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: 1342
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: From Hadrian, to Barnabas, to Marcion

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:19 am

Joseph Turmel is arguing that exact opposite of what Giuseppe is saying he does.

Clown shoes, man.
Image

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8023
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: From Hadrian, to Barnabas, to Marcion

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:50 am

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:19 am
Joseph Turmel is arguing that exact opposite of what Giuseppe is saying he does.

Clown shoes, man.
where Joseph D.L. is totally unable to see that the blood and water theme is a bastard catholic interpolation added by bastard proto-Catholics on proto-John to catholicize proto-John. Hence Turmel agrees with me that the blood and water can't be used to support your stupid profession of nohaidism for Marcion.

You fail to explain how a rebel can be seen in a positive light.

At any case, I don't expect a so strange language by you. Even cubital characters, expressly prohibited by Peter.

You are selling Secret Alias's ideas about Marcion. You are not even original. You are the only two persons in all the world to argue that Marcion was a Jew or a noahide (3 with Markus Vinzent, but at least the latter argues still for a Marcion being enemy of the demiurge). At any case, this is your thread. I have already written enough to confute you. The readers have only to read to decide who is right.

And even if 100 users agree with you against me, it is a their problem. Not mine.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7864
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: From Hadrian, to Barnabas, to Marcion

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:12 am

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:50 pm
When Hadrian became emperor, one of his acts of goodwill towards Jews was to rebuild the Temple. This is verified in the Genesis Rabbah, ch. 64:

... In the days of R. Yehoshua ben Chananiah the evil kingdom (Rome) decreed to rebuild the Temple. Papos and Lulianos (two brothers who were later martyred in Lod) set up tables from Akko to Antioch and supplied the pilgrims from the diaspora with silver, gold and all of their needs. Some Kuthites went [to the emperor] and said, "The king should know that if this rebellious city is built and its walls fortified, 'they will not pay tribute, poll-tax, or land-tax.'" He said to them, "What should I do, I have already made the decree?" They said to him, "Send to say to them [that] they either change the place of the Temple or add or remove five ells from it and they will recant on their own." And all of the [Jewish] people was gathered in Beit Rimon. When the king's edict arrived, they began to cry. They sought to rebel against the king. [The sages] said, "Let a wise man go up to quiet the assembled." They said, "Let R. Yehoshua ben Chananiah go up, as he is learned in the Torah." R. Yehoshua ben Chananiah went up and expounded, "A lion was devouring prey [and] a bone got stuck in its throat. It said, 'I will give a reward to anyone who comes and removes it.' An Egyptian heron with a long beak put his beak into the mouth of the lion and extracted the bone. It said to the lion, 'Give me my reward.' The lion said to it, 'Go and praise yourself, "I went into the mouth of the lion in peace and I came out in peace" - and there is no greater reward than that.' So too, it is enough for us that we entered into this nation in peace and came out in peace"...

Hadrian's offer was rebuffed by the Jews who viewed this decree as a sacrilegious. As it goes, however, Hadrian still had his city built, a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus errected, issued a ban on circumsicion, and placed a heavy tax on Jews in Palestine.

This then brings us to the Epistle of Barnabas:

I will also speak with you concerning the Temple, and show how the wretched men erred by putting their hope on the building, and not on the God who made them, and is the true house of God. For they consecrated him in the Temple almost like the heathen. But learn how the Lord speaks, in bringing it to naught, "Who has measured the heaven with a span, or the earth with his outstretched hand? Have not I? saith the Lord. Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool, what house will ye build for me, or what is the place of my rest?" You know that their hope was vain. Furthermore he says again, "Lo, they who destroyed this temple shall themselves build it." That is happening now. For owing to the war it was destroyed by the enemy; at present even the servants of the enemy will build it up again.

Some interpret this passage as an anachronism about the building of the second Temple. However, the text makes it clear that the ones who destroyed the Temple are the ones who shall rebuild it. The Babylonians destroyed the Temple, while the Persians allowed the Jews to rebuild it. So it cannot have been about the second Temple. Still others assume that the passage is referring to a "spiritual Temple," and while the Epistle does speak about such a Temple throughout, I believe that this is acknowledging the construction of a real, physical Temple. The context assumes such a reading.
Agreed. And I like your attempt to date the epistle of Barnabas. It makes sense. I wish we had a better explanation of the 10 kings, however, than is currently forthcoming, since any normal counting of 10 kings (as Roman emperors) is bound to put the date of the epistle rather earlier than Hadrian's time.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1342
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: From Hadrian, to Barnabas, to Marcion

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:21 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:50 am
where Joseph D.L. is totally unable to see that the blood and water theme is a bastard catholic interpolation added by bastard proto-Catholics on proto-John to catholicize proto-John. Hence Turmel agrees with me that the blood and water can't be used to support your stupid profession of nohaidism for Marcion.
First, why should I care what any one man thinks about anything? Am I not entitled to my own opinion, and to formulate it it how I see fit?

Sedond, Turmel's argument is based on the [false] idea that the effuse of blood and water was interpolated, when it was vital to emphasize the baptism of Jesus preached by Paul.

