On the Meaning of Christianity

I know change is a hard thing to get used to. The basic question at the back of people's minds is - why do we need your stupid suggestions, Mr. Huller? We were getting along just fine before you came along with your interesting little throne from Alexandria.

Those people likely might say - the idea that there were four gospels is 'how it always was.' The idea that a spirit 'breathed' into four evangelists from the four corners of the world isn't necessary to accept the proposition. We are supposed to believe there always was four gospels because there are four gospels now in our New Testament canon.

Indeed, we aren't supposed to think about Christianity too deeply or 'try to make sense of its meaning.' It is this way because it always was this way. Your questioning just shows you have a lack of faith.

Yes but why does it have to be this way? We is everyone just waiting on a lost textual fragments or discoveries? Why not an object like the throne of St. Mark?

If someone discovered the original ark of the covenant everyone would celebrate that as an important day because ... well ... we acknowledge that such a thing existed at one time. But now that I have brought forward the original episcopal throne of Christianity (or at least Alexandria) the world doesn't know what to do.

Part of the reason is of course that they have that image of the 'fisherman church' of 'primitive Christianity' seared into their brain.

I think this is stupid but I happen to think that the Acts of the Apostles is fake.

If the Marcionites thought it was a fraud, I necessarily have my reservations about that 'thing' whether it be a counterfeit history of the Church or a counterfeit canon.

As I just showed in my last post, the Marcionite position necessarily SEEMS to be the original one. Why emphasize that the gospel didn't have a human author? Doesn't anyone see the way Tertullian exploits this at the beginning of Book 5 of his Against Marcion. We acknowledge human authors in our canon. The reason the Marcionites don't is because their church has no tradition dating back to the time of Jesus.

However it is impossible not to see that the Marcionites did have an episcopal tradition. The Dialogues of Adamantius make this absolutely certain. 'Marcion' - viz. Mark - was their original episcopus and from him all other bishops of the Church are named.

Ah but the dolts who make the study of the New Testament and Patristic tradition their profession interject that 'the Church Fathers' - i.e. those who swore to do all they could to destroy the Marcionite faith - claimed that Marcion only separated from the Church in 144 CE at Rome.

What the hell is the matter with these people?

Clement of Alexandria makes absolutely clear that Marcion was converted to Christianity at the earliest period of the Church. He says explicitly that it was at the same time as 'Simon' was converted.

So just as logic would dictate, the Marcionite episcopal tradition (at Alexandria?) could well have started in the apostolic age. Scholars just don't want to listen to what ALL our sources tell us. They want to keep everything neat and straightforward so they can avoid THINKING about the complexity of the earliest period of Christianity.

The point isn't that those of us who delighting in contemplating these complexities aren't trying to 'destroy the religion.' We're trying to make sense of it. The religion as it is right now cannot be made to make sense because there was an artificial 'interruption' during the reign of Commodus.

I have argued elsewhere that Irenaeus' final edition of the New Testament (to use Trobisch's terminology) was a deliberate and ultimately artificial procurement of the gospel in a fourfold form.

All the earlier traditions were 'one gospel' communities competing and attacking one another owing to slight - but ultimately inconsequential - differences between their single, long gospel texts.

In any event, the departure from the single gospel form is critical for us to understand 'what Christianity is.' In other words, when you have four gospel writers you immediately leave behind the core Marcionite emphasis of the gospel as 'heavenly Torah.' When there is Matthew, Mark, Luke and John the text cannot be rationally understood to be heavenly. It is just as good - or bad - as Moses' original composition of the Law which mixed 10 heavenly utterances with 603 commandments written on the authority of a human being.

Does any of this make sense to people? If not go back and read the other posts for the only way we will ever understand Christianity is when we see it as an attempt at restoration the heavenly Torah. Indeed its messiah is clearly after the Samaritan milieu - i.e. a Ta'eb or 'restorer.' He necessarily also appears more like Mohammed than modern American evangelists would like.

In any event, the throne of St. Mark is important owing to the fact that its iconography broadcasts this original understanding. The throne is older than the oldest surviving gospel text. I have effectively proven that in my article in the Journal of Coptic Studies. As such, while we may no longer have the Marcionite gospel we have a relic which testifies to that original - and indeed sensible - emphasis on a heavenly Torah which enlightens and makes understanding the true meaning of Christianity.