Marcian primacy is pretty obviously correct, but it cannot be accepted because it would immediately reveal that the synoptic Jesus is just a pacifist Simon Bar Kohkba telling jews to be good boys and pay shekels to Caesar. So instead we get all this obvious bullshit about Gospel of Mark being from 70CE etc.
>>18614442>Marcian primacy is pretty obviously correctWhy?
>>18614452>it's the earliest attested to gospel>expanded Luke has a range of embarrassing errors caused by inserting events and rearranging the chronology of Marcion>Justin Martyr does not mention synoptic Luke at all, nor Marcion "editing" and "changing" it>the synoptic gospels are only attested to 40 years after Gospel of Marcion, in 180CE, at which point Luke is thoroughly expanded and more sophisticated>The start of Gospel of Marcion reads like an obvious satire and takedown of Simon Bar Kohkba, written immediately after the events, and then synoptic Gospel of Luke keeps the same events but rearranges them so they lose their satirical meaning, and this is apparently done in order to reject Marcianism, by making Jesus a plainly physical person who had a childhood, etc
>>18614442Additionally, there is evidence that Acts used Josephus' Antiquities from the 90s AD, pushing it into the early 2nd century, and it may have been written by the redactor of expanded Luke.
>>18614442I looked into your fringe internet theory and found that you are basing this heavily off of the epic of Gilgamesh being like what Moses wrote, but what Moses wrote came from Adam, Noah, and Abraham. Abraham was born before the epic of Gilgamesh, and he even LIVED in air with the Chaldeans where the epic of Gilgamesh was written down in cuneiform.So basically you claimed you have undeniable proof that God doesn’t exist, saying God’s Word is damned. When all you did was tried to claim Abraham never existed because epic of Gilgamesh was written down first before Moses wrote it down.The truth is that after the flood, Mesopotamians came from Noah’s family and then went back to sin and paganism again, twisting the actual flood account. Because the flood account comes with the creation of the heavens and the earth from God, the first man, the fall, the flood, Abraham, and Moses and beyond, proves that the Bible’s timeline goes beyond Mesopotamia and egypt’s first writings. Especially since Abram WAS a Mesopotamian, like his dad Terah. All you fedoras are messing with hellfire very closely, and not realizing your mistake.You are depending your entire soul on trying to show Christian’s that their God and His Word are damned. And it’s “probably correct”Good Lord.
In fact we can even conclude that the epic of Gilgamesh is the secret Sin that Abram committed there before he left and God was forced to change his name because of his shame. The sin of people having believed a twisted account of God’s creation and flood account.
>>18615249There was no flood, it’s all a myth. The Mesopotamian version is simply the earliest version of the myth. Abraham never existed. We are not descended from an Incestuous couple. Exodus is at best based on a distorted memory of some real event, but this is not proof of the biblical exodus but rather proof against it, especially when you consider what the historical basis might have been. I recommend looking into the Hyksos, the “Shasu of Yahweh” and the rebellion of Irsu, and Manetho’s recollection of all this in his account of “Osarseph”.
>>18615255Meds. Now.
>>18614442>the synoptic Jesus is just a pacifist Simon Bar Kohkba telling jews to be good boys and pay shekels to Caesar.only to goyim, hebrews know the full context of everything he says.
>>18615594Look at what happens at the start of Gospel of Marcion, it's a fucking OBVIOUS pitch for jews to ditch Judaism after Hadrian outlawed it, and join Christianity instead as the Roman-compatible alternative:>Jesus goes to a synagogue. A conservative jew says "who the fuck are you?". Jesus expels the demon he's possessed by. The whole synagogue is converted to Christianity>Jesus goes to the home of Simon [bar Kokhba]. Simons mother-in-law [Judea] is sick with "a fever" [Bar Kokhba zealotry]. Jesus immediately fixes everything and Simons mother-in-law starts following Jesus>Jesus goes to Nazareth. He says that during the time of Elijah, God abandoned the Judaists for 3 years and 6 months [Simon bar Kohkbas revolt lasted 3 years and 6 monts!], and in the end God helped the Gentiles, not the Judaists. The jews are enraged and throw him out. But Jesus performs miracles makes them see the error of their ways and they become Christians.>Simon [bar Kohkba] has been fishing day and night [the bar Kohkba revolt] but his nets are empty [it's only led to ruin]. Jesus tells him to try again and this time his boat is overflowing with fish. Simon falls to his knees and confesses he was wrong. Jesus says "fear not, from now on you will be taking men alive". Jesus uses the word zōgreōn, which means to capture soldiers alive in battle, making the connection to Simon Bar Kohkbas war explicit. Christianity is offering another way instead of Bar Kohkbas ruinous rebellion that has only led to death.All of the Gospel of Marcion is like this, clearly targetted to the Jews and Godfearers of 135CE who have just experienced the ultimate catastrophy: Simon Bar Kohkba killed, his followers slain or enslaved, all Jews forbidden to enter Jerusalem, and the Judaist religion outlawed. At this point Christianity was the one (miniscule) sect within Judaism that had always been Rome-friendly and preached its followers be good Romans.
