So your proof is from what or who is NOT mentioned? You’re kidding right?
This is one of the most bizarre theories I have ever heard on this forum. It seems to come close to JW or Mormon beliefs.
Your ‘proof’ would never stand up in a court of law. Selectively choosing early Christian writings based on what or who is NOT mentioned is very bad history.
I didn’t claim to have “proof”, as in “proof positive”. What I claim is that I can prove this “beyond a reasonable doubt”. And this “theory” is not my own, I gave a reference earlier to an article from Hermann Detering in The Journal of Higher Criticism (Vol. 10, No. 2, Fall 2003) in which this “theory” is explained at length. There are a number of scholar that have come to this conclusion as well. Ans as Bertrand Russell said, “Caution is called for when all the experts agree”.
JohnVIII;8827463:
I can prove this claim, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Churches of St Paul were not the same as the Churches of St Peter at the first, but it will take some time and is quite involved, but for now, let me just say that the Churches from St Paul were before St Peter and the Churches from St Paul came to be known in time as the Marcionite Churches, whereas the Churches from St Peter came to be known as Catholic Churches.
I am not sure whether or not the Marcionite Churches are the first of the Christian Churches. But, I am confident that they were before the Catholic Churches.
I am interested to see this Marcionite proof.
I wish to give out one point at a time right now. Later, when I can, I will re-construct all the points into a good summary that will serve as my “proof”.
But just to make it clear, I’m not saying that the “early church” (singular) was the Marcionite Church. But that there were more than one “early Churches” (plural), that by the end of the 2nd century were mostly brought together into on Church, which is the Catholic Church.
The Jewish-Christian Church does also seem to have a claim on being a legitimate Christian Church. The problem with this Church however, is that it existed as a “sect” of Judaism, and many other parts of Judaism did not consider it as a valid Jewish sect. But the good claim of this sect is that it’s main leader was the one called the “Brother of Christ”, James of Jerusalem. There are two things I would like to say concerning James:
1.) In “The Gospel of Thomas”, verse 12, it says, " The disciples said to Jesus “We know that You will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?” Jesus said to them “Wherever you are you are to go to James the righteous for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.” ".
2.) In the “Epistle of Clement to James” in the Clementine Homilies listen how Pope Clement addresses James: “Clement to James, the lord, and the bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the holy church of the Hebrews, and the churches everywhere excellently rounded by the providence of God, with the elders and deacons, and the rest of the brethren, peace be always.”
The Catholic Church may have started out as
a small part of the Jewish-Christian “Church”, that didn’t want to maintain a Jewish-only Church
at all costs as most of the Jewish Christians did. Rather they desired unity at most any cost, if need be. After first trying to disparage the Gentile Christians, which only seemed to make them even more numerous, in time, a way was concocted and calculated to serve as a harmonising amalgam of doctrines that were fundamentally opposed. In this Amalgam they tried to mix the “gall and honey,” so to speak that, if “well shaken before taken,” it might be swallowed by the followers on both sides. The result was that the Catholic Church’s origin was a single Church that came from the marriage of two Christian Churches that were, at first, diametrically opposed to each other.
As to which of the two Churches, Gentile-Christian or Jewish-Christian was the “first”, it may be that the first Christians were Jewish (ethnically), but if it is true that the Pauline teaching that “there is neither Jew nor Gentile . . . all are one in Christ” is the actual pure teaching of Jesus, then the Jewish Church did not understand what it really meant to be a Christian. Paul explained in Galatians that Jesus, by revelation, told Paul to go to Jerusalem and witness the true “gospel” to Peter, James, and John! And did not Jesus say that “there are many firsts that shall be last, and lasts that shall be first”? As long as the Jewish “Church” remained a sect of Judaism it remained without the understanding of the true gospel of the Lord. And I see no evidence that the Jewish Church ever became anything more than just a Jewish sect all the way up until its members finally either died or converted to the unifying Catholic Faith. Thus, if this premise is true, the real first “Church” was not the Jewish Church, but it was the Church among the Gentiles established by Paul, who came to be know as Marcionites!
The Gnostic Christians were a sect of the Gnostics just as the Jewish Christians were a sect of Judaism. So this is the reason I would not conclude that the Gnostic Christians were the first “Church” either. Like the Jewish Christians, they did not understand the true Gospel of the Lord.
I should clarify one thing. Marcionites were NOT Gnostic. Very many times you will come across that they were Gnostic, but they were not Gnostic. Many Gnostics converted to the Marcionite Church and so they had an influence on it, but it was not Gnostic, nor was Paul a Gnostic. Like the comparison between James and Paul taught two gospels you could likewise say that the Gnostic “gospel” was a different gospel from that of the Marcionite gospel.
Peace!
For you have to consider the work of Ignatius of Antioch by 104. . .
… Johnny is not getting away with anything! This entire material has been spun out his active imagination and obvious flare for creative writing. Unfortunately, this fabrication does not fit reality - the message of Scripture is consistent and the Apostles preached this message faithfully.
