Peter Kirby wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:20 pm
On a forum, the expectation is that a discussion can follow.
Right as usual, but Secret Alias seems to be reluctant to understand my points.
There are various possibilities with the origin of "Gnosticism" and I agree.
But the point is that Paul-Louis Couchoud and Markus Vinzent are totally identical
when they deal with the genesis of the Gospels. They differ only about Paul and the Pillars: for Couchoud, the Pillars placed their Lamb immolated in heaven, and Paul placed his Christ crucified in heaven. While Markus Vinzent is historicist in virtue of the stupid "born by woman, born under the law" of Galatians 4:4. I think that Vinzent is historicist only because that is the price to pay to be accepted in the academic world with his thesis about the Marcionite priority.
Secret Alias thinks wrongly that for me Marcion comes before the Pillars and Paul, while I think at contrary that the Pillars and Paul were adorers of YHWH. Marcion came only later, but even with this delay, he wrote the Earliest Gospel, so euhemerizing Jesus on earth.
Given these premises, of grace how can Secret Alias say, for example, that :
Giuseppe has a unique approach to Biblical exegesis - i.e. a fixed idea about gnosticism etc and a fixed methodology i.e. bending any paragraph, sentence or word to agree with this prejudice
There are various degrees, and diversity of degrees is a richness, but the minimal degree I can't give up about is the idea that Marcion, as a phenomenon of 135-150 CE, considered YHWH as an evil demiurge and Jesus as the anti-YHWH, possibly the same Genesiac Serpent descended on earth