I assume you're referring to the American actor and director. Neither you nor Jonathan have any idea what happened or didn't happen 2,000 years ago. And Hollywood would be the last place I would turn to for answers. The demiurge, you call him Yahweh, within the Gnostic narrative emerges as the pivotal revelation. The entity who molded our lived environment, yet not the supreme divinity, spawned from Sophia's solitary emanation. Jesus and Christ are not the same thing. Jesus was the man. Christ is the consciousness he achieved. Jesus became the Christ, but Christ consciousness existed before Jesus and remains available after Jesus. This isn't diminishing Jesus. It's understanding his true accomplishment.
Have you ever watched the Truman Show movie? it was released in 1998, and is an American satirical science fiction film directed by Peter Weir and written by Andrew Nickel. The Truman Show is one of the most precise Gnostic allegories ever put to film. a nearly perfect cinematic translation of ancient Christian texts discovered at Nag Hammadi that described reality as a prison created by a false god, humanity as divine beings trapped in ignorance, and awakening as the dangerous process of seeing through the illusion and escaping toward true freedom. every major element of the film. Kristoff as the demiurge, Seahaven as the material world prison, Truman's glitches and suspicions as Gnosis beginning, Sylvia as Sophia calling from beyond the dome, and Truman's final crossing of water and ascent through the door as the souls escape from Archons control maps directly onto Gnostic cosmology with such precision that it's impossible to believe it's accidental. This isn't subtle symbolism open to interpretation. This is a deliberate, carefully constructed retelling of the Gnostic spiritual narrative for a modern audience.
Have you asked yourself why so many things are being revealed to us these days? you talk about history, but our past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth. Until now... IMO we're living in interesting times. People are becoming awake, and starting to ask themselves "am I living in a simulation?". And it's not because any of our actions, it's just happening...
Look, I was right, now you're just getting dogmatic and sectarian. You decided to tell everyone a "narrative" without any backing about Jesus and his disciples, and you're now backing it by the "narrative" of Plato's cave, without any respect to whether things happened or not.
Since you're not getting my own allegory but supplying your own, Frakes hosted a show where elaborate urban legends were acted out to let the audience determine which actually happened and which were entirely fabricated. Your idea that Jesus rejected Scripture, when there is 100% testimony (even at Nag Hammadi) that Jesus affirmed Scripture more than anyone, is unhelpful to your moving forward. You're stuck in a story someone told you that you believe in telling others as the only way to validate it.
I told you that I refuse all those titles upon the satan and you continue to pretend I accord them to him. The satan is not self-existent (Yahweh) or architect (demiurge) or environment molder or divinity or wise (Sophia-spawned). You're not listening to that.
If our past was erased (as to emanations, although it wasn't), then you don't get to write a new past about Jesus rejecting Scripture. We must inquire together. I haven't objected to the parts of your gnosticism that speak of awakening and theosis, but they cannot proceed in the escape you desire without a firm recognition that what happens happens and cannot be lied about. Jesus on earth had a particular character shown in all sources and if we reject that character we reject our best Guide.
Look, I was right, now you're just getting dogmatic and sectarian. You decided to tell everyone a "narrative" without any backing about Jesus and his disciples
No, I was right. You are a person with an agenda and proved it with this message. If you were only looking for truth you would not use harsh language like "you decided to tell...". I haven't "decided" anything, I don't have an agenda. I believe you do and to you if it's not in the canonical gospels is not proof. Well, you're not going to find the secret teachings of Jesus in the canonical gospels. For that you will have to read the manuscripts found at Nag Hammadi, 52 of them. You mentioned to me you will brush up on that. Any progress? There, in 1945 they discovered more than a dozen other gospels which were never included in the Bible. That is where you will find backing for my story. You will also find my story mentioned by early Christian theologians and evangelists like Marcion of Sinope.
Frakes hosted a show
I'm not interested in what Jonathan Frakes has to say, unless you can prove to me he's not connected with Jeffrey Epstein. Many in Hollywood are.
you don't get to write a new past about Jesus rejecting Scripture
Jesus's mission was not to confirm the scriptures. For 2,000 years, we have been told that God is love, that he is the father of light. Yet, open the Old Testament, and you meet a different entity entirely. A being who demands the blood of infants. A being who drowns the world in a fit of rage and requires the smell of burning flesh to be appeased. Why would you think Jesus came to earth to tell us about Yahweh? we already knew, by reading the Old Testament. Was Marcion right? Marcion preached that the benevolent God of the Gospel who sent Jesus into the world, as the saviour, was the true Supreme Being, different and opposed to the malevolent deity, the Demiurge or creator deity, identified with Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible. Could it be that our so-called official New Testament might have actually been deliberately reassembled later to counteract Marcion's version? IMO, that's exactly what happened. The early church leaders were reacting to his influence. They took his challenge so seriously that they constructed a new cannon, four gospels, Acts, and everything else in such a way to police his ideas.