>>18615880Nta. Does this theory involve supposing that Peter is a purely fictional character or something? Since he's the guy you're substituing with Simon bar Kohkba, and that still seems like a really poor fit to me on the face of it. Also, do you have an article I can read about this in depth, since you say "All of the Gospel of Marcion is like this"?
>>18615981Paul never says anything about Peter/Cephas would have an alternative/birth name "Simon". That's not until the synoptic gospels and if we accept Marcian primacy, then the identification of Simon and Peter is a retrofit and reaction to Marcion.Either way, there is no way in hell a judaist audience in 135CE who gets to hear a narrative starting out with a "Simon", whos mother in law is beset with fever, who toils all night for nothing, who is forced to see the error of his way and henceforth catch men "alive", is not going to think Simon Bar Kohkba, no more than a german in 1945 being told about an "Adolf" who was taught the errors of his ways would not think Hitler.
>>18615981You can read the (reconstructed) Gospel of Marcion here http://gnosis.org/library/marcion.htm
>>18614442>>18614452Armenia turned christian...because Alexander Herods widow Glaphyra was protected by Jesus' father through a political marriage, which was the occasion which prompted Juba II to confirm John the Baptist as new high priest of the Zaducee/Essene Israelite priesthood that had previously been the Egyptian-approved high priests of Israel.Juba II had an interest in this because his Massylii tribe belonged to Siwa Amunism, and he was married to Cleopatra Selene II.Juba II was praetor (and Augustus' adoptive brother and babysitter of Gaius Caesar (son of Agrippa), like Pilate also was in Gaul before Archelaus baited him into office in Judaea, which gave him authority to appoint regional high priests.
>>18615990Simon was the single most popular Jewish male name in first century Roman Judea according to a book cited on its wikipedia page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_(given_name), while from what I can find Adolf was never an especially popular name, so I'm not sure the comparison is quite appropriate.>>18615994I meant an article about the theory, going more into all the connections that can be made. I'm aware that there are many attempted reconstructions of the gospel of Marcion, but I don't put much faith in any of them because of how speculative it is.
>>18616012Yes Simon -was- the most popular jewish name and completely collapsed in popularity post 135CE because no one wanted to be associated with Simon bar Kohziba.
Another thing is why should Judea be represented by Simon's mother-in-law instead of Simon's actual mother? Making her his actual mother would be more straightforward for the purposes of a allegory, wouldn't it? But we do know incidentally from 1 Corinthians 9:4-6 that Peter was married and so probably would have had a mother-in-law. Meanwhile I can't find much about whether Bar Kokhba had a wife.
>>18616031>completely collapsed in popularity post 135CESource?
>>18616036Lineage was obviously extremely important at the time and any claim of legitimacy had to be anchored in some claim of blood lineage, one way or another. Nations and communities were conventionally represented by women (much like today). So his "mother-in-law" is a way of saying that country or community he claims connection to but the connection is tenuous. It's basically badmouthing Bar Kohkba.
>>18616055But the connection can't have actually been tenuous if people like Rabbi Akiva thought Kokhba was the messiah, so the idea that the author is badmouthing Kokhba by implying with no basis that the connection was tenuous seems fairly random.
>>18616012>I meant an article about the theory, going more into all the connections that can be made. I'm aware that there are many attempted reconstructions of the gospel of Marcion, but I don't put much faith in any of them because of how speculative it is.I think Markus Vinzent did a lot of work on this
>>18616066Consider the alternative, making Bar Kohkba the "son" of Judea. Bar Kohkba was extremely controvercial at the time, responsible for the greatest calamity that ever befell judaists and godfearers. You cant see how if someone stakes his legitimacy on being the "grandson of Zadok" it would be poking fun at him to make him the "garderner of Zadok"? It's the same kind of rhetoric...
