Not even in their own scripture?the only gospel where Son of the Father occurs again and again is in proto-John, where Jesus accuses Moses of murder. Something a true Jew can't never do.
You're a retard, Giuseppe.
Not even in their own scripture?the only gospel where Son of the Father occurs again and again is in proto-John, where Jesus accuses Moses of murder. Something a true Jew can't never do.
Irrelevant. Most Jews and Christians couldn't read Hebrew. It was a dying language and most spoke Aramaic, Syriac and Greek.the Marcionites were gentiles. They didn't know the Hebrew.
Moses wasn't defending himself, and the Hebrews accused him of being a murderer when they rebuked him, indicating that he was wrong in their eyes.
But he was not wrong in the eyes of the Jewish Readers, because he defended a human being from another human being. Is this so hard to learn?Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:22 amMoses wasn't defending himself, and the Hebrews accused him of being a murderer when they rebuked him, indicating that he was wrong in their eyes.
So now you're making a distinction between the story and the reader, yet you impose your own morality onto the Barabbas episode when you say that no Jew would follow an insurrectionist murderer.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:25 amBut he was not wrong in the eyes of the Jewish Readers, because he defended a human being from another human being. Is this so hard to learn?Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:22 amMoses wasn't defending himself, and the Hebrews accused him of being a murderer when they rebuked him, indicating that he was wrong in their eyes.
I insist again and again (the thing starts to be boring):Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:44 am So now you're making a distinction between the story and the reader, yet you impose your own morality onto the Barabbas episode when you say that no Jew would follow an insurrectionist murderer.
Irrelevant.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:51 am I insist again and again (the thing starts to be boring):
by the time the Gospels were written, in Rome or in Alexandria, the "rebels" were reduced, for any Jew who could touch a pen under Roman authorization, to the status of "robbers". Hence Barabbas is absolute evil. No redemption for him.
And I reiterate the point I made then to Jeff: Simon bar Kochba wasn't from Cyrene and wasn't crucified, and Simon of Cyrene had two sons, Rufus and Alexander; while Lukuas was from Cyrene, had two followers named Pappos and Julian Alexander, and is potentially the same figure as the disciple Simon of Jerusalem, who was crucified in Jerusalem during the Kitos revolt.See how much is intelligent this mythicist named Jeff Q, about where Bar-Kokhba is really in the Gospels:Simon of Cyrene and Simon bar Kokkhba both have a son named Rufus. That seems to way to coincidental. If Simon of Cyrene was a cypher for Bar Kokhba, that would explain why Gnostics generally believed he was crucified in Jesus’ place and why Jesus would laugh about it.
(my bold)
[/b]
Barabbas was introduced to comport to Epistle of Barnabas, which explicitly proves the role of transmigration.ADDENDA:[/b]
This may even explain why Barabbas was introduced. Just as the Gnostics condemned Simon Bar Kohba to the cross, so the Judaizers condemned the rebel Bar-Abbas to the fugue.
but enough to confute your point that Barabbas is worthy of being seen someway in a positive light.Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:56 amIrrelevant.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:51 am I insist again and again (the thing starts to be boring):
by the time the Gospels were written, in Rome or in Alexandria, the "rebels" were reduced, for any Jew who could touch a pen under Roman authorization, to the status of "robbers". Hence Barabbas is absolute evil. No redemption for him.
it is evident that you don't have respect for probabilities, here. Having a son named Rufus is a greater coincidence than having a son named Alexander, since Alexander was a more common name than Rufus in a hellenistic world, and even more so in a Jewish-Hellenistic world. At any way, I prefer Jeff_Q to you not only for this, but also becsuse he, differently from you, describes a good polemical reason to explain the introduction of a Simon as the miserable crucified in the place of Jesus: the true victim was a dirty Jewish rebel. Not the Son of Father.And I reiterate the point I made then to Jeff: Simon bar Kochba wasn't from Cyrene and wasn't crucified, and Simon of Cyrene had two sons, Rufus and Alexander; while Lukuas was from Cyrene, had two followers named Pappos and Julian Alexander, and is potentially the same figure as the disciple Simon of Jerusalem, who was crucified in Jerusalem during the Kitos revolt.
Barabbas was introduced to comport to Epistle of Barnabas, which explicitly proves the role of transmigration.
there was no flood at the crucifixion, but an eclipse on a negative creation (the true Light having abandoned it) and the veiling of the curtain of temple, interpreted even by very late marcionites (Esnik) as the demiurge having realized the true identity of the victim.The idea comes from Daniel 9:26, and this passage had a singular interest to the Marcionites (thus, again, proving their Jewish origin):
And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.
And here is a new motive to hate you and reject your view. Here is where I find new reasons yo insult you. The blood and water from the crucified served to make it clear that the victim had really a human body , against docetism.The flood that issued forth from Christ signaled the end of the Law (It is finished").
Which I never said nor imply.]but enough to confute your point that Barabbas is worthy of being seen someway in a positive light.