To me sounds like they were building an entirely new narrative just to shut him up. Like I said many times before, use critical thinking, imagine you have a groundbreaking blueprint and then someone comes along and says, "Nope, we need the standard model.". And you re-engineer the whole building. It's counter-programming at its best. And then there's Marcion's theology itself. He claimed the god of the Hebrew scriptures, the Demiurge as he called it, was a legalistic, violent figure, totally separate from the merciful God revealed by Jesus. That's also what my story tells. Scholars like Adolf von Harnack even went on record calling Marcion the first Christian theologian, kind of the original canon creator. It's like he was the architect behind what we might have otherwise considered early Christian theology. Then the Church started attacking him, why? because Marcion was very popular. They literally wrote about how Marcion's followers were everywhere, even in every nation. As Justin Martyr and Tertullian noted, Marcion's church stretched from Italy across Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt, North Africa, and even into Arabia, and Cyprus. It was a phenomenon. Marcionite communities were notably well organized, arguably more so than the proto-orthodox churches, which were somewhat fragmented at the time. So, for at least a 70 years period, his version might have been the most coherent form of Christianity around. That's pretty incredible, but not widely understood.
To me the New Testament canon seems in many ways like a reaction against Marcion's version. For example, Irenaeus writing around 180 AD insisted there must be exactly four gospels. No more, no less. Interesting, because Marcion's had only one gospel. So the inclusion of say Acts and the Old Testament cannon came in as a sort of counterpoint. These became deliberately essential to the new narrative that emerged to contrast with his selective cannon. It's like a built-in rebuttal. But isn't it a little bit of a stretch to say that the entire NT was constructed solely as a response to Marcion? not in my opinion. Furthermore, many modern scholars argue that the NT was published as a collection specifically constructed against Marion's challenge, not just organically inherited. This challenges the comforting narrative that the canonical Bible just dropped fully formed from the heavens. It suggests instead that what we received was a hard-fought outcome of doctrinal battles. So, if Marcion's version was so dominant and coherent, why did it eventually get erased? and his church thrived for over 70 years and persisted in some regions into the fourth and even fifth centuries, why its sudden disappearance? as I said before to you, the history as we know it was written by the eventual winners. It's like the voices of the vanquished were deliberately silenced. So, if history is written by the winners, then perhaps our understanding of early Christianity is missing, has deliberately omitted a whole perspective. I don't believe you are a person who thinks the Bible just fell from the sky fully formed. So, think about what I'm saying, the story of religion isn't a straightforward path but a battleground of ideas, sometimes even forbidden ones.
"you decided to tell...". I haven't "decided" anything
Yeah, people who tell have decided to tell, that's just logic.
I don't have an agenda. I believe you do and to you if it's not in the canonical gospels is not proof.
I have one agenda, namely Jesus. Something not in the gospels might well be proof. But if you contradict every fact of history on a subject, in or out of the gospels, that requires extraordinary evidence. Jesus 100% upheld Hebrew Scripture, no historical evidence teaches that he told his disciples secretly that Scripture was wrong, there would be no movement without dedication to Scripture. That's why your narrative on that point is just a narrative. Nothing in Nag Hammadi has your narrative.
my story mentioned by early Christian theologians and evangelists like Marcion of Sinope
Nope. No text mentions such an imaginative retcon as you propose. If you had said you're just Marcionite, it would've made more sense, because he did teach that, but he didn't say that Jesus and the Apostles taught it (as you did): he implied that the Apostles worked for the Demiurge (WP); his Scriptural canon still included details contrary to the Demiurge theory, against his edit attempts otherwise; and his work on antitheses is now lost, and does not even appear in the newly uncovered documents. So what you're doing is imagining something that could've happened if only Marcion was totally right in his view and had a perfect tradition from Jesus's time and every other indication of history is wrong. No historian would view this as a workable theory of what actually happened.
So yeah, when you double down on apparently rejecting facts of history instead of interacting with them, my tone does tend to change.
For 2,000 years, we have been told that God is love, that he is the father of light. Yet, open the Old Testament, and you meet a different entity entirely.
The evidence is that Jesus's teachings made headway among the Jews because they agreed with the God depicted in Hebrew Scripture. All the apostles and evangelists emphatically used Scripture as a final authority, and several times they recognized that each others' works were Scripture too. The fact that Marcion invented a duality narrative, or based it on other gnostics, doesn't mean that narrative existed in primitive Christianity.
Could it be that our so-called official New Testament might have actually been deliberately reassembled later to counteract Marcion's version? IMO, that's exactly what happened.
Marcion admitted that confirmed evangel and confirmed apostolic writings were Scripture. The difference between the NT and Marcion's canon is entirely one of degree. Because Scripture is holistic, you can prove any core tenet of traditional Christianity with reference to Marcionite Scripture alone. If you admit the Marcionite canon, you would have no reason to reject other gospels or epistles that say the same thing (just as I do not reject all the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, but only hold them to a lower standard of authority).
They took his challenge so seriously that they constructed a new cannon, four gospels, Acts, and everything else in such a way to police his ideas.
The books of the canon were already circulating, nothing was constructed anew, even as your own (liberal) dating would prove. His ideas may have been "policed" (though there was no political power to force anything for another 200 years) but only because all other churches but the Marcionite "church" recognized the internal contradictions of the system early. You say the Marcionite church was regarded as very widespread, so without arguing that either way I'll note it, but if it were "coherent" Christianity it would have survived instead of essentially disappearing in the 3rd century. The orthodox arguments and texts stand, and Marcion's works didn't survive, which is not an indication that Marcion was so much better but an indication that he had nothing to say that wasn't expressed by his canon and the quotations of him that survived. Althist is fun, but must be admitted as such.
Scholars like Adolf von Harnack
Didn't I say 19th-century German unbelievers? Harnack was counted as a Christian but he rejected the Apostles' Creed on Jesus and rejected the Bible.
So the inclusion of say Acts and the Old Testament cannon came in as a sort of counterpoint.
No, the Hebrew canon had been getting closed in the 1st century BC and 1st century AD. All the Hebrew books were recognized as Scripture, and taught to be so by Jesus and the Apostles, with the exception of a couple late disputes persisting for a time over books like Esther. The only reason Marcion could reject the OT utterly was that he was in a Greek milieu where reliance on the Hebrew had begun to wane (but was still extant throughout 2nd century patristics). It wasn't about the OT "coming in", instead the NT shows that it was the NT books that were slowly coming in to join the OT.
These became deliberately essential to the new narrative
No, they were not regarded as essential until late 4th century. They were regarded as inspired, useful, beneficial, and sufficient, but there was no argument of essentiality. Look, if the church has Luke-Acts for 100 years, and then suddenly Marcion says only most of Luke is good and none of Acts, it's clear to everyone that he is innovating on received tradition, and it's clear from history that they continued to preserve the whole Luke-Acts because Marcion's version didn't have a slate of dedicated copyists throughout the known world like the established tradition did. There is no althist available where Marcion's Luke existed as Scripture, and Acts, which was written by the same man around the same time to the same audience, was accorded universally as useless until somebody got it to be thought of as inspired as if it counteracted Marcion. It's Luke, it's the same author! Did you know that Papias, quoted by Eusebius, mentioned and named the four gospels around the 120s, long before Marcion or Irenaeus step up?
many modern scholars argue that the NT was published as a collection specifically constructed against Marion's challenge
Nope, nobody published the "NT" until Constantine, much later. Nor was his canon "constructed" but it consisted of all Greek Scriptures that rose to the level of inspiration and acceptance that other works (including some verses added by Marcion) didn't.
the comforting narrative that the canonical Bible just dropped fully formed from the heavens
I agree with you in rejecting that narrative. All mature Biblical Christians recognize and admit the same.
So, if history is written by the winners, then perhaps our understanding of early Christianity is missing, has deliberately omitted a whole perspective.
I'm very empathetic to Romanism omitting perspectives and have consistently appealed here for primitive Christianity. Gnosticism isn't primitive Christianity and never had approval from Jesus's apostles or their appointed successors at large. When gnosticism is tested as a theological system (as it was), it fails logic, history, and inspiration.