>>18616077If the author wanted the allegory to be understood at all as you interpret it, I don't think they would stretch important details of an already very thinly associated set of symbols like that. Simon is connected to bar Kokhba initially only by the fact that they share the most popular name in the temporal setting of the story. Simon's mother-in-law is Judea because women are sometimes used to represent nations or communities, and Simon's nation or community was Judea. A fever represents zealotry because... they're both bad? And her being immediately cured and getting up to serve Simon and Jesus represents what the author hopes would happen if Jews adopted Christianity, even though the actual Simon bar Kokhba would've been dead at the time the story was written, so Judea couldn't serve him, only Jesus. It doesn't hang together very well to me.
>>18616104Because it's not 135CE. We're standing in the middle of flattened Hiroshima and having a 1 hour sermon where "little boy" is one of the main characters. Of course "little boy" can mean pretty much anything in most contexts, but on august 7,1945 it has a particular meaning.Do you find the following fisherman story where Jesus uses military language to a pacified repentant "Simon" equally tenuous?
The three years and six months connection could be strong if the revolt truly were widely cited as lasting three years and six months and there were no tradition of Elijah's drought lasting exactly three years and six months until the gospel was written, so the specificity was the author's invention. Interestingly the OT story doesn't specify exactly three years and six months, only that in the third year of the drought Elijah was told it would end. But the exact time of three years and six months is also mentioned in James 5:17, so I don't know how certain it can be that the gospel author made it up. Of course James could have gotten it from the gospel or someone could have edited James to fit with the gospel, but they could also be working from an independent tradition or the gospel could even be getting it from James.
>>18616114Yes, partly because the actual Simon bar Kokhba would've been too dead to be repentent and willing to try something else. Maybe it should be Simon's mother in law doing the fishing for the allegory to fit, lol.And that Luke uses a word for capturing people alive in war is interesting, but I could also see it as him making an adjustment to Mark and Matthew's version of the story, where Jesus says he will make them "fishers of men," because the author of Luke was uncomfortable with the possible implication that they were going to be killing and eating people. Using a word for capturing people alive would preserve the comparison to capturing fish without making it quite as edgy.
>>18616141Also, Paul calls himself a prisoner of Christ Jesus in Philemon 1:1, and this idea is repeated in 2 Timothy 1:8, and in Ephesians 4:8 it's quoted from the psalm 68 that when Jesus "ascended on high, he led a host of captives," so the metaphorical comparison of Jesus followers' to war prisoners but in a good way could have been derived from Paul or other early Christians, not only from Kokhba. Unless you're taking for granted that Marcion invented Paul too, which I know some people do, though I don't believe that either.
>>18616141>the actual Simon bar Kokhba would've been too dead to be repentent and willing to try something else. His former followers and sympathizers were still alive, and presumably in the audience>but I could also see it as him making an adjustment to Mark and Matthew's version of the story, where Jesus says he will make them fishers of menRight, but the synoptic gospels are not attested to until 40 years later, by Irenaeus.>Using a word for capturing people alive would preserve the comparison to capturing fish without making it quite as edgy.lel what a cuck tho>>18616115Yes, the actual Bar Kohkba revolt lasted exactly three and a half years. So when Marcion has Jesus talk about that exactly right after the revolt ended the message is pretty undeniable imo
>>18615880Jews have always been pacifist, not ny problem if youre a goy who got psyopped into killing your brotherProverbs>Thoughtless words can wound as deeply as any sword, but wisely spoken words can heal.>10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
>>18616181>Right, but the synoptic gospels are not attested to until 40 years later, by IrenaeusBefore Irenaeus, Justin Martyr refers to "memoirs of the apostles" plural in Dialogue with Trypho, typically dated c. 155-160, and just looking into it briefly right now I've noticed that in chapter 105 he quotes a saying from these "memoirs" that I believe is only found in our Matthew, "Unless your righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." And in the same chapter he also quotes a saying found only in Luke/Marcion, "Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit."What did you have in mind as the earliest clear reference to the gospel Marcion used?>Yes, the actual Bar Kohkba revolt lasted exactly three and a half yearsIs there a book from around the time period saying so? Exactly that?>when Marcion has Jesus talk about that exactly right after the revolt ended the message is pretty undeniable imoI don't take for granted that Marcion wrote the gospel or that it was written right after the revolt ended thoughbeit.
