P>

Markionism (Marcionism): the Markionite (Marcionite) haeresy Markionism is the FORERUNNER OF "LIBERAL" CHRISTIANITY

just as the modern-day "liberals" allege that Jesus was an ordinary man who had no supernatural powers, and for that reason could not hinder his being crucified

in like manner the antient Markionites alleged that Jesus lacked overwhelming supernatural power while he was on earth, and for that reason could not hinder his being crucified

the Markionites claim that Jesus had enough power to perform healing miracles, but not enough to resist the government; "liberal" Christians like to assert that he lacked power to do either [but worship him anyway]

Markionism versus [traditional, standard] Christianity

in the dogma of Markionism, Jesus was powerless on earth

in the doctrine of Christianity, Jesus was omnipotent on earth

in the dogma of Markionism, Jesus is not the creator of this world

in the doctrine of Christianity, Jesus is the creator of this world

Which of these two counterposed doctrines in compatible with the New Testament? it is found in the New Testament that

Jesus said "All power IS [already, not merely after the battle of Ar-mageddon] given to me in heaven AND ON EARTH." (Matthew 28:18)

the Markionites deny the literal meaning of this text, "interpreting" it away to mean its reverse!

   

"the world was made through him [Jesus]" (John 1:10)

again, the Markionites deny the literal meaning of this text, "interpreting" it away to mean something opposite.

was Jesus crucified against his own will? or did he, purposely refrain from exercising his omnipotence wherethrough he could have released himself? [according to the New Testament]

"Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53)

that (that Jesus could not call upon legions of angels) is just what the Markionites think -- and so those whom Jesus was addressing here were [proto-]Markionites!

did he, according to the New Testament, conceal the Truth from earthlings, or not?

evidently, had he liberated himself during of immediately before the crucifixion, "they WOULD NOT HAVE CRUCIFIED the Lord of glory." (1st Corinthians 2:8) [Here, "glory" is "manifestation", meaning by "Lord of glory" that he was at all times capable of disclosing, manifestly, his omnipotence.]

this passage, again the Markionites "interpret" to mean its reverse -- they (the Markionites) supposing that only the power of the Evil One is capable of manifesting itself here, so that "the Lord of glory" they would perforce interpret to mean "the Evil One"!

now it would remain to consider the motives of Jesus in not liberating himself:

What could have been the motive of Jesus in not disclosing his omnipotence to the rulers have been if it were not that, had they acknowledged his lordship instead of crucifying him, he would not have been able to hold them guilty of anything, nor have them condemned for punishment?

So when it is written in the New Testament that "he came not ... to condemn", this would apply only to those to whom he had disclosed the Secret (namely, the angels) or who had deciphered it (such as, Cephas, whom "no man hath told").

"And he charged them that they should tell NO man of him." (Mark 8:30)

thus, Jesus was hindering the preaching of the Good News, lest all be saved.

to Jesus salvation is only for those who are so praedestinate -- if they are praedestied, they will, like Cephas, discover the Truth without being told. Sacraments administered by an apostate Church (i.e., so which is, contrary to his express command, openly preaching the Christhood of Jesus) would, apparently be worse than worthless -- if obedience to Christ were deemed a necessity for salvation by Christians.

agreement of the New Testament with the Markionites

according to the New Testament, Christ imparted a permanent commandment (never rescinded by him) that his followers not preach his omnipotence -- this would apparently imply that they are required to preach that he was powerless on earth (as against the government); and he further charged that his healing miracles remain unknown to the general public (apparently as a measure to keep the public from deducing, as they most likely would, that such a performer of miracles would be able to, and ought to, resist the government by, e.g., his proving at a test that he was uncrucifiable by the government).

the Markionites continue to preach that Jesus was not omnipotent on earth

If he were, at such a test, to demonstrate to the government the government's inability to crucify him, then he would have lost the opportunity of getting the government condemned for crucifying him. The so-called "Temptation of Christ" is a temptation to disclose the truth about himself. But the eventually succeeded in overcoming this temptation [to tell the truth]; and his final commandment to his disciples is that they likewise must "tell NO man" that he is the Christ, lest by hearing any be saved.

the Markionites remained, throughout their history, a semi-secret order having an anti-Establishment orientation [in this, as in other matters, they are originators of the Cathars, who now hold a staunchly anti-government attitude]

"dualism"?

for practical purposes, the "dualism" of the Markionites is the same as that of the New Testament -- a division between the government and the anti-government forces.

in other matters of doctrine, the Markionites [and even the Cathars] are less "dualist" than the Catholics. The Catholics encourage division [especially contentions and wars, such as "Crusades"], whereas the Markionites [like the Cathars, and like the more "radical" of the "liberal" Christians (such as the "Quakers")] would oppose all wars & outward contendings

The Markionites [rather alike the S.ufi wali "friend"] are known as being of the "friendly persuasion"

Being forbidden to preach that Jesus was Christ, the earliest Christians [if any such really existed -- it may be that early Christianity -- like early Daoism -- was purely a literary movement] would have been pacifists, not militarist Crusaders.

interest in (concern for) doctrine / dogma

The Cathar & ["liberal Christian"] Quaker method is to emphasize social activism at the expense of doctrine.

[In the way of contrast,]The Markionite attitude is more alike to emphasizing doctrine at the expense of activism.

[The Mennonites, because they stay in rural farms instead of the urban haunts of the historically more mercantile urban Quakers, all as yet retain something of a doctrine, more than do the Hicksite Quakers.]