Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The Philosophumena is a variant of Irenaeus's Against Heresies. Except that it includes this: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050109.htm The story of Pope Callistus as an abortionist among other things. Hippolytus, who was a binitarian heretic and the first anti-pope was hardly the mouthpiece of ...

It's at the very least descriptive. Hippolytus says nothing about a "mystical" or "secret" Mark, nor does he say Marcion's Gospel is Mark, rather he uses Mark and Paul as authorities against Marcion and other heretics. Elsewhere he says Marcion uses material from Mathew and refe...

While it was outside my immediate point about the number of corrupt or forged texts among the early writings of the Church, Marcion is connected with a mystic gospel of Mark in the Philosophumena, a third century adaption of Irenaeus's Against Heresies. Are you talking about this? When, therefore, ...

Looks like Enoch was right: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/enigmatic-human-relative-outlived-neanderthals/ Multiple lines of mysterious ancient humans interbred with us A study published today in Cell adds a surprising new twist to their mystery: DNA from a large sampling of livi...

Only someone who knows literally nothing about Christian practice would be shocked that a baptism was administered naked. Only a modern who sees porn everywhere would assume that "secret mark" depicts homosexuality.

Achamoth' is an inaccurate Patristic attempt to render חכמת into Greek. Odd to chose it as an identity

.

The Demiurge sent me to mess with you.

What is the basis of your theory that "secret mark" is associated with Marcion? Mark works no better than Luke as Marcion's Gospel and "secret Mark" has nothing Marcionite about it. Either Marcion unaccountably chose a Gospel that refuted his whole theology, probably the version ...

Even granting your argument that the letter is authentic and that "secret mark" is truly the original reading, so what? If you add it to our Mark it merely explains who the man in the Baptismal shroud was during the following arrest scene. It has no effect on the overall narrative of the G...

After all Paul is the one who seemed to emphasise the cross so much he didn't even need to relate anything Jesus said!

Paul said he had a Gospel which presumably included Jesus's sayings.

With the Romans definitely crucifying so many Jews during the time period you hardly need any other explanation of where the crucifixion story comes from.