Now, in all our conversations I've been attempting to find out how you know what is true. I don't see that answer. I see you sticking to a storyline, even imagining what Jesus might have said that totally contradicts what history shows he did say. If you had quoted Gospel of Thomas, I wouldn't object because Jesus may have said everything in there in context, and there may be an echo of apostolic tradition in it. But you're coming in with Marcion whose only tradition, if any, comes from either part of the holistic Bible (which was accepted along with the rest), or Valentinus or Simon or Menander before him, who were never accepted. It was apostate (standing aside from Christianity), never something that acted as if part of the same Christianity as everyone else kept. So you don't seem to be committed to seek the truth wherever it leads and to accept the facts of history. You're free to show me otherwise.
No thanks. Jonathan Frakes said, "Never happened."
I assume you're referring to the American actor and director. Neither you nor Jonathan have any idea what happened or didn't happen 2,000 years ago. And Hollywood would be the last place I would turn to for answers. The demiurge, you call him Yahweh, within the Gnostic narrative emerges as the pivotal revelation. The entity who molded our lived environment, yet not the supreme divinity, spawned from Sophia's solitary emanation. Jesus and Christ are not the same thing. Jesus was the man. Christ is the consciousness he achieved. Jesus became the Christ, but Christ consciousness existed before Jesus and remains available after Jesus. This isn't diminishing Jesus. It's understanding his true accomplishment.
Have you ever watched the Truman Show movie? it was released in 1998, and is an American satirical science fiction film directed by Peter Weir and written by Andrew Nickel. The Truman Show is one of the most precise Gnostic allegories ever put to film. a nearly perfect cinematic translation of ancient Christian texts discovered at Nag Hammadi that described reality as a prison created by a false god, humanity as divine beings trapped in ignorance, and awakening as the dangerous process of seeing through the illusion and escaping toward true freedom. every major element of the film. Kristoff as the demiurge, Seahaven as the material world prison, Truman's glitches and suspicions as Gnosis beginning, Sylvia as Sophia calling from beyond the dome, and Truman's final crossing of water and ascent through the door as the souls escape from Archons control maps directly onto Gnostic cosmology with such precision that it's impossible to believe it's accidental. This isn't subtle symbolism open to interpretation. This is a deliberate, carefully constructed retelling of the Gnostic spiritual narrative for a modern audience.
Have you asked yourself why so many things are being revealed to us these days? you talk about history, but our past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth. Until now... IMO we're living in interesting times. People are becoming awake, and starting to ask themselves "am I living in a simulation?". And it's not because any of our actions, it's just happening...
Look, I was right, now you're just getting dogmatic and sectarian. You decided to tell everyone a "narrative" without any backing about Jesus and his disciples, and you're now backing it by the "narrative" of Plato's cave, without any respect to whether things happened or not.
Since you're not getting my own allegory but supplying your own, Frakes hosted a show where elaborate urban legends were acted out to let the audience determine which actually happened and which were entirely fabricated. Your idea that Jesus rejected Scripture, when there is 100% testimony (even at Nag Hammadi) that Jesus affirmed Scripture more than anyone, is unhelpful to your moving forward. You're stuck in a story someone told you that you believe in telling others as the only way to validate it.
I told you that I refuse all those titles upon the satan and you continue to pretend I accord them to him. The satan is not self-existent (Yahweh) or architect (demiurge) or environment molder or divinity or wise (Sophia-spawned). You're not listening to that.
If our past was erased (as to emanations, although it wasn't), then you don't get to write a new past about Jesus rejecting Scripture. We must inquire together. I haven't objected to the parts of your gnosticism that speak of awakening and theosis, but they cannot proceed in the escape you desire without a firm recognition that what happens happens and cannot be lied about. Jesus on earth had a particular character shown in all sources and if we reject that character we reject our best Guide.
No, I was right. You are a person with an agenda and proved it with this message. If you were only looking for truth you would not use harsh language like "you decided to tell...". I haven't "decided" anything, I don't have an agenda. I believe you do and to you if it's not in the canonical gospels is not proof. Well, you're not going to find the secret teachings of Jesus in the canonical gospels. For that you will have to read the manuscripts found at Nag Hammadi, 52 of them. You mentioned to me you will brush up on that. Any progress? There, in 1945 they discovered more than a dozen other gospels which were never included in the Bible. That is where you will find backing for my story. You will also find my story mentioned by early Christian theologians and evangelists like Marcion of Sinope.
I'm not interested in what Jonathan Frakes has to say, unless you can prove to me he's not connected with Jeffrey Epstein. Many in Hollywood are.
