What Would a Patripassian Gospel Look Like?

[Secret Alias]

Because Luke was edited by the orthodox to create this "the son of man."

But this is an assertion. What evidence?

[davidbrainerd]

Because Luke was edited by the orthodox to create this "the son of man."

But this is an assertion. What evidence?

I just mentioned it. Son of man and general resurrection go together coming from Daniel. Luke you have to be counted worthy to be resurrected. Plus dumb orthodox interpolator gets the wording wrong, "son of man" is Hebrew for "any man", the celestial being in Daniel is not "any man" but "one like a son of man", i.e. "non-human being who looked human." Not to mention variation between synoptics and between mss of the same synoptic on wherher Jesus said "I", "I the son of man", or "the son of man."

[Secret Alias]

Marcion took the OT literally

Another assertion. Evidence?

and there are no demons in the OT.

Untrue. First of all the 'Old Testament' is a Christian concept. Demons do appear in canonical Jewish texts (or at least canonical for various Jewish communities) - (Jub. 7.27, 10.1,1 En. 19.1, 99.7 etc לִילִית Isaiah 34:14, תהו and בהו are linked with Tiamat and Behemot mythical demonic figures that were important to early Christian mysticism).

[Secret Alias]

I just mentioned it.

No you didn't. I think you are incapable of seeing how you work by assertion. You wrote:

Because Luke was edited by the orthodox to create this "the son of man."

You can't just cite your assumption again as proof that this isn't an assertion. It is an assertion and has no evidence to support it. Please stop saying the same thing over and over again. Where is the evidence that "Luke was edited by the orthodox to create this 'the son of man'" other than you saying it (over and over again).

[Secret Alias]

Let me phrase it another way. Do you have any ancient sources to confirm your claim that:

Luke was edited by the orthodox to create this "the son of man."

Why shouldn't we believe that the Marcionite gospel had 'Son of Man' passages?

[davidbrainerd]

Let me phrase it another way. Do you have any ancient sources to confirm your claim that:

Luke was edited by the orthodox to create this "the son of man."

Why shouldn't we believe that the Marcionite gospel had 'Son of Man' passages?

IF (and its a big IF) the Marcionite gospel had son of man passages, THEN like Revelation 1:13 and Rev 14:14 they would have correctly said "one like unto a son of man" not "the son of man." (1) Due to Marcion's literalness to the OT, and as even you have pointed out, his preference for the Hebrew text over the LXX. (2) Tertullian uses "the son of man" in Luke as proof of Jesus' true human-ness and birth, showing this bastardized phrase not found in Daniel was created for that anti-marcionite purpose.

[Secret Alias]

IF (and its a big IF) the Marcionite gospel had son of man passages, THEN like Revelation 1:13 and Rev 14:14 they would have vorrectly said "one like unto a son of man" not "the son of man."

There you did it again. You keep doing it. Where is the evidence for this? I am glad that you think you're brilliant and don't need evidence for your 'feelings' and 'assumptions.' But strangely I am not impressed with your deductions. I want evidence from ancient sources. Rather than continuing to see you demonstrate that you are incapable of separating your 'feelings' or 'hunches' from facts let me jump start the process to make you see the light. I think you haven't confronted your naive notion that there weren't references from the Jewish writings in the Marcionite canon. This is certainly wrong. You should read more including Williams on the subject - https://www.jstor.org/stable/3267115?se ... b_contents Of course getting you to read or do anything but make declarations without facts or references.

[Secret Alias]

Due to Marcion's literalness to the OT

Again where does this come from? How do we know that Marcion wasn't into allegory? How do we know that Marcion didn't have oral tradition? Evidence, evidence, evidence please.

[davidbrainerd]

IF (and its a big IF) the Marcionite gospel had son of man passages, THEN like Revelation 1:13 and Rev 14:14 they would have vorrectly said "one like unto a son of man" not "the son of man."

There you did it again. You keep doing it. Where is the evidence for this? I am glad that you think you're brilliant and don't need evidence for your 'feelings' and 'assumptions.' But strangely I am not impressed with your deductions. I want evidence from ancient sources. Rather than continuing to see you demonstrate that you are incapable of separating your 'feelings' or 'hunches' from facts let me jump start the process to make you see the light. I think you haven't confronted your naive notion that there weren't references from the Jewish writings in the Marcionite canon. This is certainly wrong. You should read more including Williams on the subject - https://www.jstor.org/stable/3267115?se ... b_contents Of course getting you to read or do anything but make declarations without facts or references.

You can clamor about lack of evidence all you like but every theory you put forth is total conspiracy theory. To you, Irenaeus wrote every early patristic text, edited the gospels, changed Marcion into Justin and Justin into Marcion. All of this lunacy with ZERO evidence or even anything approaching a resonable assertion. On the other hand, I am very closely following the fact that one of the main points of contention Tertullian has with Marcion is Marcion does NOT believe Jesus is a son of man!

[Secret Alias]

Tertullian uses "the son of man" in Luke as proof of Jesus' true human-ness and birth, showing this bastardized phrase not found in Daniel was created for that anti-marcionite purpose.

How do we know that this was all Tertullian was doing. It is odd the lengths to which Tertullian makes reference to passages from the Jewish writings. If I am having a discussion about any subject with anyone it only makes sense that I make reference to things we share in common. If I am discussion food with a vegetarian bringing up the wonders of a steakhouse serves no real purpose. There isn't much to discuss. So the virtues of a vagina and large breasts to a homosexual male. Generally speaking dialogues if they are to have any value make reference to commonalities not things which have no relevance or are absolutely unknown commodities.