Previous month:
November 2010
Next month:
January 2011

The Marcion Trap

So here I am, battling villains who insist the name Jehovah has no place in the New Testament, assisted by allies who nobly and quite properly come to my defense, when what should land in my comment inbox but a dissertation about Marcion. Who in the world is he? And what does he have to do with anything?

“In all likely-hood, Marcion actually lived in 40 AD not 140 and was the apostle John Mark, writer of both the gospel of Mark and gospel of John, as well as parts of Matthew and Luke,” says Rey, who offers the comment, “which were originally one gospel but were separated into four under the reign of Commodus because Commodus fancied himself to be a god who sits between the four winds. The first figure in church history to proclaim there are four gospel is Ireneaus, who works in the palace of Commodus, and who argues that there must be four gospels because there are four winds. Very suspicious.”

Very suspicious, indeed. But suspicious, from my point of view, because it has absolutely nothing to do with anything we'd discussed thus far (which often is grounds for my rejecting a comment, but I let it go this time).

Now, anyone familiar with the parent organization behind Jehovah's Witnesses knows that their enthusiasm for the internet is not boundless. In fact, it barely exists at all. One of the reservations they have about cyberspace is how easy it is for a person therein to hide their true identity. You'll think you're talking with your bosom chum, only to find out its really some scoundrel.....why...a wolf in sheep's clothing! I get around this reservation by assuming, up front, that everyone's a liar. That way, if it turns out they're not, it's a pleasant surprise.

But there's no reason not to answer this guy Rey. If you're a blogger, you like to receive comments. And this bit about Marcion, whoever he is, is a comment. Actually, I have only three rules regarding comments, and “agreeing with me” is not one of them. I don't mind a bit when people don't agree with me, but

1.) comments have to be reasonably respectful.
2.) they have to be reasonably “on topic” just can't submit a laundry list of all you don't like about Jehovah's Witnesses, and
3.)  they can't link back to a site whose primary or substantial purpose is to tear down JW beliefs.
For instance, one sorehead submitted a comment positively bursting with insults and crudeness, and so I read my rules to him, and asked “are you capable of writing such a comment?” His subsequent answer showed he was not.

Sometimes I'll think of minor corollaries to my three rules along the way.....comments that choke the virus checker, for example.....but in the main, those three rules are it.

So Rey keeps carrying on about this Marcion character, and he seems sort of an oddball, both he and his namesake, pushing theology that you might expect on a Dr Who episode. But am I not a blogger? So, blog already, Tom Sheepandgoats, even if you don't know exactly where this guy is coming from. You don't have to know everything.

Moreover, when you're responding to a comment, you don't necessarily address each point made. Especially when you're talking to a lunatic. It's too taxing for the reader. No. Pick a few points, or sometimes just one. If the fellow has ten additional points, let him submit ten additional comments. Just because he thinks in a muddle doesn't mean you have to. That way, readers can readily skip over whatever they find dull. So I go back and forth with this Rey character. All the time wondering....who is this guy anyway? Is he really a  devotee of Marcion, someone I've never heard of? Ah, away Tom. Just do it. Besides, sometimes good posts emerge from such conversations. You'll know it when you see it.

So we go round and round a bit, and I point out why I think this fellow is a nutjob, when suddenly Rey tips his hand:

“I don't get why a Jehovah's Witness would find Marcionism so offensive. Why wouldn't someone from a cult started in modern America be happy to jump back to a cult that actual has at least a claim to being authentic, I mean **hello** 2nd Century here. Your cult is clearly wrong in that it didn't exist until now. That one is from the early 2nd Century, pre-dating even the New Testament Canon!”

HA! So that's what this is all about! Another cult accusation! Up till now I had never met someone who believed in Marcionism, and now I saw that I still hadn't. It was all about setting me up for a sucker punch! Just like I'd been warned. Rey just doesn't like us. If you don't like someone, they are a sect. If you really don't like them, they are a cult.

