http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/arc ... nt-1057288All too complicated. But I suspect this would cast into doubt historicity even more, or at least as much, because then you have a very late date for the first Gospel, from a far more obvious Joseph-Smith-style fabricator.
"Mark" has Jesus taking the opportunity to have Jesus clarify he is not simply the davidic Christ in traditional sense (12:36-37), the same for gMarcion (19:41-44). Both say Christ is not David's descendant.But what he does confirms that he escapes the logic of the Creator god and the traditional messianic hopes.
Even Mark did not take the opportunity to have Jesus clarify he is not simply the davidic Christ in traditional sense, but something of more.
In Marcion Jesus seems the Jewish Christ but is the Christ of the alien god.
In Mark Jesus seems only the sedicent Jewish Christ but is the Christ and the Son of God, also.
In Mark, Jesus is the Son of Jewish God (2:26, 10:6, 12:26).In Marcion Jesus seems the Jewish Christ but is the Christ of the alien god.
In Mark Jesus seems only the sedicent Jewish Christ but is the Christ and the Son of God, also.
Why does father have to mean God? There were many "fathers" then on earth. And even if "father" meant the Jewish God (more so as a falsely created appellation, part of Barabbas, so what?a) see the warrior Jesus Bar-Abbas, Jesus Son of Father. Which is this ''Father''?
You must mean Lk 4:3. Here Satan asks Jesus to prove he is the the Son of God, by displaying extraordinary power in order to turn stone into bread. From that, I have no clue on what is your point.b) surely you know what is meant in Luke 4:30.
Yes they are informed of him, as the Son of the Jewish God, with no allusion of an alien God above the imperfect God creator of the Jews.c) but you recognize in Mark the ''incomprehensiveness of the Jewish people for the'' true identity of Jesus (they are never informed of him). Why with Mark yes and with gMarcion no?
These heretics, most likely Marcionites, were interpreting a truncated passage of gMarcion, in a way which would not oppose their conviction but rather justify them.Why it's not sufficient? At least it proves that it's not born in my mind that heretic interpretation.
The words of Jesus are absolute because he desavows his only blood mother and brothers (that's one logical explanation among others on gMarcion truncated passage).The passage can still mean real blood relation ONLY is you follow Tertullian in considering not-literal the words of Jesus: ''who is my mother and who are my brothers?''. But these words of Jesus literally mean absolute, not relative, rejection of blood relationship.
please more attention. It's not important what knows the reader. It's important what knows the actor ''Peter'' in Mark and in gMarcion. Peter in Mark says ''tu es Christus'' but cannot know in which sense Jesus is the Christ (i.e. that Jesus is the pauline Son of God, also).Bernard Muller wrote:"Mark" has Jesus taking the opportunity to have Jesus clarify he is not simply the davidic Christ in traditional sense (12:36-37), the same for gMarcion (19:41-44). Both say Christ is not David's descendant.But what he does confirms that he escapes the logic of the Creator god and the traditional messianic hopes.
Even Mark did not take the opportunity to have Jesus clarify he is not simply the davidic Christ in traditional sense, but something of more.
In Marcion Jesus seems the Jewish Christ but is the Christ of the alien god.
In Mark Jesus seems only the sedicent Jewish Christ but is the Christ and the Son of God, also.
But in gMarcion his indepedent authority (, a ''new'' teaching, or ''my words'' versus ''the will of God'') is allusive of the his true provenance.In Mark, Jesus is the Son of Jewish God (2:26, 10:6, 12:26).In Marcion Jesus seems the Jewish Christ but is the Christ of the alien god.
In Mark Jesus seems only the sedicent Jewish Christ but is the Christ and the Son of God, also.
in Marcion, it does not say Jesus is the son of an alien god.
Listen, Bernard: you seem to want me to convince with mere rhetorical questions that gMarcion was not the first gospel, but I do not see anything of wrong in reading personally the arguments that Klinghardt will do about in favor of marcionite priority, if only he will decide to publish in English.Why does father have to mean God? There were many "fathers" then on earth. And even if "father" meant the Jewish God (more so as a falsely created appellation, part of Barabbas, so what?a) see the warrior Jesus Bar-Abbas, Jesus Son of Father. Which is this ''Father''?
no, no. I mean precisely Luke 4:30. In gMarcion Jesus saves himself by going ''through'' the crowd that wants to kill him, ''through'' in the meaning of ''through their bodies'', by passing over them from part to part being a mere ghost. This is allusive clue of his identity. In Luke you cannot explain how Jesus saves himself escaping the crowd between him and his putting into salvation.You must mean Lk 4:3. Here Satan asks Jesus to prove he is the the Son of God, by displaying extraordinary power in order to turn stone into bread. From that, I have no clue on what is your point.b) surely you know what is meant in Luke 4:30.