Oh fuck right off. Don't give me this bullshit. I consider probabilities all the time; went back to the drawing board numerous times when I found a fault with a theory, and change my model accordingly. You on the other hand are only interested in using what confirms your own presuppositions, which you do below.it is evident that you don't have respect for probabilities, here.
Irrelevant, as Simon of Cyrene had two sons and the Talmud records bar Kochba as only having one. Furthermore, bar Kochba was beheaded and Simon of Cyrene was highly exalted by the Basilidians, not vilified as a dirty Jewish rebel.Having a son named Rufus is a greater coincidence than having a son named Alexander, since Alexander was a more common name than Rufus in a hellenistic world, and even more so in a Jewish-Hellenistic world. At any way, I prefer Jeff_Q to you not only for this, but also becsuse he, differently from you, describes a good polemical reason to explain the introduction of a Simon as the miserable crucified in the place of Jesus: the true victim was a dirty Jewish rebel. Not the Son of Father.
Yet Simon of Cyrene fits the figure of Lukuas better because, a) Lukuas was from Cyrene, and b) was probably crucified himself, unlike bar Kochba.The polemics can be seen on both the sides, beyond the Simon you take. Hence I can re-write the my point above replacing your presumed Jewish rebel from Cyrene to Bar-Kokhba :
Your view (and Jeff's view) is bullshit. Don't expect me to bow down to you. What do you think this is? I don't have to even listen you.This may even explain why Barabbas was introduced. Just as the Gnostics condemned Simon of Cyrene father of Pappos etc to the cross, so the Judaizers condemned the rebel Bar-Abbas to the fugue.
But I pray you, Joseph D.L., to abandon your view based on Barnabas since my view (and Jeff_Q's) is clearly better and I have explained the reason.
And I need a fucking drum roll for this, because this proves just how desperate and moronic you are, Giuseppe, when you use...My loved Turmel fixed already the point about water and blood. No stupid nohaide flood at all. You are simply zero in comparison to Joseph Turmel.
Yes flood, yes Noah, no polemic against docetists. We are left with a Jewish proselyte who preached Noahide Laws from Alexandria: MarkianosHe preaches the marcionite Christ, the Christ who is not incarnate; and the partisan of the incarnation is a Catholic who endeavors to neutralize this doctrine but who doesn't dare to entirely suppress the formulas.
I have just interrogated the Johannine epistles. I pass now to the gospel. It says (19:34) that a Roman soldier, seeing that Jesus had died, pierced his side with a lance, and out from him poured blood and water. This entirely natural fact appears to us banal. Also one is surprised at hearing the narrator make a solemn guarantee of the reality by this formula, the equivalent which does not reappear anywhere else except in the final remark: "the one who saw this bares witness and his witness is true; and he knows that he tells the truth so that you also believed".
Why does he consequently attach so much significance to a detail which has none for us? The text of 1Joh5:6, that we have just encountered, allows us to catch a glimpse into the solution behind this enigma. The blood and the water that the piercing of the lance caused to gush is the corroboration from the history of the didactic teaching given by the epistle. This last one professes that Jesus didn't come only with the water, but also with the blood; that he was not limited to receiving John's baptism, but that he also shed his blood, that he really died for us. The gospel exposes that which is past. When the Roman soldier approached the cross, Jesus had died already. However one would raise objection that he had died as phantoms die, that he had died only in appearance. The piercing of the spear dissipates this suspicion. The side of Jesus was pierced by the lance, blood flowed out with water. There was a blood flow: evidence that Jesus had a carnal body like that of our own, for an ethereal body would not have had blood. But was this blood of his possibly artificial? No, for had it been artificial, it would have had a vermilion color. Now, with the blood it became decomposed by death; thus evidence that this blood was of the same quality as ours and that Jesus possessed very much a human nature that was in every respect equal to that of our own.
The piercing of the spear, with what ensues, is therefore an apologetic history, a history destined toward confirming the incarnation of Jesus the Son of God.
http://sgwau2cbeginnings.blogspot.com/p ... 2.html?m=0 (my bold)
And still:
It is in this negation of the flesh that consists of their crime. A monstrous crime: "many seducers came into the world who do not confess that Jesus came in the flesh. The one (who thinks thus) is the seducer and the antichrist" (2Joh 7); "Any spirit who confesses that Jesus Christ came in the flesh is of God; and any spirit who does not confess Jesus (as having come in the flesh) is not of God; this one is of the antichrist which you have heard that he comes and who is already present in the world" (1Joh4:2,3); "This is he, Jesus Christ, who came by the water and the blood"; "not in the water only but in the water and the blood" (1Joh 5:6); the targeted culprits acknowledge that Jesus received the baptism, but they didn't admit that he had actually died; the water designates the baptism of Jesus by John, the blood designating his actual death. Thus one is an antichrist when one confines to admitting Jesus' divinity and rejecting his incarnation.
(my bold)
No flood, no Noah, but a mere polemic against docetists of the last hour. We are left with a gentile Anti-Christ from Sinope: Marcion.