Nonetheless, what about his charge? If you “didn't exist until now,” can you really claim to link directly to first century Christianity? Especially when the Catholics will tell you that Peter was the first Pope? (even though Peter was a married man)

You can. There are any number of passages in the Bible that point out 'new and improved teachings' would commence soon after the death of the apostles, and would overrun Jesus actual teachings. The latter would not be fully restored until the final days of this system of things. For example:

1.) Jesus' parable of the wheat and the weeds (Matt 13:24-30):

"Another illustration he set before them, saying: “The kingdom of the heavens has become like a man that sowed fine seed in his field. While men were sleeping, his enemy came and oversowed weeds in among the wheat, and left. When the blade sprouted and produced fruit, then the weeds appeared also. So the slaves of the householder came up and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow fine seed in your field? How, then, does it come to have weeds?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy, a man, did this.’ They said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go out and collect them?’ He said, ‘No; that by no chance, while collecting the weeds, you uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest; and in the harvest season I will tell the reapers, First collect the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them up, then go to gathering the wheat into my storehouse."

Lest anyone doubt how the verses apply, vs 36 continues:

And his disciples came to him and said: “Explain to us the illustration of the weeds in the field.” In response he said: “The sower of the fine seed is the Son of man; the field is the world; as for the fine seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; but the weeds are the sons of the wicked one, and the enemy that sowed them is the Devil. The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels."

Didn't Paul also say the weeds would sprout? (Acts 20:29-30): "I  know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves."

Those early Christians spoke to the general populace, like Jesus and the apostles did. But that's hard. Over time, more and more people simply didn't want to hear it. Easier to preach to the choir! Teachers taking the lead in the congregation began to specialize, preaching only to their flock, and drawing a salary....something new....for doing so! Those only marginally “keeping on the watch” quickly adjusted to the new plan: pay a preacher and go hear him out once a week. The public ministry was tough.  Easier to become “the laity” at a "church," and focus six days a week (in time, all seven) on secular activities. Preachers became like politicians....adept at seeing which way the wind blew, so as to incorporate whatever was popular, and draw in more paying parishioners.

Christians should be “no part of the world?” (1 John 2:15-17; James 4:4; John 17:16) Why not become fully part of the world, and thus broaden your base? Oh....and there's going to be an “end of this system of things.....a “harvest?” Can't have's too much of a disruption! Better to tell people to simply “be good” and go to heaven when they die. By the time of the fourth century, when Christianity became the Roman “state religion,” it was barely recognizable.

You can trace the details if you fact, you should....but even intuitively, you know it's true. After all, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Dark Ages, the Holocaust, eager clergy participation on both sides of World Wars I and II, hardly square with what Christ taught. But it's all part of religious leaders pushing to the fore.....telling people whatever they'll most readily consume so as to expand their influence.

Everyone knows it's happened, but not everyone knows the Bible said it would happen. Nearly all the NT writers predicted it:

Jude: "Beloved ones, though I was making every effort to write you about the salvation we hold in common, I found it necessary to write to exhort you to put up a hard fight for the faith that was once for all time delivered to the holy ones. My reason is that certain men have slipped in who have long ago been appointed by the Scriptures to this judgment, ungodly men, turning the undeserved kindness of our God into an excuse for loose conduct and proving false to our only Owner and Lord, Jesus Christ." (vs 3-4)

Peter:   "However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. Furthermore, many will follow their acts of loose conduct, and on account of these the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively." (2 Peter 2:1-2)

John:  “Look out for yourselves, that you do not lose the things we have worked to produce, but that you may obtain a full reward. Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him."  (2 John 8-10)                   

and "I wrote something to the congregation, but Diotrephes, who likes to have the first place among them, does not receive anything from us [the apostle John!] with respect. That is why, if I come, I will call to remembrance his works which he goes on doing, chattering about us with wicked words."   (3 John -10)

Paul: “For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories." (2 Tim 4:2-3)

And another parable of Jesus. Note a long period of inactivity.....sleep, it's called.....and when the bridegroom finally does arrive, not everyone's ready to receive him. Using language common to many Bible verses, Christ's followers initially prepare to meet the bridegroom [first century] But there is a long delay, during which they fall asleep. When the cry comes "Here is the Bridegroom," towards Christ's reappearance, some are not ready, having long strayed from Christian teaching:

"Then the kingdom of the heavens will become like ten virgins that took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish, and five were discreet. For the foolish took their lamps but took no oil with them, whereas the discreet took oil in their receptacles with their lamps. While the bridegroom was delaying, they all nodded and went to sleep. Right in the middle of the night there arose a cry, ‘Here is the bridegroom! Be on your way out to meet him.’ Then all those virgins rose and put their lamps in order. The foolish said to the discreet, ‘Give us some of your oil, because our lamps are about to go out.’ The discreet answered with the words, ‘Perhaps there may not be quite enough for us and you. Be on your way, instead, to those who sell it and buy for yourselves.’ While they were going off to buy, the bridegroom arrived, and the virgins that were ready went in with him to the marriage feast; and the door was shut. Afterwards the rest of the virgins also came, saying, ‘Sir, sir, open to us!’ In answer he said, ‘I tell you the truth, I do not know you."  (Matt 25:1-11)

The prophet Daniel received many visions, which are collected in the book bearing his name. Yet they were not to be understood during his time, or even during the time of Jesus' ministry, but only in the "time of the end." ........... "And as for you, O Daniel, make secret the words and seal up the book, until the time of [the] end. Many will rove about, and the [true] knowledge will become abundant." (Dan 12:4)

So, to quote Rey, is our “cult clearly wrong in that it didn't exist until now?" Frankly, in view of the above Bible verses, the more unbroken your history, the more suspect you are.


Tom Irregardless and Me       No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash



Defending Jehovah’s Witnesses with style from attacks... in Russia, with the book ‘I Don’t Know Why We Persecute Jehovah’s Witnesses—Searching for the Why’ (free).... and in the West, with the book, 'In the Last of the Last Days: Faith in the Age of Dysfunction'

Josh Groban and the Watchtower

There's no way I'm falling for this! I absolutely refuse! No! No! NO! Don't try to make me go there.

It's not enough that I made an on-line ass of myself in connection with Randy Newman? And now, do you really think I'm going to do it all over again with Josh Groban? Just how naïve do you think I am? What about that proverb that says “The simpleton believes what he is told: the shrewd man watches where he goes?” (Prov 14:15, Mof) Well, I am no simpleton....I'm shrewd!

On the other hand:

Josh Groban has just released a new CD and just look at the back cover artwork!



Yes! There is that Watchtower sign, plain as can be.

Get it?? The CD is entitled Illuminations, and who do we all know is the light of this world? That's right, Christians! (Matt 5:14-16) And what organization represents true Christians today and spearheads their worldwide Bible educational work? That's right, the Watchtower! Moreover, (now that we're on the scent) what was Josh Groban's previous album entitled? Right again, it was Awake! And isn't Awake  the name of that beloved worldwide magazine published by Jehovah's Witnesses, second in circulation only to the Watchtower, also published by Jehovah's Witnesses??

Proverbs 14:15 be hanged!! What possible explanation could there be other than......

Josh Groban is now our brother! He completed a Bible study in record time, was baptized, pioneers, has graduated from the Gilead School, and is now serving as a missionary in the Yogiberra Islands!!! Praise be to the heavens!!

On the other hand......I am still smarting from that Randy Newman debacle. Ouch! …..I had insisted before the entire blogosphere...all of it!....that Mr Newman, the singer, was a Bible-thumping Christian, or, at least, that he was not an atheist. For didn't he say in Rolling Stone Magazine that being “sixty something, like I am…..I mean, it doesn’t make you want to run out and hold up a banner for atheism.” Wasn't that proof enough? I even dismissed that pig-headed Plonka, with the clever remark (so I thought) “What would you have me believe.....that he "hardly wants to run out and hold up a banner for atheism," but he runs out and holds it up anyway??” But now it turns out....I mean, it's been established beyond all doubt, that he does indeed run out and hold it up....apparantly, whether he wants to or not! His atheism is well-established!

So I am not going to repeat the same mistake with Josh Groban (even though I just have). I mean, there he is on the back cover, and there behind him is the Watchto.......OH MY GOSH!!!! The sign! It's behind him! He's turning his back on it!! Maybe this record cover is all tongue-in-cheek! Maybe his idea of “Illuminations” is walking away from any pre-existing organization that would claim to represent truth! Or since he's walking away from the Watchtower sign and the Watchtower represents Christianity and Christianity represents God, maybe he's walking away from God! Maybe he and Randy Newman are in cahoots! You must admit, that explanation is certainly in keeping with the spirit of today's times. No, Josh! Say it ain't so! Turn around again!

And look at the song titles on that back cover. Third on the list is “Galileo (Someone like you).” Could that be a reference to Galileo's squabble with the Church over his discovery that earth was not the center of the universe? True, it would be a ineffectual reference, since Galileo, like all scientists of the time (indeed, of almost any time, save the past 150 years) viewed his discovery as bringing praise to God, uncovering the skillfulness of his handiwork, and that the Church's opposition to earth's position and shape does not reflect the Bible's view, the latter issuing statements that are accurate.* But Josh Groban might not know that. Few people do.

I tell you, it's impossible to decide. It could turn out either way. Except for the Yogiberra Islands. Maybe, if Josh Groban comes into the truth, he will not do missionary work in the Yogiberra Islands, but will play a Half-Time Superbowl gig instead, as did that other emminent Witness artist, Prince. Or maybe his mama is a Witness, and Josh wants to do her proud, like Joel Engardio. Or maybe I will write to him, all breathless as to that Watchtower sign, and he will say “Oh.....that? know, I never noticed that sign was there. Pity. It sort of ruins the view”!

But in the event that Josh Groban is indeed paying a high compliment to the organization and work of Jehovah's Witnesses, I'd better scour past posts of this blog and clean up any unflattering reference to him. I don't think there will be any, since I've always regarded him favorably, even if he's not entirely my cup of tea. And Mrs. Sheepandgoats positively adores him, so that, even if I thought he stunk, (which I don't) I wouldn't dare say it lest Mrs Sheepandgoats come across it in this blog some fine day and I, as a consequence, find myself sleeping in the garage for a month. So I don't really think there's any........wait....WHOA! There's one: Here I am setting up my review of the Bob Dylan concert, and what should I observe but: “I don’t go to many concerts. My wife, Mrs. Sheepandgoats, made me go to an outrageously priced Josh Grobin concert a year or two ago, but other than that, I can’t remember the last time I went to one.”

Look, let's set the record straight right now. It was not outrageously priced. Josh deserved every penny, even though I could have adopted half the stray cats in Rochester for what I paid to see him. But that's not Josh's fault. He would have sang to Mrs Sheepandgoats and I for free, no doubt, but those greedy know how they are. And my wife didn't “make me” go. I went willingly, of my own free choice, being a free moral agent, and have never regretted that choice for one moment.


*regarding the Galileo controversy:

The Bible is no textbook on science, but when it happens to touch on science, it is accurate. Accordingly, it says this regarding the shape and position of the earth:

[God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing;  (Job 26:7)

There is One who is dwelling above the circle [“round ball” MESSAGE; “globe” Douay-Rheims] of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers  (Isa 40:22)

He has described a circle upon the face of the waters, to where light ends in darkness. (Job 26:10)

These accurate statements preceeded modern discovery by over a thousand years.

If that's the case, then why did the Church give Galileo such a hard time? Because they chose to put their stock in verses using common idioms, which we also commonly use, referring to the four corners of the earth, the pillars of the earth, sunrising and sunsetting (implying the sun is what moves), and so forth.

In other words, they (as now, with the Trinity and hell-fire) reached their viewpoint by taking obvious figures of speech literally. And they did so (also like today) so as to be in full harmony with prevailing intellectual thought of the time. Then-current notions about the earth descended from Aristotle and his ilk, and God forbid the Church should show the guts to part with wise Greek philosophers, whose favor they strove so hard to curry.


[Edit: 12/12/2010,   you know, this is as good a place as any to insert the following, as it is also music related, and it deals with rumors that such and such came into the truth. Some will remember that in the early 1970's, rumors swirled that Glen Campbell had become JW. He hadn't, but here is an insider to tell the complete story. It was his guitarist, Red Shea, who had become JW, and apparently drove Glen nuts with his frequent witnessing:


Read ‘Tom Irregardless and Me.’    30% free preview

Starting with Prince, a fierce and frolicking defense of Jehovah’s Witnesses. A riotous romp through their way of life. “We have become a theatrical spectacle in the world, and to angels and to men,” the Bible verse says. That being the case, let’s give them some theater! Let’s skewer the liars who slander the Christ! Let’s pull down the house on the axis lords! Let the seed-pickers unite!



Defending Jehovah’s Witnesses with style from attacks... in Russia, with the book ‘I Don’t Know Why We Persecute Jehovah’s Witnesses—Searching for the Why’ (free).... and in the West, with the book, 'In the Last of the Last Days: Faith in the Age of Dysfunction'