A Dialogue on Marcionism

This is a rip and post from LiveJournal.  The following is from a dialogue I had with a conservative Christian on my beliefs at the time.  It is naturally more "Christian" than I might word it today, both because of the audience and my position at the time.  I suppose I should revisit this at some point, and update.

I should also note that this took place long before my present understanding of Judaism.  Apologies if it seems antisemitic now.

Let me start off, in turn, by saying that I do differ in some beliefs from traditional Marcionism. (More on this below.) So, with that in mind...

The "Demiurge," a deity, was responsible for creation, and is a sort of "bad" diety, opposed to the "Christ" deity that indwelt Jesus.

That's a reasonably fair assessment both of classical Marcionism and my own beliefs. I'd add that, unlike most of the ancient Gnostics, I believe that creation was already formed before the Demiurge forged Adam from the dust of the earth. Many Gnostics believe that the Demiurge is responsible for the physical plane; thus, materiality is itself evil. I see no need for that asceticism. (By the way, I'm not sure if traditional Marcionites likewise view the material world as evil. That's something I know to be true of other Gnostic sects.)

This of course means there are multiple deities. (More than just these two? I dunno.)

Yes. The collection of deities is known as the Entirety, to which Marcionites (and most other Gnostics) believe the Hebrew name Elohim refers. The sin of Yaldaboath (the Demiurge) is in denying the Entirety. In so doing, we believe he expelled his power (the power being that given to him by and through the Entirety) and ceased to be part of Them. This is akin to the sin of renouncing the Holy Spirit, in Roman Catholic Dogma.

Jesus was fully man, not divine, and was indwelt by the "Christ" deity who was a separate, fully divine being.

This is perhaps the key difference between my beliefs and the teachings of Marcion. Marcion (along with Arius, et al) rejected the then-budding theology known as homoousion, with which I'm sure you're familiar. I see no way that Jesus, the Christ could have done what He did without being in a state of homoousion. If Christ dwelt in Jesus, then the will and being of Jesus, the man, was subverted; thus, He could not have made the sacrifice to appease the Demiurge in reconciliation of our imperfection vis a vis the Entirety. 

Let me explain that one a bit further: The Demiurge created us through Adam. Though Adam was not the first man, we are all descended from Adam through Noah. (And even if one discounts the flood, it's highly likely through intermarriage that everyone now alive would be the descendants of Adam.) The Demiurge condemns Adam, as Adam-- being of the design of the Demiurge-- lacks the essence of being in the Image of God; i.e. one among the Entirety. The Law was given by the Demiurge to condemn the descendants of Adam (again, all of us) because, the Demiurge charges, we are not among the Entirety.

The Law, I'm sure you agree, is fulfilled through Christ. Thus, if Jesus is not the Christ (i.e. is only indwelt by the Christ), He could not have fulfilled the Law, because He would not be of one essence with the Entirety. The Entirety would dwell within Him, but He would still be subject to the Law, and thus unable to fulfill it. Likewise, the Christ had to be man, for if He were not man then He could not fulfill the Law given to condemn man.

The Demiurge is the "God of the OT" while Christ is "God of the NT," illustrated by the OT's focus on wrath and justice versus the NT's focus on grace and forgiveness.

Eh, more or less true, but an oversimplification. The God of Genesis 1is God, the Almighty. The Entirety speaks with one voice throughout Genesis 1. There are other places in both the OT and NT (and in other scriptures) where the Entirety speaks with one voice. IIRC, Isaiah 14 and the Nativity story from the Gospel of Matthew (eh, help me out here... I don't remember the chapter off-hand) are two such examples. 

We view "God" as being the Entirety itself; the communion in which all power resides. Thus, it's a bit of a misnomer to call Christ the "God of the NT", as Christ is a part of the Entirety, and not the Entirety as a whole. Now, I do call Christ a God, but that's mainly because I view the Gods as distinct entities. Some Gnostics and Neo-Gnostics-- most notably the famed psychoanalyst Carl Jung-- view the Gods as archetypes; manifestations of either the Entirety or the collective unconscious. (Maybe both; it's been a while since I really delved into Jung.)

The Demiurge is also called the Yaldabaoth, and is referred to in the Gospel of Judas (Nebro).

