Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

No point

No confutation by you. Because you simply can't deny that Origen, differently from a Celsus, was embarrassed by a docetic Jesus (one who disappeared from the cross) more than by a human too human Jesus who was left on the cross.

I am damned if this is not the proved evidence of the fact that "Mark" was securing at 100% the his readers that Jesus didn't disappear from the cross just in that moment, but that only someone from Arimathea came rapidly to take his corpse.

You are plain crazy. You can't see beyond your own agenda. Anything that can be true to help your agenda suddenly becomes true in your mind. You're a full fledged partisan for a worthless cause - a cause wholly made up in your own imagination

Tsk, tsk. It is ridiculous how you disdain the fact that the marcionites were DOCETISTS. That simple fact destroyes any your theorem, I recognize.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4713

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:38 pm viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4713

Merged, your post is above in this thread.

(Please consider the reader, who benefits from having the context.)

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:27 pm

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:38 pm viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4713

Merged, your post is above in this thread.

(Please consider the reader, who benefits from having the context.)

Well done.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:53 pm

35 When some of those standing near heard this, they said, “Listen, he’s calling Elijah.”
36 Someone ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,” he said.
37 With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

I am damned if this is not the proved evidence of the fact that "Mark" was securing at 100% the his readers that Jesus didn't disappear from the cross just in that moment, but that only someone from Arimathea came rapidly to take his corpse.

And yet, the last sentence you quoted had been interpreted exactly that, which is that the spirit disappeared from the cross at that moment. That's a point that hides a bit behind that specific translation.

Regarding Origen, it doesn't matter one bit whether he was embarrassed by anything in the gospel at that point, because he had to work with the text Celsus had read. That limits the options, as far as arguments go.

Ulan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 14, 2018 12:57 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:53 pm

35 When some of those standing near heard this, they said, “Listen, he’s calling Elijah.”
36 Someone ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,” he said.
37 With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

I am damned if this is not the proved evidence of the fact that "Mark" was securing at 100% the his readers that Jesus didn't disappear from the cross just in that moment, but that only someone from Arimathea came rapidly to take his corpse.

And yet, the last sentence you quoted had been interpreted exactly that, which is that the spirit disappeared from the cross at that moment. That's a point that hides a bit behind that specific translation.

I am not denying that Mark is separationist. My point is that even Mark was not satisfied about a previous version of the story where Jesus (and not the sekinah from Temple) disappeared entirely from the cross.

Regarding Origen, it doesn't matter one bit whether he was embarrassed by anything in the gospel at that point, because he had to work with the text Celsus had read. That limits the options, as far as arguments go.

what persuaded me that there was a previous gospel where Jesus disappeared entirely from the cross is the internal evidence in Mark. Not Origen. Origen in my eyes is evidence only of Judaizing embarrassment about docetism, beyond if that docetism is liked by a Pagan or argued by other Christians.