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.
Martin Klatt
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:10 am

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

Post by Martin Klatt » Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:32 am

Last edited by Martin Klatt on Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
What I have written, I have written........., but it ain't necessarily so.

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 8:14 am

Martin Klatt wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:32 am
So this sheep robber(Barabbas) was caught because while weighing the wool killed one of the sheep (to take it with him and make criminal gains).
Martin Klatt, you are a real Genius!!! :cheers:

Image


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

(John 10:8)

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

(John 10:10-13)

This makes me think: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

Zebedee is left only with "hired hand". Is he an heretical version of John the Baptist ?
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. » Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:39 pm

Well, I was hoping to end this with a mutual agree to disagree, live and let live, and let bygones be bygones...

but with Giuseppe, that is not possible...
Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:15 am
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.
Which wasn't the reason I was referring to them, Giuseppe. You said:
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.
Yet every scholar I linked to said exactly what I said based on the context of the post, that Marcion was a literalist of the Old Testament, meaning he believed wholeheartedly, at least according to the scholars I tapped, in the history portrayed in it, and that includes YHWH as a creator, and Elohim as being above him.

I should thank you because now finally you are giving me the final weapon to confute definitely you.
I'm just going to circumvent this whole chain and state right here that the scholars I linked to, unambiguously disprove what you said, that
So my point remains all: there are no scholars who preach the existence of a ditheist Marcion.
And yet here you see scholars calling Marcion a ditheist.

You are nothing but an imbecilic troll.

Hell, I don't even think Marcion was a ditheist, because his theological system was based on a hierarchy, one god above another, and not a dualism or ditheism structure.
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.
Abraxas was a god of healing as the the amulets with his image on it was used to ward off evil spirits, i.e. diseases.

And a link between Abraxas, YHWH, and Horus can be made as gemstones appearing prior to the Abraxas gemstones shows Horus, named IAO, the Greek name for YHWH.

And still, Abraxas was seen as a demiurgos, a creator god.

This all feeds into your absolute ignorance on what demiurgos means, and how it was applied.

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.
No, they say that Marcion was a literalist and was a ditheist, both of which you said no scholar believed. Yet clearly they do.

So you are wrong.
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).
Convert yourself to a psychiatric ward.

Brucia all'inferno in escrementi bollenti, Giuseppe. I spit on you.

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 10:24 pm

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:39 pm
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.
well, the links given by you are absolutely not evidence of the part in yellow above. Marcion was a gentile, ignorant of Eloihm just as I am (a Gentile) totally ignorant about this Elohim. But as a Gentile I am totally able to realize from the OT that YHWH is an evil troll just as you, Joseph D.L.

Yet every scholar I linked to said exactly what I said based on the context of the post, that Marcion was a literalist of the Old Testament, meaning he believed wholeheartedly, at least according to the scholars I tapped, in the history portrayed in it,
all things I agree with. Where I strongly disagree, and where I lose you (but not the your scholars who are my allies here), is in the following falsity by you:

and that includes YHWH as a creator, and Elohim as being above him
who cazzo is Elohim? A Gentile as Marcion could well infer that YHWH is an evil creator from the bible, but no Gentile from Sinope could realize that in the OT there is a god above the god. The only god above god I see in the Bible, is the Serpent from Genesis : a revealer just as Prometheus. He is the god adored by the Ophites, not an enigmatic bullshit called Elohim.

I'm just going to circumvent this whole chain and state right here that the scholars I linked to, unambiguously disprove what you said, that
So my point remains all: there are no scholars who preach the existence of a ditheist Marcion.
And yet here you see scholars calling Marcion a ditheist.
idiot, I have made it clear that these acholars use the term ditheism in a dualistic sense, meaning complete rivalry between the two gods. Rivalry, hostility, not secret alliance beteeen Two Powers in heaven et similia bullshit.
You are nothing but an imbecilic troll.
the exact thing I think about you, after this strawman argument by you.

You can't use these scholars as evidence of a Marcion who believed that the demiurge was a Just god as opposed to an Evil god.
  • A true Jew (of any time and place) doesn't hate YHWH.
  • Marcion hated YHWH.
  • Therefore Marcion was not a Jew.
It is so simple... but not for you. :x
Hell, I don't even think Marcion was a ditheist, because his theological system was based on a hierarchy, one god above another, and not a dualism or ditheism structure.
it doesn't matter how you want to call it. My point, and the point of any scholar in the world, is that Marcion was not a Jew insofar he HATED YHWH.
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.
Horus may be even my brother, he is not a Jewish thing.
The issue here is that Abraxas wasn't seen as evil or malevolent, but beneficial and a god of healing.
any lion-headed portrait of the demiurge makes him an evil beast. Period.







