Two Powers Tradition and the question of historicity

[Secret Alias]

You're referring to rabbinic paralells in saying Moses was more merciful than God after the golden calf incident, for instance.

No I am referring to explicit references to the Jewishness of Marcion which was the subject of Vinzent's paper already. There are even more references than Vinzent alluded to including Eznik's allusion to Marcion's preference for the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch rather than the LXX which Eznik and the rest of the Fathers preferred. I simply don't think your model is sophisticated enough to explain anything other than what you want to believe is true about Marcionism. And why should anyone care about that?

[Secret Alias]

You're referring to rabbinic paralells in saying Moses was more merciful than God after the golden calf incident, for instance.

No, as I already mentioned to Giuseppe the Samaritan and rabbinic traditions understand Moses to be a god or to have been 'divinized.' The same idea emerges in Patristic reports about Marcion. These ideas never come up in the Church Fathers. Marcion stands closer to the Jews than the orthodox tradition even though - paradoxically - the Church Fathers bend over backward to show that they 'love the Creator' and venerate him in a way more befitting what the Marcionites do. It's a very odd situation which I find is paralleled by the Christians today. There is very little 'Jewishness' in Christianity despite the apparently 'love' for 'the Old Testament' among these white people (and descendants of slaves and cultures oppressed by white people). All the complexity that has been introduced into the white man's Christianity has been to reconcile what was necessary to avoid Marcionism - that is, the peculiar 'Jewish Christianity' that emerged from Marcion.

[Secret Alias]

Getting back to the issue at hand, the discussion which leads to Megethius citing Daniel positively begins a little earlier. I don't know if many readers are aware of the situation with Adamantius but the present text has - like many texts including Against Celsus - been apparently diced and cubed into sections and then rearranged where blocks of text make sense (i.e. two or three pages) and then sudden changes come to the discussion (i.e. another 'diced cube' from the original text inserted in place of the original flow of the text). This section begins with Megethius declaring:

MEG. The proof that Christ is not the son of the (46) Just God is very clear to me: The Christ of the law has not yet come. If he had what David announced regarding Him would be coming to fulfilment: "Why were nations insolent, and why did peoples think vain thoughts? The kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ." Again, "Ask of me, and I will give you nations for your inheritance"148, c And following: "Though wilt shepherd them with a rod of iron." This proves that the Christ who has come is someone else, for neither kings nor Christ who has come is someone else, for neither kings nor rulers were against Him, nor were Gentiles ruled with an iron rod.

AD. Those who were supposed to rule and govern in Israel, and who had authority to put to death and to spare, all came against Christ. And that they were ruled with a rod of iron is demonstrated by the prophecy of Daniel: "After the gold, the silver and the brass shall arise a kingdom of iron."150 This has proved to be the Roman power151, d by which those who opposed Christ were ruled. And the Gentiles have been given Him for an inheritance: Concerning this, David says, "O Lord, remember us in favouring They people: visit us in saving Thy nation; [that we may give praise with Thy inheritance"152. It is apparent that this is the inheritance of the Gentiles for which He asked]153.

EUTR. If there had not existed any authority of kings and rulers, how could Christ have been crucified?

MEG. Daniel says, "I saw, and behold, a stone was cut out of a mountain without hands: and it struck the image and made it like a cloud of dust, and it was blown away by the wind" The stone was the Kingdom of God, appearing in glory, and the statue was the kingdom on earth. It is proven, then, through the Law and the Prophets, that Christ has not yet come, for if He had there would not be another kingdom on earth as Daniel declared. That all the kingdoms do exist shows that the Christ announced through the Law has not yet arrived.

ADM: What has been reasonably stated in the Scriptures you want to interpret unreasonably. The Prophets and the Gospel plainly speak of two Advents of Christ — the first in humility, and the one after this, in glory, f Isaiah spoke in this way of the first: "We saw Him, and He had neither beauty nor form. But His form was despised and more abject than the sons of men"155. And again: "Behold by Servant, whom I have chosen, My only beloved156, in whom My soul has been well pleased he shall not contend, nor cry out in the streets. The bruised reed He shall not break; and a spent157 flax He shall not extinguish"^8. 819a Further: "Rejoice, O daughter of Jerusalem, greatly; proclaim, O daughter of Sion, Behold your King comes, meek, and mounted upon an ass"159. This is just what has been clearly indicated in the Gospel: that He came into Jerusalem, seated upon an ass160. It is plain, then, that He comes in glory, and once in humility. The Apostle Paul also knows about His coming in glory, for he says, "With the commandment of God, and with the voice of an archangel, and with the last trumpet, the Lord shall come down from heaven, and the dead shall rise — these first. Then we who are left to His coming, shall be taken up together with them in the clouds to meet Him"161. This is similar to what Daniel says: b "I saw One like a son of man coming though the clouds."162 And in the Gospel it says, "As lightning comes out of the east and appears even (50) unto the west: so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be.' His first coming has been very clearly demonstrated — that it was in humility, and the future coming, that it will be in glory164. So as, when He lived on earth, He announced another coming — the one that is to be in glory — probably you and your party deny both comings. You neither acknowledge His first coming nor expect the other! This is because you do not understand the Divine Plan.

[Secret Alias]

I think that with Adamantius's discussion of Psalm 2 we are at the heart of the Marcionite dispute. Irenaeus for instance absolutely identifies Psalm 2 as predicting the Passion:

And again David (says) thus concerning the sufferings of Christ: Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people imagine vain things? Kings rose up on the earth, and princes were gathered together, against the Lord and his Anointed.205 For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar,206 came together and condemned Him to be crucified.207 For Herod feared, as though He were to be an earthly king, lest he should be expelled by Him from the kingdom. But Pilate was constrained by Herod and the Jews that were with him against his will to deliver Him to death: (for they threatened him) if he should not rather do this208 than act contrary to Caesar, by letting go a man who was called a king. (Proof 76)

This understanding is added to Justin's Apology - I suspect by Irenaeus himself - but the key thing is to keep in mind that the question isn't whether the Marcionite scriptures had prophetic power. The Marcionites accept this fully. However they - and like Justin himself - wondered whether they applied to 'Jesus' or 'Christ,' the one who came after Jesus and whom - the Marcionites again acknowledge - Jesus predicted someone (= the Paraclete) would follow Jesus. Was the Paraclete Christ? Yes I think so.

Irenaeus consistently says that Psalm 2 makes reference to Jesus's Passion, the Marcionites (and likely Justin) denied this. The situation might be more complex than I have understood. Yet we have to be clear about the implications of what the testimonies are saying - Jesus, the heavenly being, was not the subject of messianic prophesy. Only Christ, the one who comes after him in some sense was known to the Jews.

[davidbrainerd]

You're referring to rabbinic paralells in saying Moses was more merciful than God after the golden calf incident, for instance.

No I am referring to explicit references to the Jewishness of Marcion which was the subject of Vinzent's paper already. There are even more references than Vinzent alluded to including Eznik's allusion to Marcion's preference for the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch rather than the LXX which Eznik and the rest of the Fathers preferred. I simply don't think your model is sophisticated enough to explain anything other than what you want to believe is true about Marcionism. And why should anyone care about that?

Of course if you intend to interpret the OT accurately and literally you would prefer the Hebrew text or most literal translation thereof you could find. Again, I'm not against Marcion being a Jew. I think he was a Jew, and a Sadducee. But it has nothing to do with the son of man nonsense. Proving he's Jewish and proving he's a crazy kabbalah Jew are two different things. He's well known for literal interpretation. And his thought clearly is missing any acceptance of Daniel.

You're referring to rabbinic paralells in saying Moses was more merciful than God after the golden calf incident, for instance.

No, as I already mentioned to Giuseppe the Samaritan and rabbinic traditions understand Moses to be a god or to have been 'divinized.' The same idea emerges in Patristic reports about Marcion.

No it doesn't. Tertullian talks about him denegrating the creator by saying Moses was more merciful. He doesn't say he said Moses was a god. You've been smoking too much crack

[davidbrainerd]

.
Irenaeus consistently says that Psalm 2 makes reference to Jesus's Passion, the Marcionites (and likely Justin) denied this.

Psalm 2 as a prophecy of Jesus is Christianity 101. I think its even referenced in the NT as such. Maybe before stumbling around Christian origins like a fool you should learn what orthodoxy maintains so you won't be constantly surprised that orthodox thrologians are teaching orthodoxy.

The situation might be more complex than I have understood.

Because you have no idea what Christianity teaches. You only know some loony version of kabbalah that's probably not even authentic.

Yet we have to be clear about the implications of what the testimonies are saying - Jesus, the heavenly being, was not the subject of messianic prophesy. Only Christ, the one who comes after him in some sense was known to the Jews.

Nope! (Well, yes actually, but you're so confused on this that even when you are technically right you're still way off track!) Because its clear Marcion maintains that Jesus is a RIVAL god to the creator. The creator's christ may still be coming but Marcion doesn't give a crap about him, only cares about making sure you don't confuse Jesus with him.

[Secret Alias]

Maybe before stumbling around Christian origins like a fool you should learn what orthodoxy maintains so you won't be constantly surprised that orthodox thrologians arr teaching orthodoxy.

Obviously you have an over-simplistic understanding of 'Christian origins.' There was no blanket 'orthodoxy' from the get go. 'Orthodoxy' developed over time and through many theological disputes. Everyone thought they had 'correct belief' - even the Marcionites. As time wore on there were restrictions on who could claim to be 'orthodox' and which schools represented sectarian belief that parted from the truth. Very little surprises me in Patristics but what does interest me in seeing parallels or agreements between schools of thought which - on the surface at least - seem to be hostile to one another. Irenaeus often agrees with Marcion and Marcionites with the Jews. As you are not a very intelligent person you can only handle black and white but life is mostly different shades of grey.

[Secret Alias]

Because you have no idea what Christianity teaches. You only know some loony version of kabbalah that's probably not even authentic.

I think I have demonstrated a more complete and thoroughly knowledge of WHAT THE TEXTS SAY. I have only passing interest in what contemporary Christianity 'teaches.' Since Judaism always embraced mysticism understanding Jewish mystical tradition no less than Samaritan ones is an important part of understanding Judaism and Samaritanism. The same emphasis on 'oral tradition' existed in early Christian communities and Irenaeus says as much (AH 2.2.2). You on the other hand tend to only deal with explicitly stated 'hostilities' between the various parties. If you only examined how couples fight you would ignore the most important part of any relationship - the fact that couples more often than not agree with one another, even divorced couples. The same thing applies to sectarian strife and divorce. More often than not there is great underlying agreement. In fact there always is.

[Secret Alias]

He doesn't say he said Moses was a god

You can understand or explain a situation where a man is greater than a god without accepting that the man was also divine? I don't think you've actually thought through your position. The Jews and Samaritans always viewed Moses as being divine or divinized. I've consistently provided the earliest references to this (Philo, Marqe). For some reason you can't process complex reasoned thought. I would suggest that it is owing to a basic cognitive difficulty on your part. The Jews on the one hand accept that Moses was a human being but at the same time he was a 'man God' and so he is called 'man of God' by Jews and Samaritans from the beginning - a divine man. Why is this? Because Deuteronomy 33:1 explicitly calls him this! אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים. But people who don't read or understand Hebrew have no idea what the range of meaning of this terminology is relying instead upon an English translation. So it is that Marqe makes reference to Moses's physical nature having become divinized after his encounter with God on Sinai and Philo hints at it. You just don't know enough to pretend you have authority on Biblical matters. You need to read more and improve your cognitive abilities to allow you to understand what you read.

[Secret Alias]

Because its clear Marcion maintains that Jesus is a RIVAL god to the creator

Really? Is that 'clear'? How would you describe or interpret the relationship between the English nouns 'mercy' and 'justice.' Are they 'rivals' of one another? Abraham Lincoln wrote - in English - "I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice." Sounds like mercy and justice are antithetical principles. That's how I've always taken them to be. And yet they are opposite principles that are consistently understood to represent the two sides, the two powers, the two gods of Judaism from our earliest sources. What did Marcion really add to this discussion or understanding? Not much I suspect.