>>18616247"Memories of the apostles" does not say which text(s) he's even talking about. I mean between the canonical texts purportedly written by apostles and the apocryphal ones - how many are there to chose from? Hundreds? But none are attested to by name until Irenaeus..The Bar Kohkba revolt started April 3 132CE and ended November 6 135CEhttps://imperiumromanum.pl/en/wars/bar-kokhba-revolt/
>>18615582So basically your response is “it never happened , even though I claimed I have undeniable evidence it never literally happened”Good one.Then you backpeddled to “it’s just all a myth because I believe it is a myth”.You can’t start with “the Bible is a myth, therefore it is, and when i read epic of Gilgamesh, because it sounds like the flood, that means it was plagiarized.”Abraham LIVED in Ur. Before Mesopotamia’s epic of Gilgamesh and the code of Hammurabi.If your brain is so smart, this should make it tick and connect the dots.Look up what the name Jesiah means, if you are so smart.You created an internet fringe theory by twisting the facts. This is called outright lying, and making shit up for your own religion, form a standpoint of atheism.Now who is dishonest?The Bible is more moral than the flood. I was just letting you know , this is what I found when I looked into your accusation of God’s Word. It’s damnable on your soul.So have fun, enjoy seeing what happens. Hell awaits that path. I almost believed your internet fringe theory, till I realized Moses already writes who came first by Adam, Noah, Abraham. You’re welcome. I doubt you are even realizing what I just did for you!
>>18614472The gospels Matthew Mark Luke and John are all their testaments of Jesus Christ as his disciples. It isn’t about the scholarly part. Mark is filled with “straightway, immediately, instantly” this and that happened. Each one is their written account, whether it reads like you say in reaction to the historical revolt of Bar Kohkba or not. They all are the account of Jesus Christ as witnesses. And your attempts to devalue them further as the boards are doing and claiming it’s all based on tales and myths as plagiarism just like this board post claims the ordering is wrong and “bullshit about Gospel of mark being from 70CE etc” when it was, is why I post >>18615249 Because you on this board go into Christian threads and accuse the epic of Gilgamesh coming first before Moses wrote Genesis. And because you accuse gospel of mark and Luke of “messing with things” from a purely “scholarly” viewpoint only, like Luke was trying something intentionally, when he was giving his testament account who Jesus was, all of them were. Even if it was in order. The gospel of mark is known for Jesus’ miracles and who he was. Not so you can devalue it based on timing, which was actually Specifically, Mark is generally dated around AD 70, Matthew around AD 75-85, Luke around AD 80-90, and John around AD 90-100.You ought to have addressed the apostasy on the boards first before puking out your fringe theories to try and twist the truth.
>>18616499>Abraham LIVED in Ur. Before Mesopotamia’s epic of GilgameshStrictly not true. Even if we were to use conservative estimates biblical Abraham would have lived during the period the Epic was being written down and formalized. Even if that were the case it's custom for epic poems to be passed down orally for centuries and Gilgamesh lived around 2700 BCE, so plenty of time for his legend to be born and carved down in clay tablets in the late 2000s BCE
We say Jesus Christ and we also say Christ Jesus.When my wife said to me “your name, Love me like you have never loved me before. I have red hair like your best friend. Can you ever get over my sister’s childhood promise to marry you?”It can be read in the reverse order also. Because both are true. Amen and Amen.
>>18616559Look, the synoptic gospels are nowhere to be seen until Irenaeus in 180CE, which is also the first time the forged Paulian epistles (the pastorals) happen to spring into existence.Irenaeus attacks Marcion for "cutting away a lot of parts of Luke" and for "removing letters from Paul". Tellingly non of all the anti-Marcionites ever accuse Marcion of ever adding any heresies even though he supposedly believes in two Gods where one is an evil demiurg. But somehow he never puts any of that into his forged gospel and epistles. It all reads very obviously as Marcion wrote the very first Gospel of Christianity and then there was an anti-Marcion school, which won, and that school edited Marcions gospel making it longer, they forged three Pauline letters, and then they gaslighted Marcion.
