The tempting of Jesus by Satan

[Thomas R]

Tertullian seems to accuse Marcion of belief in Satan:

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03122.htm

Chapter 10. Another Cavil Met, I.e., the Devil Who Instigated Man to Sin Himself the Creature of God. Nay, the Primeval Cherub Only Was God's Work. The Devilish Nature Superadded by Wilfulness. In Man's Recovery the Devil is Vanquished in a Conflict on His Own Ground.

If, however, you choose to transfer the account of evil from man to the devil as the instigator of sin, and in this way, too, throw the blame on the Creator, inasmuch as He created the devil — for He makes those spiritual beings, the angels— then it will follow that what was made, that is to say, the angel, will belong to Him who made it; while that which was not made by God, even the devil, or accuser, cannot but have been made by itself; and this by false detraction from God: first, how that God had forbidden them to eat of every tree; then, with the pretence that they should not die if they ate; thirdly, as if God grudged them the property of divinity. Now, whence originated this malice of lying and deceit towards man, and slandering of God? Most certainly not from God, who made the angel good after the fashion of His good works.


Chapter 28. The Tables Turned Upon Marcion, by Contrasts, in Favour of the True God.

Now, touching the weaknesses and malignities, and the other (alleged), notes (of the Creator), I too shall advance antitheses in rivalry to Marcion's. If my God knew not of any other superior to Himself, your god also was utterly unaware that there was any beneath himself. It is just what Heraclitus "the obscure" said; whether it be up or down, it comes to the same thing. If, indeed, he was not ignorant (of his position), it must have occurred to Him from the beginning. Sin and death, and the author of sin too — the devil— and all the evil which my God permitted to be, this also, did your god permit; for he allowed Him to permit it. Our God changed His purposes; in like manner yours did also.

[Thomas R]

Hippolytus: Refutation of All Heresies

http://gnosis.org/library/hyp_refut10.htm

CHAP. XV.--MARCION AND CERDO.

But Marcion, of Pontus, and Cerdon, his preceptor, themselves also lay down that there are three principles of the universe--good, just, and matter. Some disciples, however, of these add a fourth, saying, good, just, evil, and matter. But they all affirm that the good (Being) has made nothing at all, though some denominate the just one likewise evil, whereas others that his only title is that of just. And they allege that (the just Being) made all things out of subjacent matter, for that he made them not well, but irrationally. For it is requisite that the things made should be similar to the maker; wherefore also they thus employ the evangelical parables, saying, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit," and the rest of the passage. Now Marcion alleges that the conceptions badly devised by the (just one) himself constituted the allusion in this passage. And (he says) that Christ is the Son of the good Being, and was sent for the salvation of souls by him whom he styles the inner than. And he asserts that he appeared as a man though not being a man, and as incarnate though not being incarnate. And he maintains that his manifestation was only phantastic, and that he underwent neither generation nor passion except in appearance. And he will not allow that flesh rises again; but in affirming marriage to be destruction, he leads his disciples towards a very cynical life. And by these means he imagines that he annoys the Creator, if he should abstain from the things that are made or appointed by Him.

[lsayre]

Off topic for sure, but it all seems to be akin to an advanced studies version of arguing as to how many angels might sit on the head of a pin. Endless non-productive philosophical infighting over mere fabrications of the mind. Extending this backwards to the earliest stages of emerging humanity, the very emergence of what is commonly referred to as some combination of consciousness and/or self awareness and conceptualization (or more simplistically perhaps, the emergence [awakening] of a knowledge or awareness of good and evil) must have been abjectly terrifying, and likely lies at the very root of all of such fabrications.

[John T]

Under the system of those at Qumran, Belial/Satan was the "lord of this world".

I'm not familiar with your version of the system at Qumran. Can you cite where Belial is the "lord of this world"?

I have a different take.

The Heavenly Prince of Melchizedek (11Q13) talks of the year of the Jubilee where Melchizedek will summon all the Sons of Light to attend to the destruction of Belial (Melkiresha). But I'm not sure where you get a system that Belial is the lord of this world.

Because:

"All the children of righteousness are ruled by the Prince of Light and walk in the ways of light, but all the children of injustice are ruled by the Angel of Darkness and walk in the ways of darkness. The Angel of Darkness leads all children of righteousness astray....for all his allotted spirits seek the overthrow of the sons of light." The Community Rule 1Qs III.

Furthermore:

"For God has established the spirits in equal measure until the final age, and has set everlasting hatred between their divisions." The community rule 1Qs IV.

As I said many times in the past, those who do not take into account the importance of the Essence movement will always have trouble understanding the Gospel of Jesus.

And finally: Yes. The tempting by Satan can be explained knowing the real "system" at Qumran.

John T

[MrMacSon]

Hippolytus: Refutation of All Heresies

http://gnosis.org/library/hyp_refut10.htm

CHAP. XV.--MARCION AND CERDO.

fwiw, M David Litwa has, as one would expect, similar in his version of the Refutation of All Heresies, but with some interesting subtle variations

(if I put the column 'titles' in the table it goes skew so here they are above it)

.................................http://gnosis.org/library/hyp_refut10.htm ....................................................................................................... Litwa

