Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 742
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:01 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:29 pm
you are a total idiot. I mean: the true authors of the crucifixion, by using Pilate, were the Jews, who, in a Catholic universe, are therefore people who rejected their same Christ.
So I am a "total idiot" for rejecting your preconceptions about an entirely hypothetical scenario?

So the Jews/"Judiazers"...

Wrote of themselves as rejecting their Christ in favour of a murderer named Barabbas...

... then had the wherewithal to write that the Romans executed their messiah as a means to circumvent their original rejection of him...

... even though, had they the machinations and and abilities that you say they would have...

... the scene would have been Jesus being stoned by the Jews, and not crucified by the Romans, as those who execute the Christ are those who accept him as such.

When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!”

The Romans are the one's who accepts Christ as the saviour. Not the Jews.

There is no logic to you. Just a stream of consciousness of inane ramblings.
In a Marcionite universe, the Jews kill (by using Pilate) a Christ-who-is-not-their-Christ. Basically, they kill an alien.
In Marcion's theology, Chrestus never came down to earth.

But now Pilate is a ploy of the Marcionites, and not the Judiazers? Make up your fucking mind.
You can't ignore this difference between a Jewish victim and an alien. But you ignore this because you are a total troll without even a bit of intelligence.
I ignore your insane and incoherent babblings.
Last edited by Joseph D. L. on Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Niente è ingannevole o depravato come Guiseppe.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 742
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:06 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:33 pm
...and Barabbas was never killed. Accordingly, for you Barabbas would be similar to the scapegoat Isaac.
The scapegoat isn't killed. It is released into the wilderness.

Do you know anything about Torah?
But what logic is this?But do you realize that you are totally idiot, here?
The guy who speaks in a language he clearly doesn't understand and makes numerous grammatical errors has no right calling others an idiot.
Barabbas is morally evil. Isaac (as the goat released into wilderness of Leviticus 16) is not morally evil.
Irrelevant. Your moral quandaries mean nothing.

But keep this mind, Giuseppe...

"Barabbas is morally evil."

Hence why the Jews choosing him were seen as evil by later Christians.

You have no consistency. You're only interest is proving your own bullshit ideas, to hell with reason and logic!
Niente è ingannevole o depravato come Guiseppe.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 742
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:09 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:11 am
no, he was, if "anti-Jewish" means that he combated YHWH and his adorers.
Which he didn't do. He accepted Torah as literal history, and YHWH as the literal creator of the universe. His theology was centered around the God of the celestial Temple, Elohim.
You can't use Paul as evidence of later Gnostic thought.
Which is funny because that's precisely what you use him for.

Paul's Marcionite edition basically disproves everything you've ever said regarding Marcion.
Niente è ingannevole o depravato come Guiseppe.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 742
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:24 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:16 am
that is totally a false claim, a genuine fake news, about Joseph Turmel, who argued for proto-John as a marcionite Gospel but not as the Earliest Gospel.
My knowledge of Turmel is limited because I can't read French. My assumption (incorrect) was that he believed Marcion composed the first Gospel, and that it was Johannine.
this is another fake news about yourself, since you talked about a nebulous "Gospel of Hebrews", not about proto-John, as first gospel.
ReallY?
Post by Joseph D. L. » Sun Apr 15, 2018 5:33 pm

If I may add my own speculative dates:

Neo-Targum, 80-100 ad
Ur-Evangelium, 120-130 ad
Ur-John, 125-140 ad
Ur-Paul, 125-140 ad
Gospel of James, 125-135
Gospel of the Hebrews, 130-140 ad
Secret Mark, 130-145 ad
Joseph D. L. » Tue Aug 07, 2018 12:02 am

What's more, the entirety of John 3:1-15 is an allusion to the eclipse of 118 ad, which Marcion was a witness of.
John 3:1-15 is an allusion to the eclipse of 118 ad
I will add here only that the reason for my earlier reluctance of placing Ur-John prior to Gospel of the Hebrews/Ebionites was due to not knowing exactly what the motivation of Hebrews was, while Ur-John had a definite motivation that I could accurately pin. Understanding that Hebrews follows the theme of transmigration, and it's emphasis of James, cleared the smoke away, and it could not be any earlier than 130 ad.
Go with your Lukuas to Cyrene. It is a better place for you than this forum. :D
Okay?
Last edited by Joseph D. L. on Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Niente è ingannevole o depravato come Guiseppe.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 742
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:32 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:27 am
I want to nail Joseph D.L. on this precise error made by him:
Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:06 am
I don't see an objection in this. The Jews crucified their Christ. This is still anti-marcionite in nature. Is not it?
No, it isn't, as 1) Marcion was Jewish in his theological structure, 2) the Romans are the ones who crucify Christ, and 3) it can't be anti-Marcion because it portrays Jews as rejecting their messiah. Again, you are failing to understand that basic premise, even when your argument is necessitated on it. THE JEWS STILL DEMAND THE RELEASE OF BARABBAS OVER THEIR CHRIST, WHOM THEY HAVE REJECTED.
This is the greatest bullshit I have heard in this forum from day 1 of the my subscription:

it can't be anti-Marcion because it portrays Jews as rejecting their messiah

A Gospel where the Jews kill their "King of Jews" (with or without Pilate doesn't matter: therefore don't elude the point) is not, not, not, not, absolutely NOT a Marcionite Gospel.
Your contention makes zero sense. I wasn't even talking about Pilate or the crucifixion, but the Jews rejecting their Christ in favour of Barabbas, which the Marcionites would have picked up in a heart beat, according to you, to show just how violent and bloodthirsty their God was.

Can you even read? You don't even follow your own theories.
If you continue to deny this pure and sane evidence, then I will procede to ignore totally you by reserving only contempt on you. Without even need of showing it.
Please get hit by a bus.
I am disposed to kiss the ass of a historical Jesus, rather than concede that precise point to you.
You can kiss whatever you want. You'd still be wrong, and Jesus would still be historical.

Bye bye!!! :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave:
Niente è ingannevole o depravato come Guiseppe.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6993
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy, or wherever Joseph D.L. is not there

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:35 pm

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:01 pm
Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:29 pm
you are a total idiot. I mean: the true authors of the crucifixion, by using Pilate, were the Jews, who, in a Catholic universe, are therefore people who rejected their same Christ.
So I am a "total idiot" for rejecting your preconceptions about an entirely hypothetical scenario?
No, you are even unable to understand what I say. Differently from another user who shows a perfect knowedge of the my view.

If you disagree with me but at least you show knowledge of the my view, only then I can respect you. Until proven otherwise, I call you a TOTAL IDIOT.

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:01 pm
So the Jews/"Judiazers"...

Wrote of themselves as rejecting their Christ in favour of a murderer named Barabbas...
No, no, no, you are totally wrong. You are a TOTAL IDIOT. The Judaizers hated the Jews just as they hated the Pagans and just as they hated the Marcionites. The Judaizers are the proto-Catholics.

The rest of what you write is false and evidence of the your ignorance of the my view:
... then had the wherewithal to write that the Romans executed their messiah as a means to circumvent their original rejection of him...

... even though, had they the machinations and and abilities that you say they would have...

... the scene would have been Jesus being stoned by the Jews, and not crucified by the Romans, as those who execute the Christ are those who accept him as such.

Then you are still a total idiot when you write:
Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:01 pm

In Marcion's theology, Chrestus never came down to earth.
Marcion from Sinope (that is not in Judea, do you understand at least this, total idiot?) was a historicist.
Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:01 pm
You can't ignore this difference between a Jewish victim and an alien. But you ignore this because you are a total troll without even a bit of intelligence.
I ignore your insane and incoherent babblings.
you are a total troll without even a bit of intelligence and you are giving other evidence of this.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6993
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy, or wherever Joseph D.L. is not there

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:39 pm

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:09 pm
Giuseppe wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:11 am
no, he was, if "anti-Jewish" means that he combated YHWH and his adorers.
Which he didn't do. He accepted Torah as literal history, and YHWH as the literal creator of the universe. His theology was centered around the God of the celestial Temple, Elohim.
you are a total idiot. No scholar would agree with your views. There are more mythicists in academy of the kind I like, than a scholar who would make Marcion a Jew.

I insist: Sinope is not in Judea.
Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:09 pm
You can't use Paul as evidence of later Gnostic thought.
Which is funny because that's precisely what you use him for.
another falsity by you. No wonder by a modern judaizer.
Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:09 pm
Paul's Marcionite edition basically disproves everything you've ever said regarding Marcion.
Stuart Waugh has reconstructed perfectly the marcionite edition, and he would disagree totally with an idiot as you.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6993
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy, or wherever Joseph D.L. is not there

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:47 pm

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:24 pm


My knowledge of Turmel is limited because I can't read French. My assumption (incorrect) was that he believed Marcion composed the first Gospel, and that it was Johannine.
Stupid, Turmel believed that a disciple of Marcion composed proto-John, making Marcion himself the Paraclete. You can't talk about what you don't say.

