the father of Jesus called Christ in opposition to the alien Father of which "Barabbas" is the son.
the Jesus who heals the blind man of Bethsaida by spitting etc: he is portrayed deliberately as clumsy as the demiurge in his creation. Hence the demiurge is rehabilitated by Jesus in virtue of a shared clumsiness.
the root of the conflict of the mother and brothers against Jesus.
Are there others?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”
3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.
4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”
5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.
The Gnostics accused the demiurge for having divided the female from the male (=an euphemism to say that he had dismembered the Primal Man at the origin of world). Hence for "Mark" who divides the male from the female is not the creator but the man who divorces himself from the his wife. In this way the original distinction between male and female is divinely confirmed as a good and just thing, pace the Gnostics.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
the father of Jesus called Christ in opposition to the alien Father of which "Barabbas" is the son.
the Jesus who heals the blind man of Bethsaida by spitting etc: he is portrayed deliberately as clumsy as the demiurge in his creation. Hence the demiurge is rehabilitated by Jesus in virtue of a shared clumsiness.
the root of the conflict of the mother and brothers against Jesus.
Are there others?
Others? No, there are not even that many.
You can go through and find all the references to God creating the world and assume that they are polemic against the demiurge, as you seem to do with Mark 10.6 in your next post, but by that standard Genesis 1.1 itself is polemic against the demiurge.
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 7:19 am
No. The one about the healing with spittle is especially irrelevant.
Really?
The phrase,
God formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being
(Gen 2:7)
is the origin of many speculations concerning 'hylic' man, i.e.. material man, and pneumatic (spiritual) man. According to a version of the Gnostic myth, the breath of the life that the demiurge infuses in Adam in fact comes from the his mother, Wisdom, therefore from the Pleroma, the world above, and when he transmitted it to Adam, unaware of the consequences of what he was doing, he deprived himself of it.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 7:19 am
No. The one about the healing with spittle is especially irrelevant.
Really?
Yes, really. None of this is remotely compelling:
The phrase,
God formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being
(Gen 2:7)
is the origin of many speculations concerning 'hylic' man, i.e.. material man, and pneumatic (spiritual) man. According to a version of the Gnostic myth, the breath of the life that the demiurge infuses in Adam in fact comes from the his mother, Wisdom, therefore from the Pleroma, the world above, and when he transmitted it to Adam, unaware of the consequences of what he was doing, he deprived himself of it.
Ben, even this apologist, after a rapid research on google, identifies the spittle of Jesus with the act of creation by God:
It is possible that Jesus’ use of mud in John 9 was meant to parallel God’s original creation of man: “The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground” (Genesis 2:7). In other words, Jesus showed His power as the Creator by imitating the original creation of man: He used the “dust of the ground” to give the man born blind new sight. The creative power of Jesus’ miracle was not lost on the man who was healed: “Since the world began it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind. If this Man were not from God, He could do nothing
I am adding something that obviously the apologist can never say: that Jesus is made the creator in this deliberately embarrassing episode (the failed first healing) to justify the accused clumsiness of the creator before the Gnostics.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 7:56 am
Ben, even this apologist, after a rapid research on google, identifies the spittle of Jesus with the act of creation by God:
It is possible that Jesus’ use of mud in John 9 was meant to parallel God’s original creation of man: “The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground” (Genesis 2:7). In other words, Jesus showed His power as the Creator by imitating the original creation of man: He used the “dust of the ground” to give the man born blind new sight. The creative power of Jesus’ miracle was not lost on the man who was healed: “Since the world began it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind. If this Man were not from God, He could do nothing
Equating the mixing of spittle with dust in order to effect a cure of a man with the original creation of man from the dust is not going too far; the connections make sense there. I am at least potentially on board for this.
I am adding something that obviously the apologist can never say: that Jesus is made the creator in this deliberately embarrassing episode (the failed first healing) to justify the accused clumsiness of the creator before the Gnostics.
I am adding something that obviously the apologist can never say: that Jesus is made the creator in this deliberately embarrassing episode (the failed first healing) to justify the accused clumsiness of the creator before the Gnostics.
This is where it all goes off the rails.
Here I disagree. The midrash from scriptures is not an innocent operation. It is made with a goal.
We have a lot of Gnostic images of the Arcons moulding a body out of mud. Saturnilos said that YHWH was one of the 7 Archons. If "Mark" was contemporary of Saturnilos, then he must have felt threatened by those speculations that denigrated the creator.
The only way you can remove that possibility is giving serious reasons to place Mark before Saturnilus in order of time.
Ae you able to do this?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
No, there are not even that many. 
