Bar-Abbas.. ...or Why Jesus is 'called' - and only 'called' - the Jewish Christ

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 4238
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Bar-Abbas.. ...or Why Jesus is 'called' - and only 'called' - the Jewish Christ

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:31 am

Answering to Ben here, I note this curious pattern:
for Marcion,
1) the demons identify Jesus as the Jewish Christ.
2) Peter identifies Jesus as the Jewish Christ
3) so Peter is rebuked by Jesus as 'Satan', for the points 1 and 2.

So the demons are rebuked not in virtue of their false knowledge about the identity of Jesus, but because they cry that Jesus is the Jewish Christ, making it dangerously public and so persuading (deliberately?) the people to believe the same thing.

In other terms, the demons think rightly that, by crying the identity of Jesus as the Jewish Christ, they can make more easy and more rapid the his death: but they don't know that Jesus is not the Jewish Christ.

So the people who believe that Jesus is the Jewish Christ is a people possessed by Satan insofar Peter himself is declared possessed by Satan in virtue of the his false recognition of Jesus as the Jewish Christ. Not coincidentially, then, the people crying 'CRUCIFIGE' is the same people who called Jesus as 'Christ/king of the Jews' in the eyes of the same Pilate. So the moment during which the people is expected as more under the possession of Satan (viz., during the Pilate's trial), is just the moment when the people makes it known his desire to call Jesus as 'king of the Jews'.


Could then the irony of Jesus Bar-Abbas ('Jesus Son of Father') be a Marcionite attack addressed against a people who is confusing the true 'Son of Father' for the Jewish Christ, while takes a true prototype of the Jewish Christ (a robber: Barabbas) for the true 'Son of Father'?

So Jesus is 'called' - and only 'called' (without being really such) - 'king of Jews' or (Jewish) 'Christ'...

...while a Zealot is called - and only 'called' (without being really such) - 'Bar-Abbas' ('Son of Father).


So all that strange emphasis on the 'calling' Jesus as (Jewish) 'Christ' - again and again by demons, Peter, Pilate, people, until to the titulus crucis) may be a spy clue sowed in various forms in the Earliest Gospel to persuade the initiate readers of the exact contrary: Jesus is NOT the Jewish Christ, but he is the Son of an unknown Father.

Note that, even if I correct Couchoud* on this point (Bar-Abbas as a marcionite attack against the judaizers and not more as a judaizing attack against the marcionites), the his more great merit continues to be the recognition that the enigma 'Bar-Abbas' points directly to Marcionite polemic.


* Really, Couchoud himself was open to both the hypotheses (that here given by me is described by him in the his book Creation of Christ).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4238
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Bar-Abbas.. ...or Why Jesus is 'called' - and only 'called' - the Jewish Christ

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:48 am


So Jesus is 'called' - and only 'called' (without being really such) - 'king of Jews' or (Jewish) 'Christ'...

...while a Zealot is called - and only 'called' (without being really such) - 'Bar-Abbas' ('Son of Father').


Εύρηκα
:cheers:
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4238
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Bar-Abbas.. ...or Why Jesus is 'called' - and only 'called' - the Jewish Christ

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:25 am

if A -----> B then not A -----> not B

if Jesus 'called king of the Jews' is really the 'king of the Jews', then 'Jesus Barabbas' is really the marcionite 'Jesus the Son of Father'.

if Jesus 'called king of the Jews' is not really the 'king of the Jews', then 'Jesus Barabbas' is not really the marcionite 'Jesus the Son of Father'.

This is the Marcionite Signature of the Gospels. :cheers:
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5653
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Bar-Abbas.. ...or Why Jesus is 'called' - and only 'called' - the Jewish Christ

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:11 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:25 am
if A -----> B then not A -----> not B
This is the logical fallacy known as "denying the antecedent."

Now, you are probably going to come back and say that you mean something slightly different here or some nonsense, but please think about how you word things.

You recently asserted (for I cannot call it an argument) that the gospels fail to support the proposition that the demons knew Jesus was the son of God, when in fact the gospels repeatedly say that the demons knew Jesus was the son of God. Your defense was something along the lines of how Marcion would have treated the exegesis of those passages (and you then failed to produce any Marcionite exegesis of those passages), but your original post had literally nothing to say about Marcion, so you wound up saying "not X in the gospels" when the factual truth is "X in the gospels." Either you worded your point extremely badly or you were flatly mistaken before even getting to the starting line.