But you can always read these info about himself as a reaction against gMarcion. The point remains that Peter in gMark, until the end, remains semi-ignorant about the true identity of Jesus. You don't tell your readers who you are if your readers know you already. According to Marcion, Peter had completely misrepresented the gospel of Jesus. So it is totally expected (=highly probable) that in gMarcion Jesus remains very enigmatic about his identity.Yes they are informed of him, as the Son of the Jewish God, with no allusion of an alien God above the imperfect God creator of the Jews.c) but you recognize in Mark the ''incomprehensiveness of the Jewish people for the'' true identity of Jesus (they are never informed of him). Why with Mark yes and with gMarcion no?
My point is that you should open yourself to the idea that your claim above may be true also for Tertullian & co.These heretics, most likely Marcionites, were interpreting a truncated passage of gMarcion, in a way which would not oppose their conviction but rather justify them.Why it's not sufficient? At least it proves that it's not born in my mind that heretic interpretation.
[/quote]The words of Jesus are absolute because he desavows his only blood mother and brothers (that's one logical explanation among others on gMarcion truncated passage).The passage can still mean real blood relation ONLY is you follow Tertullian in considering not-literal the words of Jesus: ''who is my mother and who are my brothers?''. But these words of Jesus literally mean absolute, not relative, rejection of blood relationship.
The answer:What ever he mean by calling the author of Mcn (beyond he was or no the man Marcion) ''a far more obvious Joseph-Smith-style fabricator''??!!??
If we are admitting that the Gospel Jesus was deliberately constructed to sell a particular replacement for the OT and that no prior Gospel Jesus existed, then yes, the evidence of that one kind of originating Gospel with that kind of established purpose starting everything else is in that case less likely on historicity and more likely on mythicism. It would essentially amount to admitting almost everything the mythicists are saying, rather than taking it as equally likely: that historical narratives about Jesus are a very late and deliberate fabrication with no interest in history.
I already said "Mark" gave Peter the opportunity to know the God of Jesus is the Jewish God (10:6, 12:26).please more attention. It's not important what knows the reader. It's important what knows the actor ''Peter'' in Mark and in gMarcion. Peter in Mark says ''tu es Christus'' but cannot know in which sense Jesus is the Christ (i.e. that Jesus is the pauline Son of God, also).
In gMarcion Peter says 'tu es Christus' but cannot know of which god Jesus is the Christ.
What is allusive about ''my words'' replacing ''the will of God'' is that Marcion did not want to connect Jesus with the will of the Jewish God, that is his many laws. The ultimate God of Marcion was not known to have issued laws, so the replacement has to be expected.But in gMarcion his indepedent authority (, a ''new'' teaching, or ''my words'' versus ''the will of God'') is allusive of the his true provenance.
Did you mean Klinghardt has the right arguments "in favor of marcionite priority", even if you did not read them yet?Listen, Bernard: you seem to want me to convince with mere rhetorical questions that gMarcion was not the first gospel, but I do not see anything of wrong in reading personally the arguments that Klinghardt will do about in favor of marcionite priority, if only he will decide to publish in English.
"through a crowd" or rather "through the mist of them" does not mean Marcion & "Luke" had Jesus going through bodies.no, no. I mean precisely Luke 4:30. In gMarcion Jesus saves himself by going ''through'' the crowd that wants to kill him, ''through'' in the meaning of ''through their bodies'', by passing over them from part to part being a mere ghost. This is allusive clue of his identity. In Luke you cannot explain how Jesus saves himself escaping the crowd between him and his putting into salvation.
NO: in gMark, Peter has opportunity to know that Jesus is the Christ (but not of David's descent) of the Jewish God. And "Mark" "knew" Jesus was the son of that God.But you can always read these info about himself as a reaction against gMarcion. The point remains that Peter in gMark, until the end, remains semi-ignorant about the true identity of Jesus.
Don't you have to accept here there were other gospels preceding gMarcion? If not, what would be the basis of this misrepresentation if Marcion was not reacting against existing gospels?According to Marcion, Peter had completely misrepresented the gospel of Jesus. So it is totally expected (=highly probable) that in gMarcion Jesus remains very enigmatic about his identity.
Tertullian himself wrote the hypothesis of a temptation (gMarcion 8:21-22), in order to find out if Jesus has a human blood family or not, came from heretics on "the other side". Certainly not what Tertullian & co, with knowledge of gLuke, would accept as a hypothesis.My point is that you should open yourself to the idea that your claim above may be true also for Tertullian & co.
