All the references to demiurge in Mark

[Joseph D. L.]

I'm not a mythicist, although I have mythicist leanings if that makes sense.

Although it is apparent that the Gospels have doublefold and triplefold meanings in them, how much is deliberate and how much is just a result of the church's attempts at curbing and reconciling divergent traditions is not as apparent.

I'm willing to chuck out the whole testimonial of Papias and Mark 16:9+. The only thing in Papias I find useful is a variant account that James and John were both martyred in accordance to Matthew 20:20-23, but only because this serves as a witness that this idea was believed by someone at least. Papias's inference of Mark 16:9-19 could easily have been a later insertion.

[Giuseppe]

It's not a Marcionite polemic against the Jews, because it originally appeared in the Hebrew Gospel.

but what are you saying? Barabbas was not a Marcionite invention. Barabbas was interpolated in the first gospel (please choose you what was it) by the Judaizers who hated Marcion.

The sequence of events is the following:

• 1) a first gospel (without Barabbas)

• 2) hearsay about Christians who adored a Jesus Son of Father (not the Jewish Christ) and hated the bastard demiurge. They insisted that the crucified one was their Jesus, not the Jewish Christ son of YHWH

• 3) invention and interpolation of Barabbas to attack these Christians of point 2.

• 4) Marcion of Sinope appears and accepts passively Barabbas in the his gospel, etc...

• 5) some trace of Christians of point 2 survives in proto-John, where Jesus says: I and the Father are one.

About the first and the last point: are they someway connected? Was the first gospel a gospel where Jesus was called "Son of Father" or "Son of God"?

Was "Son of Man" interpolated later to eclipse the fact that a previous Gospel Jesus was called "Son of God"?

[Joseph D. L.]

Barabbas wasn't interpolated into the first Gospel, because the first Gospel required that he be in it. It is Barabbas, the messiah and new Christ, who is released, while the previous host is executed.

It's the same thing with Simon of Cyrene. Simon is crucified in place of Jesus, while Jesus/the Christ lives on.

And with Joseph of Arimathea, who takes the body of Jesus and buries it himself. Joseph is the new Christ.

All of this illustrates the theme of succession in the Hebrew Gospel (and the Synoptics are based upon this Gospel).

No, it's the following...

1) Secret Mark/the original Alexandrian Gospel at 132 ad

2) Gospel of the Hebrews at 135 ad; Barabbas included (Note: this text has nothing to do with the Alexandrian Gospel)

3) After bar Kochba's defeat, the Nazareans create a new Gospel at 140 ad

4) Marcion dies at 157 ad

5) A former follower of Marcion's composes Gospel of the Lord, ca. 165 ad, which incorporated the Nazarean text

And that's really the only relevance.

The only thing I'm willing to accept is that Barabbas was apart of the new Nazarean Gospel. But that still doesn't apply to your theory. How does Barabbas argue against the Marcionites? That was the point I was driving at. You're so confused with this "gentilizers" and "judaizers" that you argue in circles. There were no such things. Gentiles accepted a mix bag of Judaism, while Jews rejected everything about the Gentile's text. A clear example is the resurrection/transmigration theology. The Gentile's focused on the former, the Jews on the latter.

About the first and the last point: are they someway connected? Was the first gospel a gospel where Jesus was called "Son of Father" or "Son of God"?

Was "Son of Man" interpolated later to eclipse the fact that a previous Gospel Jesus was called "Son of God"?

I think proto-John and Secret Mark are the same text.

Yes, I think Son of Man is an interpolation in John. Secret Mark is predominantly focused on Christ as the minister of the mysteries, not as an agent of God.

* Christ/Hadrian raises Lazarus/Antinous

* Christ ministers to Lazarus

* Lazarus becomes the god head of the mysteries.

Later texts like Gospel of the Egyptians and Gospel of Mark embellish on this idea, but it only serves as proof that Secret Mark was the original.

[Giuseppe]

Barabbas wasn't interpolated into the first Gospel, because the first Gospel required that he be in it.

that is the problem: you see Barabbas as a positive character. One who is described as a robber and a murderer is a negative character in any possible fiction.

Barabbas is made robber and murderer because the "Jesus Son of Father" of proto-John accused Moses and all the prophets as murderers and robbers:

All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them

(John 10:8)

I like the fact that you consider proto-John as first gospel.

In future threads I will talk more about proto-John.

[Joseph D. L.]

No, it isn’t. Robin Hood was a thief and murderer, yet he is considered a hero of legend.

Such moral quandaries are irrelevant.

What’s more, as I’ve said before, this would be more fitting as a Marcionite polemic against the bloodthirsty god of the Israelites. Yet it wasn’t apart of his text, which you admit. So exactly what is it a polemic against?