In addition, you confirm again and again the sound truth of the following my quote addressed to you:
this is another fake news about yourself, since you talked about a nebulous "Gospel of Hebrews", not about proto-John, as first gospel.
The evidence:
Post by Joseph D. L. » Sun Apr 15, 2018 5:33 pm

If I may add my own speculative dates:

Neo-Targum, 80-100 ad
Ur-Evangelium, 120-130 ad

Ur-John, 125-140 ad
Ur-Paul, 125-140 ad
Gospel of James, 125-135
Gospel of the Hebrews, 130-140 ad
Secret Mark, 130-145 ad
Neo-Targum and Ur-Evangelium (all bullshit by you) are precisely what I mean by using the generic name of "Gospel of Hebrews". So you can't say that ur-John is first when for you a Jewish bullshit as your Neo-Targum would come before Ur-John.
Joseph D. L. » Tue Aug 07, 2018 12:02 am

What's more, the entirety of John 3:1-15 is an allusion to the eclipse of 118 ad, which Marcion was a witness of.
John 3:1-15 is an allusion to the eclipse of 118 ad
That is a stupid fool astrotheology worthy of the worse Acharya. :tombstone:
You are a mere fool astrotheologist as Robert Tulip, as Pier Tulip, as Acharya.

GO DISTANT.


Understanding that Hebrews follows the theme of transmigration, and it's emphasis of James, cleared the smoke away, and it could not be any earlier than 130 ad.
Not only an astrotheologist, but even a Buddhist. Again: GO DISTANT.

And don't dirty my thread with your continue bullshits worthy of a troll.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6993
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy, or wherever Joseph D.L. is not there

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:53 pm

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:32 pm
Your contention makes zero sense. I wasn't even talking about Pilate or the crucifixion, but the Jews rejecting their Christ in favour of Barabbas
So, according to you, a proto-Catholic Christ is still a 100% Jewish Christ ?

You ignore the difference between Judaizers and Jews.
  • The Judaizers are Jews who have interest to judaize a gentile deity (because, de facto, the Marcion's Christ is a gentile deity).
  • The Jews are banal Jews who have no interest to judaize something that is not Jewish.

Can you even read? You are totally unable to understand me. You are a total idiot. GO DISTANT.

If you continue to deny this pure and sane evidence, then I will procede to ignore totally you by reserving only contempt on you. Without even need of showing it.

The definitive evidence that you are a troll, here:
You can kiss whatever you want. You'd still be wrong, and Jesus would still be historical.

Bye bye!!! :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave:
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 742
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:10 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:35 pm

No, you are even unable to understand what I say. Differently from another user who shows a perfect knowedge of the my view.
To be perfectly honest I don't try to understand what you say, because even the bits I do understand I utterly reject.
If you disagree with me but at least you show knowledge of the my view, only then I can respect you. Until proven otherwise, I call you a TOTAL IDIOT.
I don't live for your respect, Guiseppe.
Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:01 pm
So the Jews/"Judiazers"...
No, no, no, you are totally wrong. You are a TOTAL IDIOT. The Judaizers hated the Jews just as they hated the Pagans and just as they hated the Marcionites. The Judaizers are the proto-Catholics.
Then they weren't Judiazers. Call them what they are, proto-Catholics.

And just like the Marcionites, they dependent wholeheartedly on Jewish texts, meaning that they were only haters of the Jews as a people, but not as a religion, as, again, Justin Martyr gives testament to when he says that Christians are perfected Israelites.

The rest of what you write is false and evidence of the your ignorance of the my view:
... then had the wherewithal to write that the Romans executed their messiah as a means to circumvent their original rejection of him...

... even though, had they the machinations and and abilities that you say they would have...

... the scene would have been Jesus being stoned by the Jews, and not crucified by the Romans, as those who execute the Christ are those who accept him as such.

Then you are still a total idiot when you write:
Spare me any more of your dribble.
Marcion from Sinope (that is not in Judea, do you understand at least this, total idiot?) was a historicist.
No, he wasn't. Haven't you spent page after page going on about how Paul believed a celestial crucifixion? Or, in your own language, "outer space"? And what is Paul if not Marcion's favourite Apostle? Then if it's true for Paul, it's true for Marcion. And Marcion accepted that Paul was the Paraclete, and that Chrestus COULD NEVER descend into the material realm.
Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:01 pm
You can't ignore this difference between a Jewish victim and an alien. But you ignore this because you are a total troll without even a bit of intelligence.
I ignore your insane and incoherent babblings.
you are a total troll without even a bit of intelligence and you are giving other evidence of this.
lol
Niente è ingannevole o depravato come Guiseppe.

Post Reply