GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 2:19 pmSurely that is an "earthly" Jesus (which of course doesn't mean a historical Jesus)?
what do you mean for "earthly"? If for you "earthly==human" then the answer is obvious: Marcion's Jesus is never a human being. He doesn't come from Nazareth. He is an alien from beginning to end. The presence of an UFO in Roswell makes not it real (and curiously, the Roswell analogy has been advanced just by Richard Carrier!).
In Mark, at contrary, the Jesus who comes to be baptized by John the Baptist is surely a human being, he is possibly a sinner.
Who is for you more "earthly" between the two Jesuses?
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 2:19 pmSurely that is an "earthly" Jesus (which of course doesn't mean a historical Jesus)?
what do you mean for "earthly"? If for you "earthly==human" then the answer is obvious: Marcion's Jesus is never a human being. He doesn't come from Nazareth. He is an alien from beginning to end.
Marcion's Gospel apparently has Jesus appear as a human in Nazareth and Capernaum, preaching in the synagogues of Galilee; standing by the lake of Gennesaret; talking to the Pharisees and doctors of the law which were come out of every village of Galilee, Judaea, and Jerusalem; talking to centurions; meeting a great number of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases.
Marcion seemed to have believed that his Jesus actually existed in history in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar and walked the earth, and that his Paul believed that that Jesus existed in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar and walked the earth. Whatever label you give that Marcion's Jesus, it needs to include those things. I'll let you choose the label.
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 10:11 pm
Marcion's Gospel apparently has Jesus
"apparently" means that the original readers of the story and the author himself denied that same thing (=the real presence of Jesus on the earth).
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 10:11 pmMarcion seemed to have believed that his Jesus actually existed in history in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar and walked the earth,
under the mythicist paradigm, assuming Marcionite priority, Marcion invented the idea, so it would be more correct to say that "the people deceived by Marcion seemed to have believed that his Jesus actually existed in history in the fifteenth year".
You have not answered to my question:
Who is for you more "earthly" between the two Jesuses?
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 10:19 pm"apparently" means that the original readers of the story and the author himself denied that same thing (=the real presence of Jesus on the earth).
No, "apparently" because Marcion's Gospel isn't extant. All we have is a reconstruction based on later descriptions.
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 10:19 pmunder the mythicist paradigm, assuming Marcionite priority, Marcion invented the idea, so it would be more correct to say that "the people deceived by Marcion seemed to have believed that his Jesus actually existed in history in the fifteenth year".
Fair enough, that makes sense. Such a Jesus would be best described as fictional rather than earthly or historical. Historical fiction, perhaps?
Does Marcion's Paul think that Jesus is fiction or is he one of the deceived in your view? That is, did Marcion's Paul think that Jesus walked the earth in the 15th year of Tiberius, healing people and rapping with the Pharisees?
Last edited by GakuseiDon on Wed Dec 21, 2022 10:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 10:19 pm"apparently" means that the original readers of the story and the author himself denied that same thing (=the real presence of Jesus on the earth).
No, "apparently" because Marcion's Gospel isn't extant. All we have is a reconstruction based on later descriptions.
I think that we have sufficient evidence to claim that Marcion denied that the body of Jesus was real, so "apparently" applies also in my quote above.
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 10:30 pm
Does Marcion's Paul think that Jesus is fiction or is he one of the deceived in your view? That is, did Marcion's Paul think that Jesus walked the earth in the 15th year of Tiberius, healing people and rapping with the Pharisees?
I think that a true pauline knew what Paul knew: that Jesus was crucified by demons in heaven.
The Valentinians were true paulines insofar they read a cosmic Stauros in Paul where only the superior Christ suffered, not the inferior Christ of the Gospels.
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 10:30 pm
Does Marcion's Paul think that Jesus is fiction or is he one of the deceived in your view? That is, did Marcion's Paul think that Jesus walked the earth in the 15th year of Tiberius, healing people and rapping with the Pharisees?
I think that a true pauline knew what Paul knew: that Jesus was crucified by demons in heaven.
You might not yet have formed an opinion on this, but: do you think they thought that Jesus was crucified by demons in heaven in the 15th year of Tiberius?
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 10:30 pm
Does Marcion's Paul think that Jesus is fiction or is he one of the deceived in your view? That is, did Marcion's Paul think that Jesus walked the earth in the 15th year of Tiberius, healing people and rapping with the Pharisees?
I think that a true pauline knew what Paul knew: that Jesus was crucified by demons in heaven.
You might not yet have formed an opinion on this, but: do you think they thought that Jesus was crucified by demons in heaven in the 15th year of Tiberius?
I am inclined to think that the crucifixion, being also a division (it was called Limit by Valentinians), served to create the world (Paul talks about it as a mystery hidden before the ages, possibly implying that the crucifixion itself is the mystery and not merely the knowledge of it, idem Revelation 13:8) so it happened before the creation. But it is also possible that it was a recent event (recent for Paul, hence, depending from the dating of Paul, it may be occurred in the 15° year of Tiberius, unless there is some theological irony behind the mention of "Tiberius", the precise topic I am examining at the present).
Pilate was probably ignored by Paul, since this retroversion to Hebrew removes Pilate from the equation.