[Giuseppe]

No, it isn’t. Robin Hood was a thief and murderer, yet he is considered a hero of legend.

ok about Robin Hood but we are talking about a robber and murderer in the Judea of I CE: a modern terrorist would be the equivalent of Barabbas today.

What’s more, as I’ve said before, this would be more fitting as a Marcionite polemic against the bloodthirsty god of the Israelites. Yet it wasn’t apart of his text, which you admit. So exactly what is it a polemic against?

The marcionites insisted that their Jesus Son of Father was killed on the cross. Who interpolated Barabbas was claiming the exact contrary: the victim on the cross was not the Marcion's Christ, but the Jewish Christ, the Jesus called "king of Jews".

By releasing Barabbas, Pilate confutes Marcion.

[Joseph D. L.]

ok about Robin Hood but we are talking about a robber and murderer in the Judea of I CE: a modern terrorist would be the equivalent of Barabbas today.

Okay, so all of this is literal. It actually happened. Thank you for admiting that you are a Christ historicist.

The marcionites insisted that their Jesus Son of Father was killed on the cross. Who interpolated Barabbas was claiming the exact contrary: the victim on the cross was not the Marcion's Christ, but the Jewish Christ, the Jesus called "king of Jews".

1) It doesn't matter because in Jewish Christianity, Jesus is still Son of the Father.

2) Why would they insist the their Christ was executed shamefully, if they can change the narrative? The Marcionites were claiming their Christ underwent crucifixion, why didn't they just run with that? "Your god died shamefully, but ours lives on!"

3) They would've known the Marcionite's Isu Christus was strictly allegorical and so such a polemic would be nonapplicable to them.

4) "The marcionites insisted that their Jesus Son of Father was killed on the cross." So he wasn't released. So how does that work with Barabbas who was?

By releasing Barabbas, Pilate confutes Marcion.

How? It's the Jews who demanded he go free. Pilate even states to them when he hands Jesus over, "I am innocent of this man's blood. The responsibility is yours! i.e. he did not abide by it.

Jesus Christ above, Giuseppe, you are mentally retarded.

[Joseph D. L.]

So the interpolater inserted Barabbas into the narrative, yet still made Pilate sympathetic towards their Christ's death and the Jews out to be bloodthirsty savages?

Do you see what happens when you don't think critically? Or is this layer 5 of the Judiazer agenda?

[Giuseppe]

1) It doesn't matter because in Jewish Christianity, Jesus is still Son of the Father.

Idiot. The only defect of that Son of Father is not be called Christ. Think before to post.

2) Why would they insist the their Christ was executed shamefully, if they can change the narrative? The Marcionites were claiming their Christ underwent crucifixion, why didn't they just run with that? "Your god died shamefully, but ours lives on!"

I can't talk with who does similar absurd claims.

3) They would've known the Marcionite's Isu Christus was strictly allegorical and so such a polemic would be nonapplicable to them.

idiot, but what are you saying? Pure nonsense.

4) "The marcionites insisted that their Jesus Son of Father was killed on the cross." So he wasn't released. So how does that work with Barabbas who was?

but WHAT are you saying?

By releasing Barabbas, Pilate confutes Marcion.

How? It's the Jews who demanded he go free. Pilate even states to them when he hands Jesus over, "I am innocent of this man's blood. The responsibility is yours! i.e. he did not abide by it.

You are mentally retarded, because you are unable to realize even the point of your interlocutor. The original gospel was totally without Barabbas. The Judaizers inserted the Barabbas episode.

[Joseph D. L.]

Idiot. The only defect of that Son of Father is not be called Christ. Think before to post.

So the Marcionites didn't think Jesus was Christ?

Isu Christus doesn't mean anything???

I can't talk with who does similar absurd claims.

How absurd? Paul/Marcion even takes pride in their Christ being crucified in Galatians 3:13. The interpolater, according to you, is writing a polemic about the Marcionites with Barabbas, who wasn't crucified himself.

idiot, but what are you saying? Pure nonsense.

They could just as easily say that their [Marcionites] Christ didn't exist, while theirs [Jewish Christians] did. Fool.

but WHAT are you saying?

In order to write a polemic against something you actually have to use what your opposition is saying, otherwise you just create a strawman. With your interpretation that's exactly what Barabbas is.

You are mentally retarded, because you are unable to realize even the point of your interlocutor. The original gospel was totally without Barabbas. The Judaizers inserted the Barabbas episode.

That's not apart of the Barabbas portion you blithering idiot. And if it is, explain why the interpolater made Pilate, a Marcionite proxy, sympathetic to Christ and the Jewish crowd chooses to release Barabbas??? That just goes even further with it, if anything, being a polemic against the Jews.

Oh, and, you're a moron, a fool, a dumbass, a retard, and so on and so forth.