From Hadrian, to Barnabas, to Marcion

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: From Hadrian, to Barnabas, to Marcion

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:10 am

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.
Not even in their own scripture?

One day, when Moses had grown up, he went out to his people and looked on their burdens, and he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his people. He looked this way and that, and seeing no one, he struck down the Egyptian and hid him in the sand. When he went out the next day, behold, two Hebrews were struggling together. And he said to the man in the wrong, “Why do you strike your companion?” He answered, “Who made you a prince and a judge over us? Do you mean to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?” Then Moses was afraid, and thought, “Surely the thing is known.” When Pharaoh heard of it, he sought to kill Moses. But Moses fled from Pharaoh and stayed in the land of Midian.

You're a retard, Giuseppe.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7466
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: From Hadrian, to Barnabas, to Marcion

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:16 am

Where you ignore the difference between a morally self-defense murder and a murder for immoral offense.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: From Hadrian, to Barnabas, to Marcion

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:19 am

the Marcionites were gentiles. They didn't know the Hebrew.
Irrelevant. Most Jews and Christians couldn't read Hebrew. It was a dying language and most spoke Aramaic, Syriac and Greek.

Jesus in Greek is Iēsous, which the Marcionites abbreviated to Isu. (Secret Alias, as much as I respect his insight, I can't agree that Isu isn't an abbreviation Iēsous).

They still read and made use of Jewish scripture, despite their seemingly illiteracy of Hebrew and their supposed hatred of all things Judaism.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: From Hadrian, to Barnabas, to Marcion

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:22 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:16 am
Where you ignore the difference between a morally self-defense murder and a murder for immoral offense.
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 you're the one boasting how the Jews would reject a murdering insurrectionists, someone defending his sovereign homeland.

You're such a blithering retard.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7466
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: From Hadrian, to Barnabas, to Marcion

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:25 am

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:22 am
Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:16 am
Where you ignore the difference between a morally self-defense murder and a murder for immoral offense.
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?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: From Hadrian, to Barnabas, to Marcion

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:44 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:25 am
Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:22 am
Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:16 am
Where you ignore the difference between a morally self-defense murder and a murder for immoral offense.
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?
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.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7466
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: From Hadrian, to Barnabas, to Marcion

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:51 am

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.
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.

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)

ADDENDA:

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.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: From Hadrian, to Barnabas, to Marcion

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:56 am

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.
Irrelevant.
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]
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.

Simon of Cyrene is written of as coming from "the country", and both Michael the Great and Bar Hebraeus state that Lukuas fled to Jerusalem after his defeat in Alexandria.
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.
Barabbas was introduced to comport to Epistle of Barnabas, which explicitly proves the role of transmigration.

Note this Giuseppe: No where have I stated that this was the transmigration. The transmigration is a mythical expression. The Barabbas episode is an allegory of the idea of transmigration, just as the episode of Simon the Cyrene carrying the cross for Jesus (and the Basildians believed that very thing), and the episode of Joseph of Arimathea burring Jesus, in his own tomb. The idea of transmigration is that the old host is deposed of in some way, while the spirit inhabits the body of another who leads it to safety. The idea is also replicated in Gospel of the Hebrews, when Jesus gives a priest's servant his funerary clothe.

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.

The Christ is cut off, and there appears a prince who brings with him the new, "strong covenant", which sweeps away the old covenant and the Temple in a flood, paralleled also by the Odes of Solomon:

As the hand moves over the harp, and the strings speak, So speaks in my members the Spirit of the Lord, and I speak by His love. For it destroys what is foreign and everything that is bitter: For thus it was from the beginning and will be to the end, that nothing should be His adversary, and nothing should stand up against Him. The Lord has multiplied the knowledge of Himself, and is zealous that these things should be known, which by His grace have been given to us. And the praise of His name He gave us: our spirits praise His holy Spirit. For there went forth a stream and became a river great and broad; For it flooded and broke up everything and it brought (water) to the Temple; And the restrainers of the children of men were not able to restrain it, nor the arts of those whose business it is to restrain waters; 10 For it spread over the face of the whole earth, and filled everything: and all the thirsty upon earth were given to drink of it; And thirst was relieved and quenched: for from the Most High the draught was given. Blessed then are the ministers of that draught who are entrusted with that water They have assuaged the dry lips, and the will that had fainted they have raised up; And souls that were near departing they have caught back from death: And limbs that had fallen they straightened and set up: They gave strength for their feebleness and light to their eyes: For everyone knew them in the Lord, and they lived by the water of life forever. Hallelujah.

And this is why Marcion, the mariner, was a new Noah, because he saw in Christ a bringer of the flood that nullified the Law of YHWH, not because he viewed YHWH as evil, but because he saw that the true God above him was Elohim, the god of Noah. This is why Paul preached the baptism of Christ, and why Christ issues blood and water after being lanced by a spear. The flood that issued forth from Christ signaled the end of the Law (It is finished"). And this is why the church is depicted a ship/ark in early Christian art.

Image

Image

Image

Marcion was a new Noah.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7466
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: From Hadrian, to Barnabas, to Marcion

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:09 am

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:56 am
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.
Irrelevant.
but enough to confute your point that Barabbas is worthy of being seen someway in a positive light.
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.
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.

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 :

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.
Barabbas was introduced to comport to Epistle of Barnabas, which explicitly proves the role of transmigration.
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.

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 flood that issued forth from Christ signaled the end of the Law (It is finished").
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.

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.

He 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.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: From Hadrian, to Barnabas, to Marcion

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:55 am

]but enough to confute your point that Barabbas is worthy of being seen someway in a positive light.
Which I never said nor imply.
it is evident that you don't have respect for probabilities, here.
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.
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.
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.

But wait, isn't Barabbas, Son of the Father, the dirty Jewish rebel? Isn't he the one who is freed at the behest of the Jews?

So how the fuck is Barabbas then on par with bar Kochba? And why would the "Judiazers" polmicize the Marcionites with a Jewish rebel?

You've just proved that you have zero idea what you're saying and are only ad hocing your way through this now.

You're an absolute idiot.
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 :
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.

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.
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.

You're ideas are idiotic. Your arguments are weak. You treat everyone on here like they're morons because the don't recognize the fucking the genius that is Giuseppi Ferri. How dare they! Don't they know that this whole forum is a podium for YOUR IDEAS, YOUR THEORIES? EVERYONE SHOULD BOW DOWN TO THE GREAT GIUSEPPE!

If it's so much better, why does everyone on here think you're a goddamn moron?
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.
And I need a fucking drum roll for this, because this proves just how desperate and moronic you are, Giuseppe, when you use...

A CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST WHO IS ARGUING FOR A LITERAL, FLESH AND BLOOD CHRIST, JUST TO ARGUE AGAINST ME, because you can't think for yourself. You're too much of a moron to formulate an actual counter argument. Instead you have to rely on Turmel, who wasn't a mythicist, who believed and preached a real to life Jesus Christ.

He 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.
Yes flood, yes Noah, no polemic against docetists. We are left with a Jewish proselyte who preached Noahide Laws from Alexandria: Markianos

You're moron, an idiot, a jackass, and vile human being. You are worth zero respect, and your ideas will go with you to the grave.
Last edited by Joseph D. L. on Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply