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

[Joseph D. L.]

To be fair, the dialog took place in 2013, so we should account for some growth. However, in 2020, it appears that only the venue has changed. For example, in this thread, one must see it through the text through a kaleidoscope resolved through a secret decoder ring that has yet to be replicated.

I managed to find posts of his from as recent as 2016 on Carrier's website (I didn't link to them because they have his full name and I didn't want to be accused of doxing). Needles to say it is the same old same old and Carrier, the very man Giuseppe looks upon as a lodestar in sea of insanity, shows explicit annoyance at his "theories" and thinks Giuseppe is just ridiculous.

Giuseppe needs a complete psychological evaluation. He is a petulant narcissist who thinks that everything he says is the absolute truth and everything everybody else says is absolutely wrong. He cannot take criticism. At all. He treats his pet theories as a religion. And it's funny that he called you a Christian apologist, when the arguments that Giuseppe makes is that of an apologist. (Make a claim; disregard all arguments against it as being incorrect a priori; assume some moral high ground; claim that you and only you have come to this revelation; defend it to the death because you cannot possibly be wrong. That's Giuseppe's modus operandi ).

Why Kirby allows this blight called Giuseppe to spread on his forum is either a sign of an absolutist free speech proponent, or a naiveté and acceptance of Giuseppe's toxic presence on here.

[Joseph D. L.]

No, it isn't,

you are wrong on this. The Catholics say that the Jews crucified their (=of the Jews) Christ. Marcion said that the Jews crucified an alien (=not of the Jews) Christ.

No they don't. They only accuse the Jews of rejecting and allowing him to be crucified. It was Roman centurions driving in the nails; and from everything I've read, Jews never practiced crucifixion as a means of execution. Only Deut 21:23 gives instructions on how to carry out a similar practice, on not as a form of execution. The condemned is stoned to death, then hung on a tree as a sign of his blasphemy.

Only texts such as the Toledot Yeshu describe the Jews crucifying Jesus in accordance to their Law.

the anti-Jewish Marcion denied all the Torah.

Then why did Marcion accept the Torah as a prefiguration of his god? Why does Paul, even in the Marcionite rescinsions, still hold to Torah beliefs about Adam, Abraham and David? Why does Paul accept an entirely Jewish idea of a celestial Adam and an earthly Adam?

Marcion wasn't anti-Jewish you cleft headed simpleton. Marcion believed that his religion was the fulfillment of Judaism; just as Justin believed that Christians were perfected Israelites.

God you are the biggest idiot I've ever encountered.

[Joseph D. L.]

without offence, but you are really ignoring the difference, in an ethical level, between a real criminal and a scapegoat.

You applying your on modern day prejudices onto something written two thousand years ago is anarchistic and wrong.

The child Isaac was a scapegoat of the kind of one who "must take on the sins" of other people. Barabbas was really a killer, he was really a robber, he was justly in prison. Are you able to recognize the difference?

Isaac was never a scapegoat. The need for a scapegoat was established long after Abraham and Isaac.

You have just proven that you don't know anything about Judaism and are just stringing words together without aim or meaning.

Was Judas the Zealot really a criminal, really a robber, who was justly executed? The Jews following him would say, no, he wasn't any of those things. He was a hero. He was the messiah.

Or bar Kochba? Or Theudas? Or even Moses? These men killed and robbed, yet they were considered heroes, Moses to this very day.

You are projecting your own standards onto this, showing your ignorance and lack of understanding.

I fear that you know the difference but you are deliberately ignoring it because you are a troll, you post as a troll, you make me feel prideful of my being from this side of the Ocean.

The person who spams thread after thread, who posits claims and throws a hissy fit whenever someone dares criticize him, is now accusing others of being a troll.

So now anyone who disagrees with you is a troll? Is Carrier a troll? He pretty much called you a crazy idiot. Is Klewis a troll, or even a Christian apologist, because of some disagreement? It's your way or no way, is that right?

Vai a quel paese!

[Joseph D. L.]

This is interesting. I've been waiting for someone to attempt a John-first theory. Hopefully you'll develop this further.

So you see Giuseppe being antagonistic towards others, and don't feel this is grounds for disciplinary recourse?

And John priority has been argued by numerous people. Joseph Turmel, John Robinson, Michael "Xoroaster" C., and myself on this very forum. In fact, I was making posts about Ur-John being Marcion's text long before Giuseppe even began connecting the dots.

I will never understand your defense of this man.