You also recently claimed something was a fact, when it was obviously and noncontroversially your interpretation of that fact, by definition. Either you have no idea what "fact" and "interpretation" are or... well, here I am not sure what other option there is that would preserve your integrity.

Your posts, in fact, are littered with such incidents.

And now here you are continuing an already fallacious thread with what is actually, famously, and literally a propositional logical fallacy.

It is as if you are trying to be wrong. As if some mischievous friend dared you to lure people into believing 100 clearly impossible things before Christmas, and this forum is the collective victim of your attempt to find the dupes you need to win the bet.

I honestly do not care what you "really meant" by "A > B, therefore not A > not B." I have had exchanges with you before because sometimes, out of the blue, you will pull out some really solid point to ponder (and because, unlike a couple of posters with whom I no longer directly interact, you are not a jerk). Where are those solid points right now? I sure could use one after the recent flood of fallacy.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 4238
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Bar-Abbas.. ...or Why Jesus is 'called' - and only 'called' - the Jewish Christ

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:43 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:11 am
Giuseppe wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:25 am
if A -----> B then not A -----> not B
This is the logical fallacy known as "denying the antecedent."

Now, you are probably going to come back and say that you mean something slightly different here or some nonsense, but please think about how you word things.
Thanks for both the correction and the (right) prophecy. :confusedsmiley: Indeed, I should say (per modus tollens):

if A -----> B then not B -----> not A

So if Jesus 'called king of the Jews' is really the 'king of the Jews', then 'Jesus Barabbas' is really the marcionite 'Jesus the Son of Father'.

But Jesus Barabbas is not really the marcionite 'Jesus the Son of Father'.

Therefore Jesus 'called king of the Jews' is not really the 'king of the Jews'.

So it's ok. :cheers:
You recently asserted (for I cannot call it an argument) that the gospels fail to support the proposition that the demons knew Jesus was the son of God,
I should say more precisely that at least two Gospels (to my knowledge) argue that the demons didn't know Jesus was the son of the true God: GNicodemus and the Gospel of Marcion.
but your original post had literally nothing to say about Marcion
Excuse me, Ben. I accept any criticism. But I have thought that the my best contribution to this forum is precisely what I have just written (by the modus tollens above). It would be the final confirmation that the Christ and the Son of Father can't be one and the same person, by construction, in virtue of the modus tollens described just above. I think that this is my only real contribution to the forum.

In addition, can you explain me why you deny that Tertullian confirms that the demons didn't recognize the marcionite Jesus as son of the Good God, when the same Tertullian wrote:
Therefore they [the demons] confessed that (Christ) was the Son of a God who was to be feared, because they would have an occasion of not submitting if there were none for fearing

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5653
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Bar-Abbas.. ...or Why Jesus is 'called' - and only 'called' - the Jewish Christ

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:18 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:43 am
In addition, can you explain me why you deny that Tertullian confirms that the demons didn't recognize the marcionite Jesus as son of the Good God, when the same Tertullian wrote:
Therefore they [the demons] confessed that (Christ) was the Son of a God who was to be feared, because they would have an occasion of not submitting if there were none for fearing

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm
:facepalm:

I have denied nothing in this connection about Tertullian. What I have questioned (not even denied) is about Marcion. And your quote of Tertullian above does not even contain the name Marcion in it.

You claimed that there was Marcionite exegesis on these exorcisms to a certain effect, and you have produced no such exegesis. You keep quoting Tertullian just talking, not even attributing ideas to Marcion. Just a few lines up from that quotation in Against Marcion Tertullian affirms that "Marcion says that his God is not feared," and that is the sort of thing I am asking you for: something to the effect that "Marcion said" that the demons being exorcised believed such and such. It is that "Marcion says" element, whether explicit or implicit, that is missing from the examples you have given so far. And I find I am not even able to follow whatever argumentation you have offered for why Tertullian must at this or that point be referencing Marcion's exegesis directly. Honestly, most of your reasoning is opaque to me. I find it incomprehensible. I chime in only when I understand enough of it to notice either that it is a good point or that it is exactly the opposite of whatever the case may be.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 4238
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Bar-Abbas.. ...or Why Jesus is 'called' - and only 'called' - the Jewish Christ

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:22 am

Ben, if I read in Titus Livy that Hannibal was not a pious person, I can't believe that Hannibal was an atheist (á la Diagoras).
But even a Roman propagandist as Livy had to recognize that Hannibal was a great general. And he did.
Idem with Tertullian: if he says that the marcionite God is a liar because he exorcises the demons by being masked as the creator (contra factum that this alien god is always sincere), I can't agree with Tertullian that the marcionite god was able of a such lie. But I can conclude already that really the marcionite Jesus was not recognized by the demons (according to Marcionite exegesis).

