Can Isaiah 40 - 53 Be Used as a Road Map to the Lost Ur-Gospel?

[Secret Alias]

That's about the worst argument you could have made. Bultmann's third person Son of Man might not have been Jesus.

[Giuseppe]

The natural way to introduce a deity on the earth (I talk for the Pagan world, at least) is the descending directly from the heaven in the form of a man or animal. Therefore, who wants to prove that Jesus is an exception to the rule, has on the his shoulders the onus probandi, I think.

[Secret Alias]

You robotically make points without thinking about what is being discussed here. In the standard baptism narrative 'Christ' comes down from heaven. 'Christ' is a divinity. Tertullian never makes reference to any other Marcionite concept other than 'Christ' coming down from heaven. He calls this 'Christ' a god and rarely mentions 'Jesus.' Why does it make sense to suppose that Marcion really meant 'Jesus' came down from heaven when in fact we only hear Tertullian talk about 'Christ' as a divine being?

[Giuseppe]

You robotically make points without thinking about what is being discussed here. In the standard baptism narrative 'Christ' comes down from heaven. 'Christ' is a divinity. Tertullian never makes reference to any other Marcionite concept other than 'Christ' coming down from heaven. He calls this 'Christ' a god and rarely mentions 'Jesus.' Why does it make sense to suppose that Marcion really meant 'Jesus' came down from heaven when in fact we only hear Tertullian talk about 'Christ' as a divine being?

Because of the docetic christology of the marcionites, we are said. Separationism and docetism are mutually exclusive views. If Christ is distinct from Jesus and the latter is a docetic appearance, then the more simple explanation is that Jesus and Christ are both one and the same spiritual being coming down from heaven.

[Secret Alias]

It is clear from Adv Mar 5.3 that Isaiah 40 is to be interpreted in a 'Marcionite manner' - in other words, it is argued that Isaiah predicted that the opening lines of Isaiah 40 were about the end of the law, the end of Judaaism:

The law, indeed, had to be overthrown, from the moment when John "cried in the wilderness, Prepare ye the ways of the Lord," that valleys108 and hills and mountains may be filled up and levelled, and the crooked and the rough ways be made straight and smooth109 ----in other words, that the difficulties of the law might be changed into the facilities of the gospel.

So the argument there is a little more complex than people want to admit. Marcion is not wrong for saying that Jesus came to end the Law and Judaism. Marcion (apparently) denied that this was predicted by Isaiah or that the orders came from the god of the Jews, the god of the Law.