Marcion, the great Heresiarch

Has Marcion’s objections been answered? It has been 1800+ years since they were voiced. Who will answer him?

Marcion objected: If the God of the Old Testament be good, prescient of the future, and able to avert evil, why did he allow man, made in his own image, to be deceived by the devil, and to fall from obedience of the Law into sin and death? How came the devil, the origin of lying and deceit, to be made at all? After the fall, God became a judge both severe and cruel; woman is at once condemned to bring forth in sorrow and to serve her husband, changed from a help into a slave; the earth is cursed which before was blessed, and man is doomed to labour and to death. The law was one of retaliation and not of justice,—lex talionis—eye for eye, tooth for tooth, stripe for stripe. And it was not consistent, for in contravention of the Decalogue, God is made to instigate the Israelites to spoil the Egyptians, and fraudulently rob them of their gold and silver; to incite them to work on the Sabbath by ordering them to carry the ark for eight days round Jericho; to break the second commandment by making and setting up the brazen serpent and the golden cherubim. Then God is inconstant, electing men, as Saul and Solomon, whom he subsequently rejects; repenting that he had set up Saul, and that he had doomed the Ninevites, and so on. God calls out: Adam, where art thou? inquires whether he had eaten the forbidden fruit; asks of Cain where his brother was, as if he had not yet heard the blood of Abel crying from the ground, and did not already know all these things.

Marcion continues on his warpath

The Emmanuel of Isaiah (vii. 14, cf. viii. 4) is not Christ;(1) the “Virgin” his mother is simply a “young woman” according to Jewish phraseology; and the sufferings of the Servant of God (Isaiah lii. 13—liii. 9) are not predictions of the death of Jesus.

And of the two gods, he writes

“The one was perfect, pure, beneficent, passionless; the other, though not unjust by nature, infected by matter,—subject to all the passions of man,—cruel, changeable; the New Testament, was holy, wise, amiable; the Old Testament, the Law, barbarous, inhuman, contradictory, and detestable.”

Who will answer Marcion?

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

21 thoughts on “Marcion, the great Heresiarch

  1. Barry says:

    My personal thoughts: As man created God in his own image, he’s going to be about as consistent in his actions as man has always been – inconsistent.


    • makagutu says:

      Do you think he has been answered?


      • john zande says:

        They keep trying, but no. Have you seen David’s dancing this morning (on Arks blog) trying to claim Jesus has excused Christians from Leviticus’ rules?


        • makagutu says:

          I saw that earlier in the day and I ask myself several questions
          1. Do they read their bibles
          2. Where does he get these funny fellows
          3. What is their level of intelligence


          • john zande says:

            I can answer 3: he has nothing but a “degree” in theology from Liberty “university.” He knows nothing else but apologetics. Nothing. Nothing at all. He is a YEC, believes wholly in Adam and Eve, and a literal 6-day creation. He also believes, so i discovered, that Paul trumps Jesus, because was only writing “for” Jesus. So, what we have is a God comes to earth, holds a three year ministry, doesn’t organise any written document of his life, says some things, then 30 years later (after being killed) realises 2 things: 1) some things have to be written down, and 2) the message has changed dramatically.

            It’s comedy, my friend. Pure comedy!


  2. Arkenaten says:

    Ask unklee , Mak. Maybe he has an answer for Marcion!


    • makagutu says:

      Ark, brother, do you think that is a worthy cause for me to pursue? You have seen his answers already


      • Arkenaten says:

        You will note from the frustration of people like Gary – who is obviously ‘New’ ti unklee that he is finding out what a slimy manipulative William Lane Craig unklee truly is.
        If one does not use exact language when presenting a question he will use this against you.
        He didn’t address my question but when straight to asking why I only used the ”extreme” view, thus he was able to sidestep his famous consensus.

        Things are reaching a boiling point I fear as Nate has just come out in unklee’s defense.

        He commented to Gary on the fact unklee hasn’t ”spoken” with me for years.
        Nearly 2 years, I think?
        Why? Because he banned me of course!
        He offered to communicate by email and after I agreed, he promptly never returned an email.
        He must be smirking his arse off.
        I read his smarmy reply to you this morning.
        Something about he did answer but what you meant was he misunderstood.
        What a dipshit.

        And you will notice he has not cared to answer my reply. And won’t, I will bet.

        He will dismiss Marcion, or address him by not addressing him.
        ”I don’t know anything about Marcion …..etc.”

        Remember, the bible allows fr almost any interpretation.

        I goaded him into asking a question because I knew it was one he would believe he had the answer to. I never expected him to recognise the Pentateuch issue for a second., but rather wanted to let others see him for what he truly is.

        If you ever read his first(?) Nazareth Post and the discussion he had with that bloke Bernard he had his arse handed to him. Eventually he said something like … ”Well if you are not going to recognise what the experts say then I don’t see any point in continuing.”

        He is a sycophantic dickhead, in a similar league as Brandon. The way he approaches Nate is disgusting. I am surprised Nate hasn’t called him out and told him toeff off. He likes to believe he is academical in his approach.
        Hah! Academical my arse.


        • makagutu says:

          I knew from the onset he wasn’t going to answer my question so I told maybe first time it wasn’t clear and made it simpler. What does he do? He tells me Sanders believes there were miracles so I believe there are miracles!
          Nate is nice atheist so the rest of us are bad for calling out silly arguments.
          Gary has been on a roll.
          I am done with Unklee


        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          He IS good at organizing his thoughts – quite methodical – I’ve noticed that. I don’t involve myself with him, because I recognize I would have to do hours of research, if not days, to make sure I have all my ducks lined up perfectly, and I’ve just never found him to be worth that kind of effort.


  3. shelldigger says:

    Such questions rarely get answered. usually dodged, ignored, or they play the “I’ll pray for you” card.

    When they do try to answer such questions, predictable hilarity results. Round and round the mullberry bush of circular arguments with no hint of understanding that they use their premise to answer their premise. Explain the logic behind that?


  4. shelldigger says:

    No logic needed when you have been assured everything you have been told is true! No need to think beyond paying the bills and making babies for jebus.

    It always boggles my mind when I think on these issues. How the hell do they get home without a map? How do they know which hole the pie goes into… trial and error? I jest to a degree, I know most people aren’t this bad, but the only thing I know of that separates ones mind from thinking rationally on most things in life, but being left totally clueless on important things like science/evolution, is religion.

    They have a programmed handicap. A fail safe shutdown, anytime facts or reason interferes with belief/faith. I just can’t understand it.

    I just saw a TV program, one of the Into the Wormhole series with Morgan Freeman,an episode on bigotry where at one point it was discussed that the part of the brain used to make decisions, differs between liberals and conservatives. I need to catch that one again before I go stating what I thunk I saw there, but it was very interesting, and I think relevant to this particular conversation. Catch it if you can.


    • makagutu says:

      Sometimes I ask if they can tell their left hand from the right.
      I think I agree with the fellow who said there are those with only enough intelligence to eat and nothing more.
      One should be able to think deeply to a certain degree to see there is a problem with religious belief


  5. Peter says:

    I was listening to John Dominic Crossan talk about Matthew’s nativity story. He argued that the majority of people in those days, Christians included, would have known that Matthew invented it. In essence he was making up a birth story for Jesus based on a re-telling of the legendary stories of Romulus, Caesar and Moses. The sensitivities of the people two thousand years ago seemed different to us, they were prepared to accept a bit of pious fiction.


    • makagutu says:

      I think the time that the bible will drop all its pretensions of divine inspiration, it will gain a lot as a work of men for men.
      It will be appreciated as a work of human inspiration and desire and that, to me, will be a good day.


We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s