[Giuseppe]

• Obviously the fact itself that Nasruddin (probably a Christian believer) recognized that this was a problem is a sufficient reason to consider/condemn you, Klewis,

The evidence is that you deny, differently from Nasruddin, that Mark has a problem with John the Baptist and he attempts to give a naive solution for that problem.

Giuseppe, do not draw me in as a supporter of your viewpoint that the baptism of Jesus was a problem for Mark, nor as a foil againgst klewis. You clearly have no regard for even recent written evidence, where I responded to you with a reply;

The problem was not the baptism.

If you can fail to pick up on something so clear and blatent in my writing, and then insist I wrote the opposite and use it as support for your theory, then it is an indication of how little trust anyone should put in your logic or opinion of what can be interpreted or inferred from what Paul, Mark, or anyone else did or didn't write.

Well. Then you also are a mere Christian apologist, Nasruddin, since all the academic world recognizes already that the Baptism of Jesus by John is EMBARRASSING. What is source of embarrassment, in my home, is called a "problem".
Hence Mark has a problem with the Baptist.

Obviously where I differ from the Academic CONSENSUS is that for me the embarrassment/problem is caused not by a real baptism of a historical Jesus (remember that I deny absolutely any historical Jesus) but by something related someway to John (basically, in my view John the Baptist was the author of proto-Revelation in 70 CE, addressed against the Christians).

Hence, Nasruddin, I condemn you as fool Christian apologist. Amen and so on.

Now I want to have the hands possibly free to confute directly the plague called Joseph D.L.

[Giuseppe]

No, it isn't,

you are wrong on this. The Catholics say that the Jews crucified their (=of the Jews) Christ. Marcion said that the Jews crucified an alien (=not of the Jews) Christ.

No they don't. They only accuse the Jews of rejecting and allowing him to be crucified. It was Roman centurions driving in the nails

you are a total idiot. I mean: the true authors of the crucifixion, by using Pilate, were the Jews, who, in a Catholic universe, are therefore people who rejected their same Christ.

In a Marcionite universe, the Jews kill (by using Pilate) a Christ-who-is-not-their-Christ. Basically, they kill an alien.

You can't ignore this difference between a Jewish victim and an alien. But you ignore this because you are a total troll without even a bit of intelligence.

[Giuseppe]

Isaac was never a scapegoat. The need for a scapegoat was established long after Abraham and Isaac.

...and Barabbas was never killed. Accordingly, for you Barabbas would be similar to the scapegoat Isaac.

But what logic is this?But do you realize that you are totally idiot, here?

Barabbas is morally evil. Isaac (as the goat released into wilderness of Leviticus 16) is not morally evil.

[Giuseppe]

Then why did Marcion accept the Torah as a prefiguration of his god? Why does Paul, even in the Marcionite rescinsions, still hold to Torah beliefs about Adam, Abraham and David? Why does Paul accept an entirely Jewish idea of a celestial Adam and an earthly Adam?

Marcion wasn't anti-Jewish

no, he was, if "anti-Jewish" means that he combated YHWH and his adorers.
You can't use Paul as evidence of later Gnostic thought.

[Giuseppe]

And John priority has been argued by numerous people. Joseph Turmel, John Robinson, Michael "Xoroaster" C., and myself on this very forum.

that is totally a false claim, a genuine fake news, about Joseph Turmel, who argued for proto-John as a marcionite Gospel but not as the Earliest Gospel.

In fact, I was making posts about Ur-John being Marcion's text long before Giuseppe even began connecting the dots.

this is another fake news about yourself, since you talked about a nebulous "Gospel of Hebrews", not about proto-John, as first gospel.

Go with your Lukuas to Cyrene. It is a better place for you than this forum.

[Giuseppe]

I want to nail Joseph D.L. on this precise error made by him:

I don't see an objection in this. The Jews crucified their Christ. This is still anti-marcionite in nature. Is not it?

No, it isn't, as 1) Marcion was Jewish in his theological structure, 2) the Romans are the ones who crucify Christ, and 3) it can't be anti-Marcion because it portrays Jews as rejecting their messiah. Again, you are failing to understand that basic premise, even when your argument is necessitated on it. THE JEWS STILL DEMAND THE RELEASE OF BARABBAS OVER THEIR CHRIST, WHOM THEY HAVE REJECTED.

This is the greatest bullshit I have heard in this forum from day 1 of the my subscription:

it can't be anti-Marcion because it portrays Jews as rejecting their messiah

A Gospel where the Jews kill their "King of Jews" (with or without Pilate doesn't matter: therefore don't elude the point) is not, not, not, not, absolutely NOT a Marcionite Gospel.

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.

I am disposed to kiss the ass of a historical Jesus, rather than concede that precise point to you.