Jesus's mission was not to confirm the scriptures. For 2,000 years, we have been told that God is love, that he is the father of light. Yet, open the Old Testament, and you meet a different entity entirely. A being who demands the blood of infants. A being who drowns the world in a fit of rage and requires the smell of burning flesh to be appeased. Why would you think Jesus came to earth to tell us about Yahweh? we already knew, by reading the Old Testament. Was Marcion right? Marcion preached that the benevolent God of the Gospel who sent Jesus into the world, as the saviour, was the true Supreme Being, different and opposed to the malevolent deity, the Demiurge or creator deity, identified with Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible. Could it be that our so-called official New Testament might have actually been deliberately reassembled later to counteract Marcion's version? IMO, that's exactly what happened. The early church leaders were reacting to his influence. They took his challenge so seriously that they constructed a new cannon, four gospels, Acts, and everything else in such a way to police his ideas.
To me sounds like they were building an entirely new narrative just to shut him up. Like I said many times before, use critical thinking, imagine you have a groundbreaking blueprint and then someone comes along and says, "Nope, we need the standard model.". And you re-engineer the whole building. It's counter-programming at its best. And then there's Marcion's theology itself. He claimed the god of the Hebrew scriptures, the Demiurge as he called it, was a legalistic, violent figure, totally separate from the merciful God revealed by Jesus. That's also what my story tells. Scholars like Adolf von Harnack even went on record calling Marcion the first Christian theologian, kind of the original canon creator. It's like he was the architect behind what we might have otherwise considered early Christian theology. Then the Church started attacking him, why? because Marcion was very popular. They literally wrote about how Marcion's followers were everywhere, even in every nation. As Justin Martyr and Tertullian noted, Marcion's church stretched from Italy across Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt, North Africa, and even into Arabia, and Cyprus. It was a phenomenon. Marcionite communities were notably well organized, arguably more so than the proto-orthodox churches, which were somewhat fragmented at the time. So, for at least a 70 years period, his version might have been the most coherent form of Christianity around. That's pretty incredible, but not widely understood.
To me the New Testament canon seems in many ways like a reaction against Marcion's version. For example, Irenaeus writing around 180 AD insisted there must be exactly four gospels. No more, no less. Interesting, because Marcion's had only one gospel. So the inclusion of say Acts and the Old Testament cannon came in as a sort of counterpoint. These became deliberately essential to the new narrative that emerged to contrast with his selective cannon. It's like a built-in rebuttal. But isn't it a little bit of a stretch to say that the entire NT was constructed solely as a response to Marcion? not in my opinion. Furthermore, many modern scholars argue that the NT was published as a collection specifically constructed against Marion's challenge, not just organically inherited. This challenges the comforting narrative that the canonical Bible just dropped fully formed from the heavens. It suggests instead that what we received was a hard-fought outcome of doctrinal battles. So, if Marcion's version was so dominant and coherent, why did it eventually get erased? and his church thrived for over 70 years and persisted in some regions into the fourth and even fifth centuries, why its sudden disappearance? as I said before to you, the history as we know it was written by the eventual winners. It's like the voices of the vanquished were deliberately silenced. So, if history is written by the winners, then perhaps our understanding of early Christianity is missing, has deliberately omitted a whole perspective. I don't believe you are a person who thinks the Bible just fell from the sky fully formed. So, think about what I'm saying, the story of religion isn't a straightforward path but a battleground of ideas, sometimes even forbidden ones.
Yeah, people who tell have decided to tell, that's just logic.
I have one agenda, namely Jesus. Something not in the gospels might well be proof. But if you contradict every fact of history on a subject, in or out of the gospels, that requires extraordinary evidence. Jesus 100% upheld Hebrew Scripture, no historical evidence teaches that he told his disciples secretly that Scripture was wrong, there would be no movement without dedication to Scripture. That's why your narrative on that point is just a narrative. Nothing in Nag Hammadi has your narrative.
Nope. No text mentions such an imaginative retcon as you propose. If you had said you're just Marcionite, it would've made more sense, because he did teach that, but he didn't say that Jesus and the Apostles taught it (as you did): he implied that the Apostles worked for the Demiurge (WP); his Scriptural canon still included details contrary to the Demiurge theory, against his edit attempts otherwise; and his work on antitheses is now lost, and does not even appear in the newly uncovered documents. So what you're doing is imagining something that could've happened if only Marcion was totally right in his view and had a perfect tradition from Jesus's time and every other indication of history is wrong. No historian would view this as a workable theory of what actually happened.