No, they say that Marcion was a literalist and was a ditheist, both of which you said no scholar believed. Yet clearly they do.
they use "ditheist" in the sense used by me, as synonim of "dualist". You are co-opting their support against their true intentions. At any case, you don't address the quote of my post above of exactly these scholars. I call this a "intellectual dishonesty". Isn't it?

So you are wrong.
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. » Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:02 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:24 pm
well, the links given by you are absolutely not evidence of the part in yellow above. Marcion was a gentile, ignorant of Eloihm just as I am (a Gentile) totally ignorant about this Elohim. But as a Gentile I am totally able to realize from the OT that YHWH is an evil troll just as you, Joseph D.L.
Are you saying that Marcion had zero knowledge of the Old Testament?

You're such a fucking moron.

Marcion was versed in the Old Testament, AS PROVEN BY THE VERY SCHOLARS WHOM YOU SAID DIDN'T EXIST, AND WOULD KNOW THAT THERE WAS A GOD ABOVE YHWH IN THE FORM OF ELOHIM, A DISTINCTION THAT PAUL MAKES IN 1 CORINTHIANS 15.
all things I agree with. Where I strongly disagree, and where I lose you (but not the your scholars who are my allies here), is in the following falsity by you:

and that includes YHWH as a creator, and Elohim as being above him
who cazzo is Elohim? A Gentile as Marcion could well infer that YHWH is an evil creator from the bible, but no Gentile from Sinope could realize that in the OT there is a god above the god. The only god above god I see in the Bible, is the Serpent from Genesis : a revealer just as Prometheus. He is the god adored by the Ophites, not an enigmatic bullshit called Elohim.
So Philo of Alexandria had no earthly idea what he was talking about when he spoke of Genesis 1 and 2 being indicative of two powers? And Rabbinical Jews who mused of god higher than YHWH were just morons?

You're just an anti-Semitic piece of shit.

Marcion's theology used Judaism as a base. If it didn't, why the fuck would he use Paul and a Gospel that was and made positive use of it?

Oh, because Marcion was Jewish at the least, and a Noahide at the most.



You can't use these scholars as evidence of a Marcion who believed that the demiurge was a Just god as opposed to an Evil god.
Which wasn't my intention you illiterate dumbass. You said no scholar believed Marcion was a ditheist. You were wrong. And I'll go ahead an address this gem right now:
No, they say that Marcion was a literalist and was a ditheist, both of which you said no scholar believed. Yet clearly they do.
they use "ditheist" in the sense used by me, as synonim of "dualist". You are co-opting their support against their true intentions. At any case, you don't address the quote of my post above of exactly these scholars. I call this a "intellectual dishonesty". Isn't it?

So you are wrong.
[/quote]

So these scholars, who have dedicated their entire careers to the study of religious ideas, and who would know the difference between dualism and ditheism, and just for whatever reason use ditheism as a synonym for a word that it is opposite in meaning of....

You are the biggest buffoon in the world.




  • A true Jew (of any time and place) doesn't hate YHWH.
  • Marcion hated YHWH.
  • Therefore Marcion was not a Jew.
Marcion didn't hate YHWH. The earliest evidence of Marcion states that his only heresy was that he positioned YHWH as second to a higher god, which was a Jewish idea. There is no evidence that Marcion hated YHWH, and even later evidence is very suspect. Did Irenaeus ever teach that Marcion hated the god of the Jews? Even to these people, heresy is on par to hatred of the truth, so everything they so should be criticized as biased.
It is so simple... but not for you. :x
It's simple because it's not true.
it doesn't matter how you want to call it. My point, and the point of any scholar in the world, is that Marcion was not a Jew insofar he HATED YHWH.
And how are your ideas accepted by the scholarly comunity? Oh, that's right, you're a no one whom even Carrier thinks is a raging retard.

I didn't bring up these scholars to address Marcion's supposed hatred for YHWH. You are incapable of understanding context.
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.
Horus may be even my brother, he is not a Jewish thing.
Even though Jews conflated Horus with YHWH under the name IAO...

The cures, or the exorcisms, of demons in the name of Jesus which are mentioned in the New Testament and the Talmud (see Exorcism) imply that Jesus was regarded as a god and that his name was considered as efficacious as the Tetragrammaton itself, for which it was even substituted. It was in connection with magic that the Tetragrammaton was introduced into the magic papyri and, in all probability, into the writings of the Church Fathers, these two sources containing the following forms, written in Greek letters: (1) "Iaoouee," "Iaoue," "Iabe,"; (2) "Iao," "Iaho," "Iae"; (3) "Aia"; (4) "Ia." It is evident that (1) represents , (2) , (3) , and (4) . The three forms quoted under (1) are merely three ways of writing the same word, though "Iabe" is designated as the Samaritan pronunciation. There are external and internal grounds for this assumption; for the very agreement of the Jewish, Christian, heathen, and Gnostic statements proves that they undoubtedly give the actual pronunciation (Stade's "Zeitschrift," iii. 298; Dalman, l.c. p. 41; Deissmann, "Bibelstudien," pp. 1-20; Blau, l.c. p. 133). The "mystic quadriliteral name" (Clement, "Stromata," ed. Dindorf, iii. 25, 27) was well known to the Gnostics, as is shown by the fact that the third of the eight eons of one of their systems of creation was called "the unpronounced," the fourth "the invisible," and the seventh "the unnamed," terms which are merely designations of the Tetragrammaton (Blau, l.c. p. 127). Even the Palestinian Jews had inscribed the letters of the Name on amulets (Shab. 115b; Blau, l.c. pp. 93-96); and, in view of the frequency with which the appellations of foreign deities were employed in magic, it was but natural that heathen magicians should show an especial preference for this "great and holy name," knowing its pronunciation as they knew the names of their own deities.

/

"Yah,"an abbreviated form of the Tetragrammaton, occurs 23 times: 18 times in the Psalms, twice in Exodus, and three times in Isaiah. This form is identical with the final syllable in the word "Hallelujah," which occurs 24 times in the last book of the Psalms (comp. also "be-Yah," Isa. xxvi. 4 and Ps. lxviii. 5). It is transcribed by the Greek "Ia," as "Ehyeh" is represented by "Aia," thus showing that "Yah" was the first syllable of . The form corresponding to the Greek "Iao" does not occur alone in Hebrew, but only as an element in such proper names as Jesaiah ("Yesha'yahu"), Zedekiah ("Ẓidḳiyahu"), and Jehonathan. According to Delitzsch ("Wo Lag das Paradies?" 1881), this form was the original one, and was expanded into ; but since names of divinities are slow in disappearing, it would be strange if the primitive form had not been retained once in the Bible. The elder Delitzsch thought that "Yahu" was used independently as a name of God (Herzog-Plitt, "Real-Encyc." vi. 503); but, according to Kittel, "This could have been the case only in the vernacular, since no trace of it is found in the literary language" (Herzog-Hauck, "Real-Encyc." viii. 26, 533). All the critics have failed to perceive that the name "Yao" was derived from the same source as "Yaoue," namely, from Gnosticism and magic, in which Jews, Christians, and heathen met. "Yahu" was in fact used in magic, as is clear from the "Sefer Yeẓirah," which shows many traces of Gnosticism; in the cosmology of this work the permutation of the letters furnishes the instruments of the Creation.

Jewish Encyclopedia

Image

Scroll 4Q120, YHWH is named IAO

Image

Image

Horus perched upon a lotus shoot, invoked as IAO

Image

The Paphos Amulet, portraying the newborn Horus bearing witness to the resurrection of the mummy of Osiris. The inscription has been translated as: “Iahweh is the bearer of the secret name, the lion of Re secure in his shrine.”

So there was a ready conflation between YHWH and Horus.

Image

Abraxas, invoked as IAO


The issue here is that Abraxas wasn't seen as evil or malevolent, but beneficial and a god of healing.
any lion-headed portrait of the demiurge makes him an evil beast. Period.
First, no it doesn't. The lion-headed demiugos in Mithraism wasn't evil. He was neutral. Second, the source you referred to, if you actually took the time to read his article, states that not all representations signified a gnostic idea.

Image

https://books.google.com/books?id=O9YUA ... t.&f=false

[box=]Lion-headed gods or demons are very common on magical amulets which reveal no Gnostic connections, and most of which are certainly not Gnostic. One finds lion-headed gods in the apron, holding whip and orb, certainly solar figures, probably aspects of the sun-god Horus.[/box]

Image

These amulets, including the one you showed, were worn as talismans to ward off evil, not invoke it.

You have zero understanding of any of this.

