the Paulicians as well, another somewhat sizable group that was violently repressed by the local rulers at the time. There wasn't overwhelming opposition in the Christian community; there was opposition from the Nicene Churches, who controlled the political authorities and used them as a tool to destroy their religious opponents.
Like you said, doctrine isn't codified based on popular opinion of the layity. The Paulicians actually fell apart from internal conflict and infighting, more than they did from persecution by the Church.
It's hard to place an exact figure on the number of Christians throughout history who have supported Marcion's doctrines, as there isn't a ton of data recording the religious demographics of early and medieval Christianity, but it certainly isn't a minuscule number; several sects and a significant amount of people agreed with him, at least on certain issues.
It's really not, as you're attempting to create bridge between Marcion and these groups that's not necessarily there. These were gnostic sects, that share similarities with some of the teachings Marcion is historically derided for espousing, but to claim them as your own is disingenuous, they were as different from each other as they were similar.
Tarsonis Survivors wrote:Not quite. The New Testament Canon, and the various OT canons, reflect the opinions of the people who codified said canons. They chose the books and rejected others, because certain books correlated with what they taught, and the other books didn't. Hence why the Christian establishment accepted the Gospel of John, and rejected the Gospel of Thomas. Christianity and the Christian establishment preceded the codified Christian Bible. Not the other way around.
Also, all Christianity
is a man made religion.
All religion is man made, because all religions are curated by humans. The Bible did not fall form the sky. It was written, edited, and ultimately codified by men. God's hand in this process is a matter of faith, not a matter of demonstrable fact.
If the texts of the Bible are simply a political message, adopted to reinforce the opinions of men, and every aspect of Christianity is man-made, then by what right do you profess it to be divinely inspired? If the right theology is simply a matter of "faith," then, by that right, every religion must be equally valid because they would all have the same volume of evidence; that the believer believes it to be true.
That's the pitfall of religion. No religion can be objectively proven. All religion is a matter of faith and hope for the truth. But that doesn't mean they're actually true, it just means they're believed to be true. As the Nestorian Heretic Timothy 1 said:
""O our victorious King, in this world we are all of us as in a dark house in the middle of the night. If at night and in a dark house a precious pearl happens to fall in the midst of people, and all become aware of its existence, every one would strive to pick up the pearl, which will not fall to the lot of all but to the lot of one only, while one will get hold of the pearl itself, another one of a piece of glass, a third one of a stone or of a bit of earth, but every one will be happy and proud that he is the real possessor of the pearl. When, however, night and darkness disappear, and light and day arise, then every one of those men who had believed that they had the pearl, would extend and stretch his hand towards the light, which alone can show what every one has in hand. He who possesses the pearl will rejoice and be happy and pleased with it, while those who had in hand pieces of glass and bits of stone only will weep and be sad, and will sigh and shed tears."