In this latter example I find very rational the Tertullian's argument (so I think that it is really from Marcion):

1) the marcionite god is good and is not to be feared,

2) the demons fear the god of which Jesus would be the son (according to them)

3) so the demons escape because they fear the creator, believing him the father of Jesus..

Tertullian accuses the marcionite Jesus of being not sincere with the demons.

The confutation against Tertullian is that Jesus is really sincere with them: It finally makes sense why he doesn’t want the demons to make known that he is the son of God, if it would be misinterpreted as son of the wrong God.

Isn't this an act expected by a sincere god, pace Tertullian?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5653
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Bar-Abbas.. ...or Why Jesus is 'called' - and only 'called' - the Jewish Christ

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Aug 14, 2018 12:03 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:22 am
Ben, if I read in Titus Livy that Hannibal was not a pious person, I can't believe that Hannibal was an atheist (á la Diagoras).
What does this mean?
But even a Roman propagandist as Livy had to recognize that Hannibal was a great general. And he did.
Okay. So what?
Idem with Tertullian....
If your Hannibal example was supposed to elucidate something about Tertullian by way of analogy, I have no clue what it might be.
if he says that the marcionite God is a liar because he exorcises the demons by being masked as the creator (contra factum that this alien god is always sincere), I can't agree with Tertullian that the marcionite god was able of a such lie.
This sentence actually makes a sort of sense to me. Tertullian may be expected to interpret Marcionism uncharitably.
But I can conclude already that really the marcionite Jesus was not recognized by the demons (according to Marcionite exegesis).
How does this conclusion follow from the previous sentence? I do not follow you at all. What is the necessary and sufficient connection which ensures the truth of this conclusion from the premise which preceded it?
In this latter example I find very rational the Tertullian's argument (so I think that it is really from Marcion):

1) the marcionite god is good and is not to be feared,

2) the demons fear the god of which Jesus would be the son (according to them)

3) so the demons escape because they fear the creator, believing him the father of Jesus..

Tertullian accuses the marcionite Jesus of being not sincere with the demons.

The confutation against Tertullian is that Jesus is really sincere with them: It finally makes sense why he doesn’t want the demons to make known that he is the son of God, if it would be misinterpreted as son of the wrong God.

Isn't this an act expected by a sincere god, pace Tertullian?
Please do me the favor of quoting the text that you are interpreting here. I am bouncing back and forth between several different passages in Tertullian, trying to figure out what you are saying about each.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 4238
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Bar-Abbas.. ...or Why Jesus is 'called' - and only 'called' - the Jewish Christ

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Aug 14, 2018 12:10 pm


And now, too, as the destroyer also of the Creator, he would have desired nothing better than to be acknowledged by His spirits, and to be divulged for the sake of being feared: only that Marcion says that his god is not feared; maintaining that a good being is not an object of fear, but only a judicial being, in whom reside the grounds of fear— anger, severity, judgments, vengeance, condemnation. But it was from fear, undoubtedly, that the evil spirits were cowed. Therefore they confessed that (Christ) was the Son of a God who was to be feared, because they would have an occasion of not submitting if there were none for fearing. Besides, He showed that He was to be feared, because He drove them out, not by persuasion like a good being, but by command and reproof. Or else did he reprove them, because they were making him an object of fear, when all the while he did not want to be feared? And in what manner did he wish them to go forth, when they could not do so except with fear? So that he fell into the dilemma of having to conduct himself contrary to his nature, whereas he might in his simple goodness have at once treated them with leniency. He fell, too, into another false position — of prevarication, when he permitted himself to be feared by the demons as the Son of the Creator, that he might drive them out, not indeed by his own power, but by the authority of the Creator.

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5653
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Bar-Abbas.. ...or Why Jesus is 'called' - and only 'called' - the Jewish Christ

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Aug 14, 2018 12:26 pm

Okay, never mind. That is the same passage as before.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply