This is a clear and fine piece of writing on this difficult subject.
Nonetheless, it left me saddened as I believe that the New Testament message is much stronger when shorn of its Old Testament baggage.
Was Marcion right in his early heresy? Are there present-day churches that either reject or de-amplify the blood, gore, and money of the Old Books? It would be good to know your thoughts.
The NT without the OT would probably have made a better Christianity, one that would not be hijackable by Jews. But alternative history ("what if...?") is always purely speculative, so we don't know where it would have led us. And objectively, we know so little about Marcion and his canon of scriptures that I think it makes little sense to talk about Marcionism (as I did). Scholars don't even agree if he was a gnostic or not. So "Was Marcion right?" is not a meaningful question. What we can do, is point out that, if we analyse the Gospels critically, we can see that, most probably (there is no certainty here) Jesus rejected the claim of the Jews to be chosen, and, for the same reason, rejected the title of Messiah or Christ. This is what I argued in https://radbodslament.substack.com/p/jesus-to-israel-fuck-off-satan
I don't know of any Christianity that rejects the OT. They would not be recognized as "Christians" by any other denomination anyway. Frankly, I think we don't need any "Christianity" of any sort as some kind of foundation for our civilization. Let those who feel inspired by Jesus call themselves his disciples, as others may want to call themselves Platonists, etc. The Gospels are an amazing corpus of texts, and everybody is free to interpret them as they want. Best
This is an excellent essay. I find myself in complete agreement with your overall thrust. Coincidentally, I’m just reading Haim Maccoby’s The Mythmaker, about Paul as the true founder of Christianity. I highly recommend it to you. He makes the case that Paul was neither a Pharisee nor even a Jew (at least by birth). Nor was he especially cosmopolitan. He appears to have been an agent acting on behalf of the Sadducees who were themselves conniving with Rome. Your argument here would, I think, be strengthened by a more nuanced reading of Paul.
I read Maccoby's The Sacred Executioner, which I quoted in my book From Yahweh to Zion, about the Kenite hypothesis. Very insightful. So I'll follow your advice and read The Mythmaker (it's out of print, but on pdf on archive.org. Thanks
I had always considered Saul's "conversion" was due to a revelation he had about saving Judaism going forward. As you say, it seems to have been the Trojan Horse by which that religion was allowed continuance in a Catholic world.
Some would disagree due to Paul's stance on circumcision though the Apostles were insistent on the practice for converts. In one of his letters, Paul complains about the people listening to false teachers who insisted on circumcision. Most pastors I have talked to do not seem to realize Paul's false teachers were the apostles Peter, James, Andrew, etc.
The agenda carried forward by Saul of Tarsus was his own, not anything stemming from the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. But I agree with you that if the religion had been based on the NT alone, we would probably be better off. At least the Prince of Peace would not have co-authored two millennia of wars and killing.
As you note the New Testament books were selected by Judeo-Christians to buttress the primacy of the Original Testament in which the Sons of Abraham, uniquely through the genealogical line of the father-deceiver and birthright-thief Jacob/Israel inherit everything in the world, for ever, from the only true God, the Creator and eternal jealous King of the World.
The New Testament ostensibly adds obedient Gentiles to the Original Testament, on condition that the latterly, grudgingly-accepted Gentiles conduct themselves humbly before the first-chosen Israelite divine inheritors, who remain God's first love and appointed regents forever. This encompasses Roman, Orthodox, Latin, and Protestant Christianity, i.e. Israelite Messianism.
A comprehensive, comparative study of all the Christian and pagan heresies condemned by the Churches, from a non-Christian analysis, would reveal some worthy alternatives to Judeo-Christianity.
What took the Holy Orders of Teutonic Knights so many centuries to destroy in Pruss, Lithuania, and the Baltic region?
This is a clear and fine piece of writing on this difficult subject.
Nonetheless, it left me saddened as I believe that the New Testament message is much stronger when shorn of its Old Testament baggage.
Was Marcion right in his early heresy? Are there present-day churches that either reject or de-amplify the blood, gore, and money of the Old Books? It would be good to know your thoughts.
The NT without the OT would probably have made a better Christianity, one that would not be hijackable by Jews. But alternative history ("what if...?") is always purely speculative, so we don't know where it would have led us. And objectively, we know so little about Marcion and his canon of scriptures that I think it makes little sense to talk about Marcionism (as I did). Scholars don't even agree if he was a gnostic or not. So "Was Marcion right?" is not a meaningful question. What we can do, is point out that, if we analyse the Gospels critically, we can see that, most probably (there is no certainty here) Jesus rejected the claim of the Jews to be chosen, and, for the same reason, rejected the title of Messiah or Christ. This is what I argued in https://radbodslament.substack.com/p/jesus-to-israel-fuck-off-satan
I don't know of any Christianity that rejects the OT. They would not be recognized as "Christians" by any other denomination anyway. Frankly, I think we don't need any "Christianity" of any sort as some kind of foundation for our civilization. Let those who feel inspired by Jesus call themselves his disciples, as others may want to call themselves Platonists, etc. The Gospels are an amazing corpus of texts, and everybody is free to interpret them as they want. Best
This is an excellent essay. I find myself in complete agreement with your overall thrust. Coincidentally, I’m just reading Haim Maccoby’s The Mythmaker, about Paul as the true founder of Christianity. I highly recommend it to you. He makes the case that Paul was neither a Pharisee nor even a Jew (at least by birth). Nor was he especially cosmopolitan. He appears to have been an agent acting on behalf of the Sadducees who were themselves conniving with Rome. Your argument here would, I think, be strengthened by a more nuanced reading of Paul.
I read Maccoby's The Sacred Executioner, which I quoted in my book From Yahweh to Zion, about the Kenite hypothesis. Very insightful. So I'll follow your advice and read The Mythmaker (it's out of print, but on pdf on archive.org. Thanks
I had always considered Saul's "conversion" was due to a revelation he had about saving Judaism going forward. As you say, it seems to have been the Trojan Horse by which that religion was allowed continuance in a Catholic world.
Some would disagree due to Paul's stance on circumcision though the Apostles were insistent on the practice for converts. In one of his letters, Paul complains about the people listening to false teachers who insisted on circumcision. Most pastors I have talked to do not seem to realize Paul's false teachers were the apostles Peter, James, Andrew, etc.
The agenda carried forward by Saul of Tarsus was his own, not anything stemming from the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. But I agree with you that if the religion had been based on the NT alone, we would probably be better off. At least the Prince of Peace would not have co-authored two millennia of wars and killing.
As you note the New Testament books were selected by Judeo-Christians to buttress the primacy of the Original Testament in which the Sons of Abraham, uniquely through the genealogical line of the father-deceiver and birthright-thief Jacob/Israel inherit everything in the world, for ever, from the only true God, the Creator and eternal jealous King of the World.
The New Testament ostensibly adds obedient Gentiles to the Original Testament, on condition that the latterly, grudgingly-accepted Gentiles conduct themselves humbly before the first-chosen Israelite divine inheritors, who remain God's first love and appointed regents forever. This encompasses Roman, Orthodox, Latin, and Protestant Christianity, i.e. Israelite Messianism.
A comprehensive, comparative study of all the Christian and pagan heresies condemned by the Churches, from a non-Christian analysis, would reveal some worthy alternatives to Judeo-Christianity.
What took the Holy Orders of Teutonic Knights so many centuries to destroy in Pruss, Lithuania, and the Baltic region?