Why Marcion lost

[Giuseppe]

There would be a contradiction in your reconstruction. You say that Tertullian or Celsus couldn't know perfectly the marcionism (if not from rival sources). So this means that in the time of the Celsus's Jew (put in second century CE) the marcionism was already in (public) decadence before the (more visible) catholicism. Could the imperial power be interested already in this time about the Christian conflicts to obscure the marcionism in a so early data? One expects still similar visibility by this time...

[Secret Alias]

No the discussion here was not about my beliefs about Marcion or anyone else. It was simply about whether or not the Roman government controlled the expression of religious practice and religion in the Empire. They did. Period. There was little if any freedom of religion which accounts for why Christianity becomes more and more homogeneous as time goes on rather than what one would expect if there was freedom of religion - i.e. everyone starting their own religious sect. Why wouldn't people want power? Why wouldn't people want to be the bishop?

[Secret Alias]

Indeed haven't you ever wondered why the concept of 'heresy' i.e. choosing one's own beliefs was condemned so severely. I don't understand how people imagine that discussion.

Bishop: You have to accept our teaching.
Sectarian: Fuck you.
Bishop: Now you've done it.
Sectarian: Fuck you.
Bishop: I am really, really mad now.
Sectarian: Fuck you.
Bishop: You can't be a part of our church.
Sectarian: Fuck you.
Bishop: Now you really can't be a part of our church.

And if the sectarian had his own church - how did the authorities leverage their authority over the disobedient churches?

The point is what do you imagine the penalty was for not obeying the authorities of the church. Excommunication. So what? Look at Origen for an example. He said fuck you to Demetrius. He had the backing of a rich patron. But what happened next? Demetrius tried to capture Origen and in the end when Origen evaded Demetrius, the Senate eventually condemned Origen. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3160060?se ... b_contents Think of all the disputes that were 'solved' by Imperial force. After the Crisis of the Third Century we see Paul of Samosata condemned. https://www.jstor.org/stable/300003?seq ... b_contents By whom? Yes a council of losers. But in the end his successor was established by the Roman Emperor.https://historum.com/threads/emperor-au ... rch.75214/ We see Aurelian also involve himself in the affairs of the Roman Church at the same time. We hear over and over again that he had something to do with the date of Christmas because he identified himself as the personification of the Sun https://books.google.com/books?id=6MXPE ... as&f=false. Also the other churches have to start worrying about offending the Roman Church in this period.

Why does Dionysius of Alexandria have to answer to Rome about whether or not they baptizing correctly? Why not just say 'fuck you?' Because the Roman state found it convenient to use the Roman Church as policeman in the period. Eventually things don't work out and we see direct Imperial persecutions of the churches outside of Rome (but not in Rome). Why not?

[Giuseppe]

Even when you think about it the Jewish religion - as an example - is theoretically about 'one ruler' now, but he is worshiped 'in secret' (synagogues unlike churches ARE NOT open to anyone to attend - you have to be invited)

Ok, but there was also a lot of Jewish proselytism before the 70 CE. Wasn't it there? Only as effect of the threatened extinction, the judaism gave up the proselytism (to defend self-identity) and gave its copy-right to Christianity, that therefore became the only religion who had monotheism + proselytism. Hence, if I have to choose between the hand of Rome and the force of monotheism (when it is preached to all the people) as the true cause of the success of proto-catholicism, I don't have doubts about which factor was more powerful: Rome did help the proto-catholicism to win against marcionites in virtue of the his preached monotheism. The factor key here is still the monotheism given to all.

[Secret Alias]

I am not saying that Rome 'liked' one side better than the other. The reality is that one side might have played the game better. Bribed, manipulated, got lucky - whatever. Look at the Jewish influence on early Islam for instance. Sometimes you just get lucky. Sometimes you are better. Again I am not saying that the Romans determined the outcome based on some sort of 'deep interest' in Christianity. Look at the manner in which the rabbinic literature boasts of Judah haNasi's closeness with Antoninus. Flattery is what likely won the day. Part of flattery is making the ruler of the world the center of your worship and tacitly connecting that heavenly figure with the early Caesar. But again it's not that the Romans told the successful religions to do this or that. They just gave 'better service' to the customer that is always right.

Giuseppe you are too much about ideas. Ideas aren't what win. Tactics, practical solutions, proactive management of moments - that's that wins. So for instance, 'being well connected' wins. Kissing ass, wins. In the case of modern Israel for instance - would Israel have done as well in the modern world if massive numbers of Jews left Europe at the end of the Second World War and fled to both Israel and America? Yes you need Jews in Israel to make the Jewish state. But you also need Jews in America to help set pro-Israel policies in the most powerful super power in the late 20th century.

Not sure ideas ever win or even have much relevance to winning. It's practical things that decide history.