Well, I haven't heard "the" applied to Yaldaboath in English; this may be a holdover from Koine Greek, where the article kai seems to be applied to darn near every noun. ;-) Also, I'm *this close* to rejecting the Gospel of Judas; it seems not much more than an adaptation of the Gospel of Thomas, written by the Barbelites or some similar sect which wished to use the Demiurge as an excuse to hedonism. (The theory is that by indulging in the material world, one rejects the Law and the Demiurge... er, never mind. That's not all that important for the topic at hand. *grin*) Anyway, while theologically speaking the Barbelites and other adherents of the Gospel of Judas may be more or less correct, philosophically speaking I must reject Barbelism on the same grounds I reject Satanism. As I've often said, faith ought not be based on negatives.

So the God of Genesis 1 is the Entirety before or after Yaldabaoth split off from the Entirety (or do I understand this incorrectly)?

Before.

Either way, where do you place the split and how can you draw that from Scripture - i.e., how do you know where the Entirety speaks/acts and where Yaldabaoth speaks/acts?

The split happened gradually. The creation of Adam was the beginning of the split, but then in Genesis 6 we learn that Yaldaboath repented of the creation of man. By the time Yaldaboath declared himself alone and above all, though, the split was complete.

This happened when he named himself YHWH, or "I am that am". Generally, in Scripture, YHWH refers to Yaldaboath... although, by the time some of the kings and prophets came around, their revelations of the Entirety were channeled through their understanding that YHWH was God. Thus, to repeat an example from earlier, I'm not convinced that Isaiah was referring to Yaldaboath when he speaks of the Lord.

Easter Thought

Another LiveJournal rip and post:

There's something sublimely ironic about the thought that a person can print a book and call it God, then turn around and try to send me to a place of eternal punishment for daring to worship an eternal Goddess. Before that book was yet a sapling, She was. Before the language of that book was put to print, She was. Before the words of that book were even uttered, She was. She was with the Creator, forming all things, and was delighted every day. Her delights were to be with us. And She will be, even after the last book has turned to dust. She was. She is. She will be, just as the Living Christ was, is, and will be. This is the Word. The rest is written in dust, and the winds are blowing.

Live and love, people. That's all that will survive the dust.

A Short Statement of Belief

On a fundamental level, I believe that there is a power greater than ourselves. I believe that this power is vested in entities which hold love and concern for humanity. I believe that we share a kinship with these entities; in other words, we are in the image of God. I believe it's entirely plausible that we will be asked to be in communion with these entities as equals.

I believe that we are not fit to be equals with these entities as yet. I believe that evil interferes with this, our higher purpose. I believe this evil is manifest most greatly in vainglory, which I would describe as self-interest to the exclusion of others. I believe the entities described above have prescribed the means by which we can overcome this evil.

I realize that these statements are somewhat vague. I'm wording them thusly, because I also believe that faith is not defined by negatives. These are statements which I intend to be in the affirmative, to illustrate my faith.

Race, Culture, and Religion

Yup, the big three. I've been meaning to do a post such as this for a while now. The thought intensified in my mind as I drove through Tennessee last month, and finally I realized I had to write this post today after seeing a few entries in various Christian communities which are related to these concepts.

First, though, an introduction. I am a Celt. I am descended from the Clan Ó Siadhail, via the Appalachians of Virginia where my ancestors found themselves after escaping slavery (oh, I'm sorry, [involuntary] "indentured servitude") at the hands of the English in or around colonial Williamsburg. We retained our Celtic traditions in the Appalachian hills for about two centuries.

We also retained our Christian religion in those hills in that time; and no, the two were not incompatible. Indeed, the Celts have been practicing Christianity for about 1500 years. Christianity is not a betrayal of the Celtic people, nor should any Celt deny his people by adopting another culture for the sake of religion.

Thus, this is the crux (pun intended) of the problem: There are a number of schools of thought in the modern West regarding race, culture, and religion; none of which seem advantageous to folks such as me. The first school of thought was an overwhelmingly popular one throughout the 20th century: Celts (and other ethnic groups) must assimilate into the prevailing (usually American) culture. This attitude, more than any other, has been responsible for the destruction and near-destruction of cultures in the 20th century. It has also, in the case of the United States, forged an artificial culture, devoid of history or character.

Related to this, but perhaps a distinct idea in its own right, is the thought that Culture doesn't matter; we are a human race who will never know peace until we abandon our distinctions. The end result of this idea is virtually the same as the first: A plastic culture, full of what the Pagans might call "fluff". While the idea is enticing, it does not allow room for cultures to grow and ideas to be shared. Rather, it tends to be stifling, and it tends to ignore the basic human condition that we naturally form into communities. Man is a pack animal, much like dogs and wolves.

So much for the notion of universal culture. But what about the other extreme? Since shortly before World War II, we've had the idea that Christianity (or Islam, in the case of some Middle Eastern cultures) ought to be the exclusive domain of one particular ethnic group. This has led to such foolishness as the idea that the Celts are one of the Lost Tribes of Israel. I shouldn't have to spend time addressing this one, but unfortunately the increasing popularity of certain groups makes it a necessity. Or maybe it just seems to me to be increasing in popularity: I confess that I have relatives for whom this is becoming an appealing idea. Frankly, it's a stupid idea. It obliterates the Celtic culture (or any culture whose members are foolish enough to adopt it), AND it takes down another culture-- namely the Jewish culture-- along with it.

Another idea takes the culture's identity, and magnifies its importance to the point that those holding the idea will not abide by other cultures. This avoids the pitfalls of the other ideas, but there's just one problem: It's pure, unmitigated racism. It's also no way to survive in a modern world, where international cooperation is essential.

To my mind, this leaves one option: Go forward, but remember. The culture survives best if it's allowed to evolve. Not change into something it never was, with a history it never had. Not locked in a box, nor forgotten, nor surrendered to someone else. And above all, not used as a weapon, but a tool.

That's what it means to me.

A Prayer

Mother Sophia, I pray You stand guard by my lips; that I shall say nothing to unwittingly harm or endanger those whom You in Your infinite Wisdom have placed in my concern. Hold before me the promise that we shall know the truth, and it is the truth which will set us free. Restore to us peace, even when it is beyond our comprehension. And may those who are blameless be not stained by others.

So mote it be.

The Hidden History of the West

This one is embarrassing, but relevant.  It's a speech I wrote and delivered at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana on 28 March 2005.  If I were to deliver it today, it would be a very different speech, although some of the structure and most of the underlying info would be there.

Thank you for coming, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like tonight to introduce you to a world, a world you may never have known existed. I'd like to introduce you toyour world.

In order to introduce you to this world, we must first clear some presuppositions about the world you thought existed. You knew I couldn't get through tonight's speech on Gnosticism without a reference to The Matrix, so let's get it out of the way now: The world as you know it is a lie.

No, that doesn't mean I'm trying to tell you that we're all Energizer fluffbunnies plugged into some cosmic supercomputer. I think y'all would worry where Carter found this guy if that were the case. Instead, I'm here tonight to challenge the presuppositions we have about our history, and about the ability of Pagans to relate to other religions; in particular, Christianity.

You may believe, as many people do, that the institution of Christianity was passed seamlessly from being a unified mystery cult, to being the united Religio Romana in Constantine's time, to being the monolithic force which conquered Europe and much of the world through violence. However, that's not entirely accurate. The history of early Christianity was never as unified as even the Christians would have us believe.

From the beginning, from when Paul wrote letters scorning the various churches in Asia Minor, there have been scores of so-called "heretical" sects which have come to be known as the Gnostic sects. These sects were as much in opposition with one another as with the sects which came to be known as the catholic, or universal, church.

Speaking of which, you did know, did you not, that the Catholic Church was not founded by Christ nor His twelve disciples. Nor was it founded by Paul. Instead, the Catholic Church came into being in 325 CE, when Constantine brought together at Nicaea [nīsē'u] a council of the various Christian sects to form a united religion. Even after that time, sects separate from the Catholic Church persisted. For example, the sect which has come to be known as the Celtic Orthodox Church survived in Ireland and elsewhere in the British Isles until 664 CE, when King Oswy of Northumbria assented to the Roman Catholic Church at the Synod of Whitby.

In any case, these Gnostic sects, as I mention, each had differing ideas about such topics as Christ, evangelism, personal morality, and more. Some, we might consider more straight-laced than the Church. Others were more hedonistic than modern Pagans. For example, the Barbelites are reported to have practiced the ritual ingestion of the menses, a notion that I'm sure squicks some of you out.

I say that, however, with some amount of caution. Our primary source for information on the Gnostics, particularly before the discovery of manuscripts at Nag Hammadi [näg hä'mädi], Egypt, in 1945, has been the Catholic Church itself. It's not unreasonable to suppose that some of this information is biased, if not outrightly slanderous. However, because even slander often contains a kernel of truth, we can ascertain many of the Gnostics' beliefs through the writings of the Church fathers.

