Why "Luke"? Because Lucius of Cyrene

[Giuseppe]

In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul.

— Acts 13:1

Being of Cyrene, Lucius is surely a relative of Simon of Cyrene, hence confirming that the sons of Simon are mentioned by name in the Gospels only to confirm ocular witness.

There is also a Lucius mentioned in Romans 16:21. Origen identifies the Lucius in Romans with the evangelist Luke (Comm. Rom. 10.39)

[Joseph D. L.]

Because Marcion had a disciple named Lucian.

[Joseph D. L.]

Being of Cyrene, Lucius is surely a relative of Simon of Cyrene, hence confirming that the sons of Simon are mentioned by name in the Gospels only to confirm ocular witness.

You mean to say that Simon, Julian and Rufus were historical? Why make such a claim if they were just mythical insertions into the story?

[Giuseppe]

You mean to say that Simon, Julian and Rufus were historical? Why make such a claim if they were just mythical insertions into the story?

who is Julian? You mean probably Alexander.

And yes, Alexander and Rufus were apostolic icons, of the same historical consistence of a Papias. While Simon of Cyrene was a mythical icon to confute Basilides, per Robert Price et alia's thesis. Just as Barabbas to attack Marcion.

The connection between Alexander and Rufus and Simon of Cyrene is artificial.

As you know, for me the 98% of the Passion story in any Gospel is written by Judaizers/proto-Catholics. I consider more the rest of story in Mark (basically, until the last verse of Mark 13) as more genuine and less infected by Catholics.

[Joseph D. L.]

Lukuas of Cyrene = Simon of Cyrene

Julian Alexander = Alexander

Pappus = Rufus

[Joseph D. L.]

And we know for a fact that later Christians were aware of messianic proclaimers such as Judas and Theudas. Hell, Theudas is probably the basis for John the Baptist. Your "theories" imply they just made it up, when we know, again for a fact, that they did not.

[Giuseppe]

See the pattern in action:

Basilides preached that a Simon was the true victim. --->contra Basilidem: Simon carried only the cross.

Marcion preached that Jesus the Son of Father was the true victim.--->contra Marcionem: "Jesus Bar-Abbas" was not the true victim.

Simonians preached that Simon freed Helen from 7 Archons ---> contra Magum: Jesus freed Magdalena ("Helen with long hair") from 7 demons.

The followers of the Baptist preached that only John was the Messiah ---> contra Johannem: the Baptist was only the mere precursor of Jesus.

[Joseph D. L.]

Basilides preached that a Simon was the true victim. --->contra Basilidem: Simon carried only the cross.

Simon was the allegory of transmigration. Simon and Jesus are the same figure.

Marcion preached that Jesus the Son of Father was the true victim.--->contra Marcionem: "Jesus Bar-Abbas" was not the true victim.

Marcionites repudiated Barabbas, while the Jews accepted him.

Simonians preached that Simon freed Helen from 7 Archons ---> contra Magum: Jesus freed Magdalena ("Helen with long hair") from 7 demons.

So?

The followers of the Baptist preached that only John was the Messiah ---> contra Johannem: the Baptist was only the mere precursor of Jesus.

And?

All this proves is that your connections are tenuous and arbitrary.

[Giuseppe]

Marcionites repudiated Barabbas, while the Jews accepted him.

all the world repudiates Barabbas (based on how he is described in the story) apart the Jews in the story itself.

But in the real History you can't deny that Marcionites adored Jesus Son of an Unknown Father and identical to his Father.

The parody is to cast a real pious worship of a deity in a cult of a bad terrorist.

[Joseph D. L.]

I'm not even going to read these anymore. Everything you say is wrong.