Marcion never said in his gospel Jesus has not a blood family. So he did not close the door to this possibility.More attention, please: the words of Jesus are not absolute but relative because there's at least a sense in Luke where it's true the sentence: ''Jesus had truely blood family''. In gMarcion that relative sense is totally absent (if not in the words of the tempters, not of the evangelist, nor of Jesus), therefore the words of Jesus are absolute.
One thing is to have the opportunity, another thing is to know effectively how to take advantage of it. In Mark Peter falls into the error that Jesus is only the davidic Christ. Why should Marcion show explicitly that opportunity you mean? This would go against his intention, that is to invent a Jesus who has to appear enigmatic to the end, in order to deceive the Creator god.I already said "Mark" gave Peter the opportunity to know the God of Jesus is the Jewish God (10:6, 12:26).
As I told you, Marcion, in his gospel, is never specific about matters he defended in his antitheses. His gospel allows for the anthitheses, but does not show them.
Which is rather strange if that gospel was written from scratch. Why would he miss the opportunity?
Precisely. But this is inconclusive as evidence.What is allusive about ''my words'' replacing ''the will of God'' is that Marcion did not want to connect Jesus with the will of the Jewish God, that is his many laws. The ultimate God of Marcion was not known to have issued laws, so the replacement has to be expected.But in gMarcion his indepedent authority (, a ''new'' teaching, or ''my words'' versus ''the will of God'') is allusive of the his true provenance.
I think is entirely innocent have sympathy for the thesis of a book before of starting to read it, because otherwise not even I would start to read it. I have read Markus Vinzent 2014 in favor of Mcn priority and frankly I was disappointed because it claims to make his case basically only puzzling over the words of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, etc., And not on the Gospels themselves.Did you mean Klinghardt has the right arguments "in favor of marcionite priority", even if you did not read them yet?Listen, Bernard: you seem to want me to convince with mere rhetorical questions that gMarcion was not the first gospel, but I do not see anything of wrong in reading personally the arguments that Klinghardt will do about in favor of marcionite priority, if only he will decide to publish in English.
in 7:39-46, the Simon in gMarcion is not a pharisee but is Simon Peter.In gMarcion and gLuke, Jesus (alive or dead) has a solid body which can be touched such as in:
7:39-46, 22:47, 54, 64, 23:53.
as above, Peter has the opportunity but doensn't take it in Mark, therefore the 'opportunity' is addressed to readers, as reaction against Marcion (who has no need to identify explicitly the father of Jesus).NO: in gMark, Peter has opportunity to know that Jesus is the Christ (but not of David's descent) of the Jewish God. And "Mark" "knew" Jesus was the son of that God.But you can always read these info about himself as a reaction against gMarcion. The point remains that Peter in gMark, until the end, remains semi-ignorant about the true identity of Jesus.
You touch a critical point. A point where precisely I disagree with Stuart. I think it's legitimate to ask, under the Mcn priority, if Peter and the 12 in gMarcion didn't represent real Christian opponents at time of the writing of gMarcion, but only simbolic characters allusive of generic Jewish messianists: the real polemical target of gMarcion. Note that Stuart thinks, differently, that in gMarcion the opponents of Jesus are allusive of the protocatholics.Don't you have to accept here there were other gospels preceding gMarcion? If not, what would be the basis of this misrepresentation if Marcion was not reacting against existing gospels?According to Marcion, Peter had completely misrepresented the gospel of Jesus. So it is totally expected (=highly probable) that in gMarcion Jesus remains very enigmatic about his identity.
I marvel that Tertullian, after rejecting rather effectively all the criticisms, when he introduces the hypothesis of a temptation, then he falls back on the defensive and shifts the argument about the presumed presence - not confirmed - by official census which establish the birth of Jesus from human parents by name.Tertullian himself wrote the hypothesis of a temptation (gMarcion 8:21-22), in order to find out if Jesus has a human blood family or not, came from heretics on "the other side". Certainly not what Tertullian & co, with knowledge of gLuke, would accept as a hypothesis.My point is that you should open yourself to the idea that your claim above may be true also for Tertullian & co.
If in gMarcion Jesus had said explicitly to have not a blood family, then the Demiurg would realize it taking precautions in order to prevent his death (and with his death, his own loss). Hence the overall allusive, enigmatic nature of Jesus.Marcion never said in his gospel Jesus has not a blood family. So he did not close the door to this possibility.More attention, please: the words of Jesus are not absolute but relative because there's at least a sense in Luke where it's true the sentence: ''Jesus had truely blood family''. In gMarcion that relative sense is totally absent (if not in the words of the tempters, not of the evangelist, nor of Jesus), therefore the words of Jesus are absolute.
