Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:53 pm I have no reason to reject Marcion calling Jesus Isu Chrestus as it doesn't effect me one way or another.
I think you should, since it is not expected at all that the Son of the Good God is named "It is the DEMIURGE who saves" for Marcion. It is as if Muhammad said that Jesus Christ is the true savior: totally unexpected. Hence the Parvus's criticism of the your view about Ishu and Marcion (and marcionite synagogue etc) remains all.
Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:53 pmWhat I do reject is your insisting that Marcion was unabashedly anti-Judaism when neither the texts appended to him or the earliest witness to him (Justin) bear that out.
Insofar anti-Judaism means anti-cosmism and anti-creator, then yes, Marcion was anti-Judaist and more in line with gnosticism (whatever it means).
Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:53 pm
Going back to Lucian, I can accept his timeline for Pergrinus's life because they are not contingent upon his agenda. But Lucian's agenda is to show how Peregrinus was a huckster who conned his way through life. That is the bias and I have to reject that.
I agree with dr. Detering about Marcion being Peregrinus.
Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:53 pm.
And your only source for Celsus is Origen, meaning you don't have the full context of Celsus, and it's likely that Origen himself was twisting passages of Celsus to fit his own agenda.
I am sorry, but I can't follow you here, really. Celsus's words as reported by Origen are genuine. You can say that Origen omitted a lot of the his words, but not that what we have are not his direct words, thanks Origen. I feel myself much similar to Celsus in my approach to Christian texts. I think and I believe it is the more correct approach a true critic may do. I despise them while I read them just as Celsus did, beyond if the author is Marcion or Paul or Mark or Matthew. I am sympathetic only with Celsus, really. Only he poses as an independent giant in the world left by early Christians.
Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:53 pm inscription of Isu was made by a Marcionite, yet you are rejecting it because it contradicts your Joshua thesis.
No , I am rejecting it because the (by me) highly praised Roger Parvus gave good reasons (see above) to reject the possibility that Marcion named Isu his hero. Which means only that the marcionite synagogue is
strong evidence that the only survived marcionites, by that time, were going to judaize: they rehabilitated,
even only partially, the demiurge. A process already in action with Esnik.
ADDENDA
Note another strong reason to reject entirely the possibility that Marcion named Isu the Son and not Jesus. Isu would mean Anthropos but the Man, in Marcionite theology , is a miserable creature of the demiurge, just as all the evil creation of the demiurge. On this point Marcion was more radical than any other Gnostic: no divine parcel buried in the miserable demiurgical creature. A Valentinus had no right to exalt himself as part of supreme god, for Marcion.
The following pussy riot is not marcionite but valentinian:
The Son didn't become a Man, he only appeared docetically as a Man. He was without body. When you claim that Marcion used Isu,
then you are catholicizing him more than the Catholics catholicized Jesus.
The risk is that my intolerance about Catholic apologists becomes intolerance about you.