Third, I use the blood and water in conjunction with the baptism and flood of Noah, because that's exactly how early Christians interpreted it as (1 Peter 3:21)

Forth, you have zero evidence for your argument. It is nothing but one baseless assertion propping up another.
You fail to explain how a rebel can be seen in a positive light.
1) I never said it was positive. You're the one hung up on moral quandaries irrelevant to the meaning the text.

2) Rebels were seen as heroes all the time, again, as proven by the Jews who rebelled against Greece and Rome. They were not vilified because they rebelled. They were vilified because they failed.
At any case, I don't expect a so strange language by you. Even cubital characters, expressly prohibited by Peter.


You should leave English alone if you're not going to use it properly. Your posts are filled grammatical errors and a needless use of the word "the".
You are selling Secret Alias's ideas about Marcion.


And? I find his ideas to be more honest and in keeping with what we know about Marcion, that is, we don't know much of anything about him.

And Huller rejected the idea that Marcion was Peregrinus. I think he was, and did so long before I even knew who Deterring was.
You are not even original.


I don't care about being original, I care about being honest.

And as far as I'm aware, no one has even suggested that Simon of Cyrene could be Lukuas, so I think I'm pretty original there.
You are the only two persons in all the world to argue that Marcion was a Jew or a noahide (3 with Markus Vinzent, but at least the latter argues still for a Marcion being enemy of the demiurge).


I don't care. One. Ten. A hundred. It doesn't matter. This isn't a popularity contest for me, as it it seems to be for you. I don't look to others to confirm my ideas, and I don't rely on others to prop them up either. I think for myself. If Schonfeld himself came up from the grave and said I was wrong about Lukuas, I wouldn't care. I am more than capable of thinking for myself, unlike you it seems, who only looks to others to confirm your own ideas. You don't don't actually care about what Carrier thinks or says, because he's roundly rejected your ideas, but you find him useful for your ideas and so use him anyway. That's sociopathic behavior, and you are a clear study for it.
At any case, this is your thread. I have already written enough to confute you. The readers have only to read to decide who is right.
You haven't confuted or disproven anything. You've only shown what an absolute prick you are.

And even if 100 users agree with you against me, it is a their problem. Not mine.
[/quote]

Then take the hint and fuck off.
Image

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1342
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: From Hadrian, to Barnabas, to Marcion

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:29 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:12 am

Agreed. And I like your attempt to date the epistle of Barnabas. It makes sense. I wish we had a better explanation of the 10 kings, however, than is currently forthcoming, since any normal counting of 10 kings (as Roman emperors) is bound to put the date of the epistle rather earlier than Hadrian's time.
Finally someone intelligent to speak to.

I don't have much about the ten kings and I'm kinda with the thinking that they are Roman emperors. It could be an anachronism though, unless it's starting with Galba, and there would be no reason for that, or perhaps Nero. Alas I do not know.
Image

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8023
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: From Hadrian, to Barnabas, to Marcion

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:42 am

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:21 am
Third, I use the blood and water in conjunction with the baptism and flood of Noah, because that's exactly how early Christians interpreted it as (1 Peter 3:21)
"Early" Christians, 1 Peter ? PETER ??? Are you so sure ? A 100% catholic epistle to interpret a presumed Marcionite text ? Marcion would have called Peter a bastard judaizer. I would repeat willingly the insult for modern Judaizers as you.

This is my last post in this dirty thread. At least, about this you can be 100% sure.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1342
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: From Hadrian, to Barnabas, to Marcion

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:56 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:42 am

"Early" Christians, 1 Peter ? PETER ??? Are you so sure ? A 100% catholic epistle to interpret a presumed Marcionite text ? Marcion would have called Peter a bastard judaizer. I would repeat willingly the insult for modern Judaizers as you.
Irrelevant. The text makes it clear the interpretation of baptism as a continuation of the flood of Noah was indeed there, and not something I'm just making up. And if 1 Peter is following Marcion, than the Marcionites thought so as well.
This is my last post in this dirty thread. At least, about this you can be 100% sure.
The thread only became filthy after you arrived.

You're a Christian apologist, Guiseppe, as you speak lies and falsehoods as truths.
Image

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1342
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: From Hadrian, to Barnabas, to Marcion

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:00 am

Also, Catholics didn't reject Marcionism. They rejected Marcion because he caused a problem with their chronology. They incorporated his theology and texts into their fold, and Catholicism is essentially Marcionism lite.
Image

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8023
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: From Hadrian, to Barnabas, to Marcion

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:05 am

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:56 am
The text makes it clear the interpretation of baptism as a continuation of the flood of Noah was indeed there, and not something I'm just making up.
A real straw-man argument. I don't doubt at all that the stupid equation flood == baptism == water from Jesus is a Jewish thing to say. What I claim, with Turmel, is that the stupid equation appears in John but not in proto-John, as it is a bastard catholic interpolation.

Only as marginal note, before I abandon you definitely and forever to your "Marcion the Jew".

POST SCRIPTUM
The Cathars are more marcionites than your Catholics. Go distant.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1342
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: From Hadrian, to Barnabas, to Marcion

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:12 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:42 am
This is my last post in this dirty thread. At least, about this you can be 100% sure.
Oh hi, Giuseppe!

Image
Image

Post Reply