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: 954
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 11:16 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
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.
https://books.google.com/books?id=9EIqD ... st&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=P3DGt ... st&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=kqDJd ... st&f=false

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:09 pm
You can't use Paul as evidence of later Gnostic thought.
another falsity by you. No wonder by a modern judaizer.
Don't forget Christian apologist as well!

Stuart Waugh has reconstructed perfectly the marcionite edition, and he would disagree totally with an idiot as you.
I don't really care what Waugh has to say anymore. Our models are so irreconcilable that it is best if we don't compare. (For starters, I accept portions of Romans 1:1-6 as being indicative of Marcion's theology, because to him Chrestus instituted a new baptism. Waugh, if I remember correctly, rejects much of Romans altogether. But again, I don't care.)

Giuseppe
Posts: 7215
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:18 pm

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:10 pm
I don't live for your respect, Guiseppe.
I don't understand why you don't show minimal respect at least for my highly serious view that Barabbas is a caustic parody of the Christ of Marcion.

I don't claim to be perfect. I would like to follow RG Price's view that Mark is the earliest gospel and there was no Gnostic gospel before Mark, but basically, at least two episodes:
  • the Barabbas episode
  • the mention of Alexander and Rufus
show signs Beyond any reasonable doubt, that some Gnostic gospels preceded Mark.

Alexander and Rufus are mentioned to make the (Catholic == Judaizer) reader sure that their father was not crucified in the place of Jesus.

Just as Barabbas was inserted to make the (Catholic == Judaizer) reader sure tha the Son of Father was not crucified in the place of Jesus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7215
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:24 pm

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:16 pm

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.
https://books.google.com/books?id=9EIqD ... st&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=P3DGt ... st&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=kqDJd ... st&f=false
These links show only that Marcion simplified very much the Gnostic ideas already in the air, for practical goals (the conversion of the Judaizers to Gnosticism is more easy when you talk "as a Jew to Jews"). Marcion was a de-ethnicizer (so Paula Fredriksen). He wanted to make the Judaizers as not more Jews.

So my point remains all: there are no scholars who preach the existence of a ditheist Marcion.

I don't really care what Waugh has to say anymore. Our models are so irreconcilable that it is best if we don't compare. (For starters, I accept portions of Romans 1:1-6 as being indicative of Marcion's theology, because to him Chrestus instituted a new baptism. Waugh, if I remember correctly, rejects much of Romans altogether. But again, I don't care.)
but you care about me. This is absence of respect towards myself.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 954
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 11:25 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
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.
What I can'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.
So are we talking specifically a Christian Gospel that appeared out of the aether from one reality to our own, because I don't agree with that.

By comparing Ur-John with texts that were in vogue at the time can help give a better understanding as to what exactly constitutes as "Gospel" and what doesn't.

Hell, I wouldn't even call Ur-John a Gospel proper, because it was preoccupied with establishing Paul as the Paraclete. Not about proving Christ was the Christ.

Define your terms.
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.
You want to know what is an example of astrotheology, Guiseppe?

Plato's Chi in the sky.

Moron.
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.
So you deny that transmigration was never a thing in Christianity?

Basilides would like a word with you.
And don't dirty my thread with your continue bullshits worthy of a troll.
Until Kirby tells me otherwise, I'll post what I want, and where I want.
Last edited by Joseph D. L. on Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 954
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 11:29 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
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.
So Judiazers ARE Jews who "Judiaze" a gentile god...

That is idiotic, but I don't expect anything more from you.

Or, they're Samaritans, who reject the Jews as false yet hold fast to the Torah.
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:
Yeah, because you've never done anything similar.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7215
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:32 pm

Apart from the discussion insult-based with Joseph D.L, I have made another more useful discovery, today.

The fact that Pilate reiterates again and again the Pilate's request addressed to Jews ("want you Barabbas or Jesus?") to persuade rethorically them to release Jesus in the place of Barabbas, is evidence of an interpolation with repetition.

In the Earliest Gospel, assuming the presence of Barabbas (it is not sure for the reasons given above), the request by Pilate was only one. And Barabbas was not described as a killer.

Hence, that original request (if very found in the first gospel) was without the question of compassion for Jesus addressed by Pilate to sinedrites.

The 2 candidates had the same degree of innocence, for the Reader.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 954
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 11:35 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:24 pm
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.

https://books.google.com/books?id=9EIqD ... st&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=P3DGt ... st&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=kqDJd ... st&f=false

These links show only that Marcion simplified very much the Gnostic ideas already in the air, for practical goals (the conversion of the Judaizers to Gnosticism is more easy when you talk "as a Jew to Jews"). Marcion was a de-ethnicizer (so Paula Fredriksen). He wanted to make the Judaizers as not more Jews.
Guy can you even read? They prove exactly what I said, that Marcion was a Torah literalist, and disprove what you said, that no scholar would agree with me.

Man you're dumb. There must be a continuous whistling noise about you, as the wind goes through your head.
So my point remains all: there are no scholars who preach the existence of a ditheist Marcion.
That wasn't what I was using them for. Keep moving the goalpost because you lost.

https://books.google.com/books?id=9-PYA ... sm&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=6UTfm ... sm&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=P3DGt ... sm&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=zh00- ... sm&f=false

I await your abortive attempts to dismiss these scholars as Christian apologists.
but you care about me. This is absence of respect towards myself.
I love you Giuseppe. You're the only one holding off my inevitable suicide.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 954
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 11:57 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:18 pm

I don't understand why you don't show minimal respect at least for my highly serious view that Barabbas is a caustic parody of the Christ of Marcion.


Because it's wrong and I don't agree with it, yet you act as if it is the Gospel truth and treat anyone who disagrees with contempt.