So yeah, when you double down on apparently rejecting facts of history instead of interacting with them, my tone does tend to change.
The evidence is that Jesus's teachings made headway among the Jews because they agreed with the God depicted in Hebrew Scripture. All the apostles and evangelists emphatically used Scripture as a final authority, and several times they recognized that each others' works were Scripture too. The fact that Marcion invented a duality narrative, or based it on other gnostics, doesn't mean that narrative existed in primitive Christianity.
Marcion admitted that confirmed evangel and confirmed apostolic writings were Scripture. The difference between the NT and Marcion's canon is entirely one of degree. Because Scripture is holistic, you can prove any core tenet of traditional Christianity with reference to Marcionite Scripture alone. If you admit the Marcionite canon, you would have no reason to reject other gospels or epistles that say the same thing (just as I do not reject all the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, but only hold them to a lower standard of authority).
The books of the canon were already circulating, nothing was constructed anew, even as your own (liberal) dating would prove. His ideas may have been "policed" (though there was no political power to force anything for another 200 years) but only because all other churches but the Marcionite "church" recognized the internal contradictions of the system early. You say the Marcionite church was regarded as very widespread, so without arguing that either way I'll note it, but if it were "coherent" Christianity it would have survived instead of essentially disappearing in the 3rd century. The orthodox arguments and texts stand, and Marcion's works didn't survive, which is not an indication that Marcion was so much better but an indication that he had nothing to say that wasn't expressed by his canon and the quotations of him that survived. Althist is fun, but must be admitted as such.
Didn't I say 19th-century German unbelievers? Harnack was counted as a Christian but he rejected the Apostles' Creed on Jesus and rejected the Bible.
No, the Hebrew canon had been getting closed in the 1st century BC and 1st century AD. All the Hebrew books were recognized as Scripture, and taught to be so by Jesus and the Apostles, with the exception of a couple late disputes persisting for a time over books like Esther. The only reason Marcion could reject the OT utterly was that he was in a Greek milieu where reliance on the Hebrew had begun to wane (but was still extant throughout 2nd century patristics). It wasn't about the OT "coming in", instead the NT shows that it was the NT books that were slowly coming in to join the OT.
No, they were not regarded as essential until late 4th century. They were regarded as inspired, useful, beneficial, and sufficient, but there was no argument of essentiality. Look, if the church has Luke-Acts for 100 years, and then suddenly Marcion says only most of Luke is good and none of Acts, it's clear to everyone that he is innovating on received tradition, and it's clear from history that they continued to preserve the whole Luke-Acts because Marcion's version didn't have a slate of dedicated copyists throughout the known world like the established tradition did. There is no althist available where Marcion's Luke existed as Scripture, and Acts, which was written by the same man around the same time to the same audience, was accorded universally as useless until somebody got it to be thought of as inspired as if it counteracted Marcion. It's Luke, it's the same author! Did you know that Papias, quoted by Eusebius, mentioned and named the four gospels around the 120s, long before Marcion or Irenaeus step up?
Nope, nobody published the "NT" until Constantine, much later. Nor was his canon "constructed" but it consisted of all Greek Scriptures that rose to the level of inspiration and acceptance that other works (including some verses added by Marcion) didn't.
I agree with you in rejecting that narrative. All mature Biblical Christians recognize and admit the same.
I'm very empathetic to Romanism omitting perspectives and have consistently appealed here for primitive Christianity. Gnosticism isn't primitive Christianity and never had approval from Jesus's apostles or their appointed successors at large. When gnosticism is tested as a theological system (as it was), it fails logic, history, and inspiration.
Now, in all our conversations I've been attempting to find out how you know what is true. I don't see that answer. I see you sticking to a storyline, even imagining what Jesus might have said that totally contradicts what history shows he did say. If you had quoted Gospel of Thomas, I wouldn't object because Jesus may have said everything in there in context, and there may be an echo of apostolic tradition in it. But you're coming in with Marcion whose only tradition, if any, comes from either part of the holistic Bible (which was accepted along with the rest), or Valentinus or Simon or Menander before him, who were never accepted. It was apostate (standing aside from Christianity), never something that acted as if part of the same Christianity as everyone else kept. So you don't seem to be committed to seek the truth wherever it leads and to accept the facts of history. You're free to show me otherwise.