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. » Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:17 am

Let's take a moment to appreciate Giuseppe's complete failure and ignorance on a subject he knows nothing about...
Marcion was a gentile, ignorant of Eloihm just as I am (a Gentile) totally ignorant about this Elohim

Marcion may have taken up distinctions based upon the major names of God in the lxx: kyrios and theos (“Lord,” that is, “yahweh”) and “God” (Elohim).

~ Richard Pervo

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

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. » Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:19 am

So no, Marcion wasn't ignorant of Elohim, as both Pervo and Hoffmann compute against you.

You're such a stupid Barabbas.

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 » Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:29 am

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:02 am
Are you saying that Marcion had zero knowledge of the Old Testament?
no,I am saying that he had the knokledge of it as only a Gnostic Gentile could have. It is not the same thing as zero knowledge.


Marcion was versed in the Old Testament, AS PROVEN BY THE VERY SCHOLARS
I have proved, quoting these same scholars, that they support me, not your judaization of Marcion.
So Philo of Alexandria had no earthly idea what he was talking about when he spoke of Genesis 1 and 2 being indicative of two powers? And Rabbinical Jews who mused of god higher than YHWH were just morons?
more somply, you can not call them marcionites, not even precursors of Marcion. Period.
You're just an anti-Semitic piece of shit.
where you confirm yourself as the troll you are.
Marcion's theology used Judaism as a base. If it didn't, why the fuck would he use Paul and a Gospel that was and made positive use of it?
because more in general the Gnostics wanted to co-opt the Jewish myth of Jesus for themselves.
Oh, because Marcion was Jewish at the least, and a Noahide at the most.
tsk. No scholar in the world argues so. A true scholar argues, at contrary, that the Demiurge Just is a later developpment than the Demiurge Evil. This is not expected at all if marcionism comes from Two Powers Theology. This is absolutely more expected if Marcionism comes from gentile gnosticism.

So these scholars, who have dedicated their entire careers to the study of religious ideas, and who would know the difference between dualism and ditheism, and just for whatever reason use ditheism as a synonym for a word that it is opposite in meaning of....
precisely. This is confirmed again and again by their emphasis on the demiurge being an evil god. Evil with the good people.

Marcion didn't hate YHWH. The earliest evidence of Marcion states that his only heresy was that he positioned YHWH as second to a higher god, which was a Jewish idea. There is no evidence that Marcion hated YHWH, and even later evidence is very suspect. Did Irenaeus ever teach that Marcion hated the god of the Jews? Even to these people, heresy is on par to hatred of the truth, so everything they so should be criticized as biased.
no scholar agrees with you here. Sebastian Moll especially among them.

Celsus heard directly the marcionites talking about an evil YHWH. You have to prove that Celsus was dependent on Catholic sources but this is very impossible to be proved. So I have a Pagan witness of my view. You have only later sources by Marcionites going to be gradually judaized (by rehabilitating partially the demiurge as Just).
It's simple because it's not true.
Occam prohibits, sorry.
And how are your ideas accepted by the scholarly comunity?
the consensus is already with me, here. As your same scholars prove.
I didn't bring up these scholars to address Marcion's supposed hatred for YHWH. You are incapable of understanding context.
the hatred for YHWH to a such high degree as shown by Marcion cannot be absolutely an evolution of Two Powers on heaven. Hence I address fully you here.

I ignore your Egyptian paganism.
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 » Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:48 am

You are doing the logical fallacy of possibiliter ergo probabiliter:
Joseph D. L. wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:17 am
Let's take a moment to appreciate Giuseppe's complete failure and ignorance on a subject he knows nothing about...
Marcion was a gentile, ignorant of Eloihm just as I am (a Gentile) totally ignorant about this Elohim

Marcion may have taken up distinctions based upon the major names of God in the lxx: kyrios and theos (“Lord,” that is, “yahweh”) and “God” (Elohim).

~ Richard Pervo

https://books.google.com/books?id=9-PYA ... im&f=false
At any case, it is a real impossibility. Hoffman is judaizing Marcion against the real Marcion.

The Marcion's god is totally alien before Jesus. He couldn't have shown himself in the OT.
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 » Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:00 am

Hoffman's hypothesis about Marcion knowing who is Elohim is directly confuted by this link:
https://books.google.it/books?id=126rLF ... im&f=false

Basically, it is impossible, from the distinction of Kyrios and Theos in the Septuaginta, to infer the distinction between two gods and not between, at most, two features of the same god (as made by Philo and other Jews in Alexandria).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply