Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Now he is faithful who keeps inviolably what is entrusted to him; and we are entrusted with the utterances respecting God and the divine words, the commands along with the execution of the injunctions (πράξεως μὲν αἱ
χεῖρες). This is the faithful servant, who is praised by the Lord. And when it is said, God is faithful, it is intimated that He is worthy to be believed when declaring anything. Now His Word declares; and God Himself is faithful. (Stromateis 2.3)

Here we have Clement interpret the phrase in the Pentateuch "God is faithful" (Deut 32.4) which was so central to Marqe (= Samaritan Mark). But here quite clearly, when we think through what Clement is saying, "the Word" is a separate hypostasis, a separate being, who demonstrates "faithfulness" or obedience to something above him, thus implying the existence of a higher God, for their to be a "Supreme Being" at all. A supreme God can't be "faithful." He can be a lot of things but not "faithful" because, by Clement's own definition, the commandments would be above him, have authority over him, have a binding effect on his actions, thus not making him supreme.

I always appreciate the attention to the primary sources you provide!

It's not for nothing that the Alexandrians produced Arius, Eusebius' adored Origen, and Clement.

But then the "believers" want there to be this "division" between "orthodoxy" and "heresy" where "all the Church Fathers" were on one side and all the "heretics" were on the other. History as a comic book.

And one step further from Clement is Marcion.

It frequently seems like one effect of the rediscovery of Marcion in popular consciousness has just been to erase all the other traditions once again. For example, for an Alexandrian, Basilides.

But let's stop here. In the same way as the Roman Emperor would be upset to learn that Christians worship a "king" who is higher than him, the same logic could have been used (and undoubtedly was) that the Marcionites positing of a "god above god" was proof they hated the god of the Jews. Except that Philo already knew that to be true. And the Samaritans intimate it too.

The way that "official dogma" portrays the "problems" with Arianism isn't the problem with Arianism. Arianism was "bad" because they made God seem less "almighty."