Why Pilate (if Marcion comes first)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why Pilate (if Marcion comes first)

Post by Giuseppe »

Griff wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:43 am G: Clearly Pilate and God are related here. But why must Pilate be specifically a "parody" of God? I suggest that the two were rather, conflated. Conflated by confused oral storytellers. Who heard of one "lord" - Pilate - working momentous deeds. And later misattributed this Lord as the Jewish Lord, God.
Note that maybe only this theory may explain why Jesus calls "Abbà" his Father in Getsemani. To make the point that Jesus Bar-Abbas is saved by that God Father: the entire human race. The First Adam.

Now, if who frees Bar-Abbas is Pilate, then the direct deliverer is not the Father of Jesus. But the miracle happens that the Father of Jesus saves Bar-Abbas via Pilate. So Pilate is the Demiurge.

This negative portrait of Pilate had to be corrected by who adored the demiurge.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Why Pilate (if Marcion comes first)

Post by lsayre »

I'm not sure where this might lead, but what you appear to be proposing is an ironic dicotomy/plot built around a Jesus Barabbas who is the Son of the Father, as opposed to a Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Creator/Demiurge. Is this something along the lines of the point you are attempting to build upon?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why Pilate (if Marcion comes first)

Post by Giuseppe »

No. What I am arguing is that Jesus "so-called Christ" is the marcionite Christ. His death causes the freedom for Jesus Bar-Abbas: the First Adam or the entire humankind.

Jesus Barabbas is not described as: "Jesus who is called Barabbas".

While Jesus is described as "Jesus who is called king/Christ".

So Jesus Barabbas is a known figure insofar Jesus is an unknown figure: the latter is only the "so-called" Christ, not the true (Jewish) Christ. The his real identity is hidden.

The original readers of Mark knew perfectly who was the Father of Barabbas: the Demiurge. Any man or woman is a creature of the Demiurge. Even more so a killer and a rebel.

Therefore Pilate may be the god who is moved to free, AGAINST THE HIS WILL, just the person who is more worthy of death: the son of the his father. Any man is son of the his father.

Pilate is the Demiurge.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Why Pilate (if Marcion comes first)

Post by lsayre »

In some recent forum threads it appears to be argued that Pilate is merely a time-shifted convenience, and in this thread he is no less than the Demiurge. Count me among the highly confused.

Since this has me so totally confused, why should this have been perfectly self evident to the original readers (audience) of Mark? Who were the original readers (audience) of Mark? And why/when did such a perfect understanding vanish? Did any community in antiquity worship Pilate as a god (demiurge level, or otherwise)? Did the Jews worship him as such?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why Pilate (if Marcion comes first)

Post by Giuseppe »

lsayre wrote: Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:32 pm Since this has me so totally confused, why should this have been perfectly self evident to the original readers (audience) of Mark?
since any man is son of his father, we are said, about the meaning of Bar-Abbas.

Only Jesus has neither father nor mother, like Melkizedek.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply