Why the Parable of Good Samaritan is the only link between Marcion and Pilate

[MrMacSon]

So the Parable of Good Samaritan reported, in nuce, the entire original Marcion's belief: that an alien deity descended from above, in the sublunar realm ("between Jerusalem and Jericho"), where he appeared to be crucified, that is, as the wound[ed] man he would have helped.

The Gospel writers historicized this 'oral tradition', i.e. the Parable of Good Samaritan, with the episode of Simon of Cyrene/Simon Magus.

What do you mean, "The Gospel writers historicized ... the Parable of Good Samaritan, with the episode of Simon of Cyrene/Simon Magus"

What episode/s of Simon of Cyrene/Simon Magus? Where?*

* wherever [a] Simon is mentioned?

[Giuseppe]

What do you mean, "The Gospel writers historicized ... the Parable of Good Samaritan, with the episode of Simon of Cyrene/Simon Magus"

As I have explained before:

Simon of Cyrene does the same action that is made by the Good Samaritan in the Parable of the Good Samaritan: he helps a person who has been just wounded by Archons/robbers.

Hence, the episode of Simon of Cyrene is a historicization of the Parable of Good Samaritan.

[MrMacSon]

Simon of Cyrene does the same action that is made by the Good Samaritan in the Parable of the Good Samaritan: he helps a person who has been just wounded by Archons/robbers.

• Where? In the passion narrative? by carrying the cross?

[Giuseppe]

• Where? In the passion narrative? by carrying the cross?

precisely. The same story is said now by a Parable, now by an episode.

ADDENDA:
Note how the location of the first apparition of the "Good Samaritan" was "between Jerusalem and Jericho", i.e. between the higher heavens and the lower heavens, i.e. outer space.

[mlinssen]

Curiosity:
Simon Magus was said to be Simon of Samaria.

Simon of Cyrene works as the Good Samaritan (afterall, he appears from nothing - from the 'country': from Jericho to Jerusalem?) as helper of a person tortured by Archons/robbers), only he is not from Samaria, he is from Cyrene.

But I remember that Robert M. Price said something about the area including Cyrene, Cypros, Samaria being the area of provenance of Simon Magus.

From The Amazing Colossal Apostle #1

I have implied that there were partisans who revered Paul as their figurehead in his own right, with no reference at all to Jesus. To such people, hinted at in the early verses of 1 Corinthians, it was not necessarily absurd to suggest that Paul had been crucified for them, that they owed their salvation to baptism in his name. We can trace the broad outlines of such a cult in the Acts of Paul where the subject of the book is a hero in his own right. We glimpse this group of exclusively Paul-worshiping people in the Nag Hammadi Revelation of Paul, in which the name of Jesus is never once mentioned. It is Paul who is commissioned to bring Gnostic illumination to mortals.

What do we know of the pre-Christian cult of Paul? It was the Simonian cult! It is his devotees who are in view in 1 Corinthians 1:11-14 when we hear the shout, “I am of Paul!” Call him what you will, but call on his name by all means. He is Simon Magus, who claimed to be a savior, the Great Power. Justin Martyr tells us that the Magus was widely worshipped for decades. He had not converted to Christianity any more than the historical Baptist had endorsed Jesus as the one who was to come.

It means, too, that Christianity failed to co-opt and absorb Simonianism. But it tried. It will come as no surprise that the followers of Simon Magus returned the favor, trying their best to assimilate Christianity. Simonianism sought to co-opt the competing Jesus movement by claiming it was someone named Simon who was crucified, albeit only seemingly. We see this depicted, for those who have eyes to see, in Mark, Matthew, and Luke.

These Gospel writers, with no discernible narrative motivation, claimed that Simon of Cyrene was pressed into service to carry the cross in Jesus’s stead.[43] I do not mean to say that the Gospel writers would have recognized the significance of this oral tradition, but the Gnostics did. In Samaria, Simon said he had been worshipped as Jehovah (“the Father”) in Old Testament times. Now he was being manifest to the gentiles as the Holy Spirit. Bingo! There is the Pauline mission to the gentiles. But among Jews he had gone to the cross where he appeared to be crucified, that is, as Jesus. By the way, we need not suppose chicanery on Simon’s part. He may well have believed himself to be the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, just as the third-century Apostle Mani, as we have seen, claimed he was the latest vessel of the spirit that had embodied itself in Zoroaster, the Buddha, and Jesus Christ.

Price, Robert M. The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul. Signature Books.

From The Amazing Colossal Apostle #2

Marcion and the Gospel story
We always read that Marcion came armed to the theological fray with a sheaf of Pauline letters plus a single Gospel, a shorter version of canonical Luke. Church apologists said Marcion’s version was shorter than Luke because Marcion abbreviated it, removing what he deemed “false pericopes.” This is not implausible and it would just mean that Marcion used the same critical methodology his contemporaries, the Ebionites, applied to their copies of the Old Testament. Others believe Marcion possessed an original, shorter Gospel, which he tampered with only minimally, an early version of Luke.

Paul-Louis Couchoud[53] argued that Marcion’s gospel was very nearly what other scholars have called proto-Luke or ur-Lukas. G.R.S. Mead hypothesized that Marcion did not have such a Gospel narrative but rather a collection of sayings, something like the hypothetical Q source.[54] This diversity of opinion translates into the uncertainty as to whether we are dealing with Marcion’s own canon or whether we are hearing what Marcionites would later compile and ascribe to Marcion. They were not hidebound traditionalists, after all. It is my opinion that Marcion’s scripture contained only epistles, and no Gospel. His followers added proto-Luke (or ur-Lukas) later on. First, it appears to me both that Marcion is responsible for significant portions of the epistolary text and that the epistles are quite innocent of the gospel tradition of sayings and deeds by an earthly Jesus.

Therefore, Marcion not only possessed no Gospel but knew nothing of our Jesus tradition. All he would have gleaned from Simonianism was the belief that someone had seemingly undergone crucifixion among the Jews. Isn’t that close enough? Wouldn’t he at least have taken for granted a recent historical Jesus? No, I think not, and for two reasons. First, our oldest narrative gospel, that of Mark, already contains not only the episode of Simon substituting for Jesus, but it is a version that has been historicized, implying an earlier version in which Simon of Cyrene’s identity was that of Simon Magus. Second, as we have already seen, the Jesus story in the Toledoth Jeschu is a much better candidate for the Jesus story to which Simon would have appealed in that it has a magus seeking out another Helen. This is not to say that the Toledoth Jeschu was available to Simon, but elements of it may have been.

Price, Robert M.. The Amazing Colossal Apostle

Both of these excerpts are from Chapter 7: 'The secret of Simon Magus'

I'm astounded at the lack of critical thinking by Price. And the lack of arguments. This is mere chit chat

[Giuseppe]

I'm astounded at the lack of critical thinking by Price. And the lack of arguments. This is mere chit chat

I agree partially. I will never forgive Robert M. Price for neglecting in all his books the great finding about Barabbas by Stahl/Couchoud. A such lack of mention is simply unforgivable by the so-called "dean of the mythicists" (as Bob Price is called).

The only merit of Robert Price is to remember us that Paul's epistles are too much nebulous to build something on them, apart the sound silence about a HJ in them.

One may have fun to imagine:

• a Paul totally Jew, who ignored the HJ

• a Paul hater of YHWH, who ignored the HJ, later corrected by Catholic editors

• a lot of false Pauls who hated YHWH, corrected by Catholic editors, themselves other false Pauls of their own right

• a catholic false Paul, along the Martijn's view

Reason in more to inquiry the relation between Mcn and Mark, rather than asking "who was really Paul".


Only by judging who comes first, between Mcn and Mark, one may answer whether the mere possibility of a historical Jesus makes sense, even if only as mere possibility (since only a Jesus baptized by John in the first gospel would preserve in my view a such possibility, only that).

[Giuseppe]

The evidence that terms as the Samaritan/Samaritans in Mcn work only as synonimous for: the alien

is very too much strong in Mcn:

11 And it came to pass, as he went to Jerusalem,
that he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee.
12 And as he entered into a certain village,
there met him ten men that were lepers,
which stood afar off:
13 And they lifted up their voices, and said,
Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.
14 And when he saw them, he said unto them,
Go shew yourselves unto the priests.
And it came to pass, that, as they went,
they were cleansed.
15 And one of them, when he saw that he was healed,
turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God,
16 And fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks:
and he was a Samaritan.
17 And Jesus answering said,
Were not the ten cleansed? but where are the nine?
18 There are not found that returned to give glory to God
but this alien?

Hence there would be too much divine coincidence if Samaria/Samaritan/Samaritans worked not only as mere symbol of the Alien par excellence but also as the real ethnic group of Marcion or Marcionism. Therefore I exclude a priori Samaritan origins of marcionism.

Now, if the entire meaning of the Samaritan in Mcn is uniquely and only the meaning of ALIEN, then there is some curious irony in the fact that in the story the killer of the presumed "king of Jews" was known in the real History as slayer of Samaritans.


The so much vaunted "Jewish" Messiah was not only crucified: he was even crucified by the famous slayer of Samaritans: Pilate.
If that is not a typical marcionite antithesis, then what is that?

It would be equivalent to the effect provoked for a Christian believer by the Maurice Casey's claim that the corpse of Jesus was thrown in a common tomb, confused with other corpses of anonymous crucified people. How, of grace? The Judean Messiah who shared the same identical fate of the mere Samaritan victims of Pilate?

[Giuseppe]

As the argument goes, in short:

• 1) The killer of the true Jewish davidic Messiah has to be at least a Roman cruel governor, known to have crucified great Jewish martyrs;

• 2) The killer of Jesus was universally famous, even in Rome, as slayer of Samaritans

• 3) Therefore: is Jesus really davidic? ANTITHESIS.