That's the one thing I hate about you, man. Putting aside you ideas, which honestly there is a lot of overlap between us, I will admit, I absolutely cannot stand your smug arrogance.
I don't claim to be perfect. I would like to follow RG Price's view that Mark is the earliest gospel and there was no Gnostic gospel before Mark, but basically, at least two episodes:
  • the Barabbas episode
  • the mention of Alexander and Rufus
show signs Beyond any reasonable doubt, that some Gnostic gospels preceded Mark.
This right here. How do you make these argument? You say something axiomatically and dismiss anyone who disagrees as being a moron who could not possibly interpret another way. I don't share your absolutest mindset.
Alexander and Rufus are mentioned to make the (Catholic == Judaizer) reader sure that their father was not crucified in the place of Jesus.
While I see Alexander and Rufus as being Julian Alexander and Pappos, the disciples of Lukuas.

Yet even for suggesting that you will crucify anyone, because you could not possibly be wrong.
Just as Barabbas was inserted to make the (Catholic == Judaizer) reader sure tha the Son of Father was not crucified in the place of Jesus.
While I view Barabbas as just being an example of the transmigration of the spirit. But again, same principle applies. I should have my head examined because I don't think like you do.

But it's not just with me, Giuseppe, it's with everyone. If they are not with you then they are against you. That sort of paranoia and megalomania should not be enabled.

Honestly, man, I can't deal with this. I am literally losing sleep over these threads. I think it's best if we agree to disagree and never trouble each other again.

This will be last post. I concede. You win.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7215
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:15 am

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:35 pm

Guy can you even read? They prove exactly what I said, that Marcion was a Torah literalist, and disprove what you said, that no scholar would agree with me.
You can't use these links as evidence of scholars who think that Marcion observed the Torah out of worship of the god who gave the Torah. You can't use these links as evidence of scholars who think that Marcion adored the god of the Jews as Second God in comparison to the Higher God.
So my point remains all: there are no scholars who preach the existence of a ditheist Marcion.
That wasn't what I was using them for. Keep moving the goalpost because you lost.
I should thank you because now finally you are giving me the final weapon to confute definitely you.

I start with the first link:
In the next page of that same link, I quote prof R Joseph Hoffmann:

...Just as the cosmocrator's malice is manifest in the teaching of the law and the prophets, the alien God's benevolence is demonstrated by his saving activity.

(my bold)

Hence you are giving me evidence of a scholar who thinks that Marcion hated the Torah, all the OT prophets as killers and robbers, and he hated YHWH as an evil god as giver of the Torah.

It is too much evident that prof Hoffmann doesn't using the term "ditheism" to mean that Marcion adored YHWH as Second God or as Second Power in Heaven. It is evident that prof Hoffmann thinks that Marcion hated YHWH as a false god. That he rejected entirely the Torah as a false law of a false god.

Where is the evidence that prof Hoffmann thinks that Marcion betrayes Jewish origins ? I don't see it.


Now I go to the next link I give:
Also here, only a page after, the prof Margaret M. Mitchell, Frances M. Young claim that the real origin of the Marcion's hostility against YHWH is not a Jewish origin, but a Platonic hence GENTILE origin:

Without discounting either the stimulus of exegetical problems posed by Jewish scripture or his commitment to the Pauline tradition, it was almost certainly from a philosophical, mainly middle Platonic, vantage point that Marcion apprehended the God of Jewish scripture as a different and inferior being.

(my bold)

Where is the your "Marcion the Jew" here ?

Next:
There is really a total confutation of Joseph D.L., in page 47.

So prof Sebastian Moll:

Marcion's dualism forms without a doubt the centre of his doctrine.
...
however, an extensive chronological overview of the sources' testimony will show that Marcion's original distinction was in fact between an evil and a good God, whereas the figure of the just God was only introduced by later generations of his followers.

(my bold)

Do you see it?

Marcion's original distinction was in fact between an evil and a good God, whereas the figure of the just God was only introduced by later generations of his followers

That is sufficient to enumerate Joseph D.L. among the "later generations" who have perverted (== judaized) the original dualism of Marcion between a good God and a bastard YHWH.

At the end:
...in the same page I quote the direct confutation of Joseph D.L. by prof Guy Williams:

He believed that Paul (correctly) understood the world to be dominated by a lesser or evil God, with a host of subordinate supernatural powers enforcing his rule.

(my bold)

Evil doesn't mean Just. Evil means bastard.

Hence, where is the your "beneficial and god of healing" called YHWH ?
Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:30 pm
What's funny is that a case can be made that YHWH and Horus was both seen as a demiurgos, as they were both conflated to create Abraxas.

The issue here is that Abraxas wasn't seen as evil or malevolent, but beneficial and a god of healing.

But Giuseppe would never admit to that.
Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:35 pm
I await your abortive attempts to dismiss these scholars as Christian apologists.
Really, all these profs QUOTED BY YOU agree totally with me in considering Marcion not a Jew, but a Gentile Christian, insofar he rejected totally YHWH as an evil god.

But without quote them, it is sufficient to read the parable of the two trees in Luke, to realize that the evil tree (YHWH) makes evil fruits (the Torah). There is no redemption for YHWH, and if there was, it is only later judaization of Marcion (see Esnik, where the demiurge converts himself when he realizes the great bullshit done by him by killing Jesus).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6096
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

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

Post by MrMacSon » Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:00 am

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:01 pm

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.
.
Yep. Though it's worth noting Second Temple Jews had a focus on converting [local] Gentiles: the Romans might have been included as part of a more grandiose proposition of the Christian authors or b/c there was then reduced ability to convert Gentiles with (i) the breakdown of Judaism after the fall of the Temple and (ii) with the influx of various new religions: Roman Mithracism, the Egyptian mystery religions, the cults of the emperors, and new or elevated cults that the emperors revered.

Post Reply