But Marcion, of Pontus, and Cerdon, his preceptor, themselves also lay down that there are three principles of the universe--good, just, and matter. Some disciples, however, of these add a fourth, saying, good, just, evil, and matter.	Markion of Pontos and Kerdon his teacher also determined that there are three principles of everything: a good being, a just one, and matter.53 Some of their disciples add a fourth principle, speaking of a good being, a just one, an evil one, and matter.
But they all affirm that the good (Being) has made nothing at all, though some denominate the just one likewise evil, whereas others that his only title is that of just. And they allege that (the just Being) made all things out of subjacent matter, for that he made them not well, but irrationally. For it is requisite that the things made should be similar to the maker; wherefore also they thus employ the evangelical parables, saying, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit," and the rest of the passage. Now Marcion alleges that the conceptions badly devised by the (just one) himself constituted the allusion in this passage.	Yet all of them claim that the good principle made nothing at all. It was the just principle—whom some call evil and others simply just—whom they claim created everything from underlying matter. He made it not skillfully but irrationally, for it is necessary that generated beings resemble their maker. Consequently, they use the Gospel parables (for instance, “it is not possible for a good tree to bear bad fruit,” and so on), claiming that these verses were written in reference to the things Markion perversely assumes.56
And (he says) that Christ is the Son of the good Being, and was sent for the salvation of souls by him whom he styles 'the inner [m]an.' And he asserts that he appeared as a man though not being a man, and as incarnate though not being incarnate. And he maintains that his manifestation was only phantastic, and that he underwent neither generation nor passion except in appearance.	Christ is son of the Good and was sent by him for the salvation of souls.57 He calls him “the inner human,” claiming that he appeared as a human but was not human, that he appeared as enfleshed but was not enfleshed—that he manifested himself in appearance, enduring both birth and his suffering only in appearance.
And he will not allow that flesh rises again; but in affirming marriage to be destruction, he leads his disciples towards a very cynical life. And by these means he imagines that he annoys the Creator, if he should abstain from the things that are made or appointed by Him.	He denies the resurrection of the flesh. He says that marriage is corruption. He leads his disciples into a Cynic-like lifestyle. By this means, Markion supposes he can grieve the Artificer by abstaining from his products and ordinances.

53 Our author took his summary of Markion and Kerdon from a source different from his main report in Ref. 7.29.1; 7.30; 7.37. Judging by its content, that source was not Irenaeus. Still, by treating Markion and Kerdon together, our author follows the lead of Iren., Haer. 1.27. For Kerdon, see Ref. 7.10; 7.37.1; Iren., Haer. 1.27.2; 3.4.3; Epiph., Pan. 42.1.1; 42.3.1; Tert., Marc. 1.2.3; 4.17.11; Ps.-Tert., Adv. omn. haer. 6; Filastrius, Haer. 45.1, 3; Theodoret, Haer. fab. 1.24 (PG 83:372d, 373b). For the three principles, see Ref. 7.31.2 (Prepon); Rhodon in Eusebios, Hist. eccl. 5.13.4; Epiph., Pan.42.3.1–2; 65.8.6. In the main report, our author ascribed two principles to Markion (Ref. 7.29.1)
56 Matt 7:18. cf. Tert., Marc. 1.2.1; 4.17.11; Ps.-Tert., Adv. omn. haer. 6.2; Filastrius, Haer. 45.2; Origen, Princ. 2.5.4.
57 On the Good, see Iren., Haer. 1.27.2; Epiph., Pan. 42.4.2; Ps.-Tert., Adv. omn. haer. 6.1; Ref. 7.37.1 (Kerdon); 7.38.2 (Apelles).

[Thomas R]

arguing as to how many angels might sit on the head of a pin.

Yeah, that is what the forum is for.

[Thomas R]

From The Nativist Prophets of Early Islamic Iran by Patricia Crone:

https://books.google.com/books?id=7k0hA ... &q&f=false

Though the trinitarian cosmology has nothing to do with Mazdak it is of great interest for the religious milieu of late antique Mesopotamia and Iran, of which the Khurramis formed part. To appreciate this we first need to look at the Marcionites known to AbuqIsa. According to him they
believed in three original beings or principles, namely God (replaced by light in sources after AbuqIsa ), the devil, Marcion’s Old Testament God recast as Ahriman (darkness in later works), and, in between the two, a third principle of a mild and meek nature. The third principle had been attacked by the devil, who mixed his own nature in it and built the world out of the mixture, setting up his own humum and powers to manage and regulate it.The twelve constellations and seven planets were his spirits; animals that ate one another were also his work, as were fruiting and non-fruiting trees, the division of livelihoods into four groups (presumably the four estates of the Zoroastrians), and the alternation of day and night. The devil had also divided property among his troops, with the result that they fought one another over it, and it was his forces that sent false messengers and religions. When the highest exalted (al-qalı al-aqla) saw that the third being had become a captive in the devil’s hand he took pity on it and sent a spirit of his, infusing it in this world: this was Jesus, the spirit and son of God, and whoever followed Jesus’ ways, abstaining from killing, marriage, intoxicating drinks, and fetid things, would escape from the devil’s net.

p 198

[John T]

arguing as to how many angels might sit on the head of a pin.

Yeah, that is what the forum is for.

Astro-Physicists argue all the time, just how small of a blob of material was needed to create the big bang. Of course they never argue where that blob came from.
Do you not see the irony?

[lsayre]

Astro-Physicists argue all the time, just how small of a blob of material was needed to create the big bang. Of course they never argue where that blob came from.
Do you not see the irony?

Not really. It's no different than asking where God came from.

[John T]

Astro-Physicists argue all the time, just how small of a blob of material was needed to create the big bang. Of course they never argue where that blob came from.
Do you not see the irony?

Not really. It's no different than asking where God came from.

Yes, really.

Theists and metaphysics seek to understand where the universe came from.

Atheists say the topic is irrelevant, nay, forbidden.

Agnostics are not afraid to admit there may be a God, atheists are terrified there is a God.

Strange how science for atheists is only legit as long as it supports their religious beliefs.

Get the irony now?