Central to many of these writings is the charge that the Gnostics rejected the Old Testament. This charge was particularly levelled against the Marcionites, which represented the largest of the Gnostic sects. I'll address the validity of that charge in a moment, but first I'd like to go into more depth on the Marcionites, as this is the sect which most closely resembles my beliefs.

Marcion was born circa 110 CE at Sinope, in what is now Turkey. He was the son of the Bishop of Sinope, and was also a child of wealth. The early Church alleges that Marcion sinned with a young maiden and was driven from Sinope as a result. However, some modern scholars theorize that the "young maiden" may be an allegory for Marcion's unorthodox beliefs.

Marcion travelled to Rome, where he founded a church which competed against the Petronian church which was, of course, eventually to be known as the Roman Catholic Church. The Marcionite church was founded in 144 CE, and represented what modern Catholic authors admit was the greatest threat the Catholic Church has ever known. Much of this threat came in organization: The Marcionites were perhaps the best organized of all the Gnostic sects.

Indeed, they survived in the Middle East until becoming absorbed by the Manichaeans. As the Manichaeans gave way in Iraq to the Mandaeans, and as the Mandaeans claim both Christianity and a dualistic view of good and evil, it could be said that the Mandaeans are the survivors and heirs of the Marcionite sect. I should warn, though, that much of Mandaean belief has been influenced by centuries of exposure to Islam, and that some Marcionite beliefs have been lost in the process.

The Marcionites, along with some other Gnostic sects, believe that mankind was created sometime before Adam by an encompassing pantheon of deities known as Elohim: The "us" in the phrase, "Let us make man in our own image." From Elohim sprung an entity known as the Demiurge, also called Samael (the god of the blind). Marcionites believe that Samael and the deity some have called "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" are one and the same.

The reason for equating the two can be found in a text called "The Hypostasis of the Archons", which was found amongst the other manuscripts at Nag Hammadi: Samael claimed the power of all creation for himself, thus declaring himself alone and above all. For this error, Elohim proclaimed, "You are mistaken," and the power Samael coveted was expelled, or expired; literally, breathed out. You might find a parallel to this in the Bible, where the god of the Old Testament breathed his power into Adam, yet declares himself alone and above all.

We Marcionites consider much of the Old Testament not to be false, as the Catholics claim, but rather as a history of the dealings of this fallen god with humanity. This god told Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, lest we die in that same day. We ate anyway, and did not die, but became as the gods... just as Samael himself admits. The children of Adam and Eve procreated with the true men of God's creation. For this, Samael sought to destroy the world, but unwittingly provides mankind with our salvation through Noah. Samael gave the Law to destroy us with our own shortcomings, only to have that Law fulfilled in Christ.

So what does all this mean to modern Pagans? Frankly, not much. Because the Law was fulfilled, there is nothing we need to do ourselves to fulfill it. Christians today talk about accepting Christ into our hearts, which is well and good, until they seek to replace the old Law with one of Christianity's own invention. This is entirely unnecessary, and perhaps even harmful: As Saint Paul writes, if we are justified by the Law, are we not void of Grace?

However, Pagans may be interested to note that Marcionism and other Gnostic sects formed the foundation not only of an alternative form of Christianity, but perhaps their own faiths as well. I mentioned how Marcionism survived in the Middle East. It is believed by John Robinson and other Masonic authors that Freemasonry contains elements which were found in the Middle East by the Knights Templar, and carried back to Europe, where the Knights Templar then went into hiding. This was in 1314 CE, when King Philip the Fair of France persecuted the Templars. Some have theorized that the Templars fled to Scotland, where they came to disguise themselves as a guild of stonemasons.

Fast-forward to the beginning of the 20th century, when occultists such as Aleister Crowley and Gerald Gardner became involved in Masonic lodges, and credit Freemasonry for some of their ideas. Now ask yourself: Is it possible that some of the secrets passed down to Wiccans, witches, and Pagans today are those once held by Marcion, his followers, and contemporary Gnostics? There is much we don't know about the Gnostic sects even now. This may be the hidden history of the West.

---

Source material

• The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia


• The Nag Hammadi Library at The Gnosis Archive


• The Gnostic Friends Network, from which some information on the Barbelites is derived. [Warning: Not work safe]


• Mandaean Official Site


• Born in Blood: The Lost Secrets of Freemasonry by John J Robinson


• A History and Mythos of the Knights Templar


• www.geraldgardner.com