>>18616561Yes it IS true, and even Abraham’s dad Terah. Which is why Abram changed his name to Abraham. He lived in 2100 BC while the epic was in much later accounts, even to be 2000 BC. Which means they got it from Noah’s family. You are literally damning yourself and claiming you have undeniable proof on these boards. Fuck you and burn in hell for claiming you proved it. When Moses wrote it through Adam, Noah, Abraham even if it was written later. Those people and their fathers and Creator has purpose and reason for why it goes back in time, while the epic of Gilgamesh doesn’t.With that said, have fun enjoy hell.
Lastly, believe whatever you want, but if you come into my threads any longer claiming Christianity and God undeniably was proven by the Bible to be false, fuck you. Eventually i will call the police and you will be in prison, or I will kill you in self defense depending how this goes irl of trying to twist and lie and create false timelines and narratives. Either tell the truth or fuck off. Basically your people and your ilk are trying to make it legal to kill real christians and this is your warning the government is going to be putting you in prison for your threats for this. Detected, hands caught red handed.Other than that, enjoy your antichrist religion.
I.e. Yes I did just curse you to your face in Jesus Christ’s name conditionally if you attempt this shit.And will continue to do so in that condition of crossing boundaries.Otherwise enjoy your antichrist religion. God bless as long as you stay over there.
>>18616583>Lastly, believe whatever you want, but if you come into my threads any longer claiming Christianity and God undeniably was proven by the Bible to be false, fuck you. Eventually i will call the police and you will be in prison, or I will kill you in self defenseLmao
>>18616583>>18616586>>18616593Is this the Christian equivalent of spamming a thread with scat porn, gore and cp when you dont like the contents?
>>18616499Exodus never happened, full stop. Archeologists have excavated Egypt for a century and a half and have found zero proof for the biblical exodus happening. It’s peculiar since a lot of other things foreigners in antiquity said about Egypt got proven correct, even insane stuff claimed by Herodotus (a man known for making a lot of other stuff up btw) ended up being proven correct about many of his claims regarding Egypt down to the last detail somehow. But not once have they found any proof for the Biblical Exodus.The only response to any of this by apologetics like you is “Egypt didn’t record their losses,” but we don’t just rely on propaganda steles as Ancient Egypt left behind vast quantities of everyday administrative records, legal papyri, letters, and domestic receipts. Exodus describes the sudden death of all firstborn sons, the total collapse of the agrarian workforce, the loss of an entire chariot army, and the devastation of the economy via the Ten Plagues. If the Exodus did happen, the catastrophic fallout would inevitably ripple into day-to-day administrative paperwork, grain supplies, and military rosters. No such disruptions exist in the records around the time period the Exodus supposedly took place.Plus we don’t just have a lack of evidence for exodus, we have contradictory evidence as according to the biblical timeline, the Exodus happened during the later half of the New Kingdom period and archaeology shows this exact era was the absolute peak of Egyptian imperial power, economic power, and aggressive military expansion. The country shows no signs of a society recovering from total infrastructural collapse.
>>18616760It's a pretty consistent trope used by the ancient canaanites/yahwist that instead of having to admit that they were occupied and that their God was "beaten" instead they were taken to "exile" because God was angry.Gods in this era were very local, very physical, lived in a little chest that was physically carried into war carried on poles, and when one side won it was considered that their God had been shown the more powerful one. So we see these contortions explaining why "Our God wasnt actually beaten, but angry".They were absolutely ruled over by the Egyptians and there absolutely came a time when that rule fell (the Bronze Age collapse) which is on some level what Exodus is some kind of memory of, but it had nothing to do with being in exile, fleeing exile, and wandering through the desert for a hundred years or whatever. The Canaanites stayed right where they were.
Bump
>>18614442Yeah, then fuckers gonna claim that Jesus was crucified because He incited people to revolt against Caesar and not because the pharisees hated Him for uncovering their frauds and bringing people nearer to God with His teaching. Because He told the Hebrews to keep paying their taxes and be righteous in their earthly relationship with the Roman administration now some say that He only called people to be submissive to earthly authority when He called people to be faithful to GodThese lies are evident to anyone who tries to have understanding of the Scripture
>>18614442>Gospel of Mark being from 70CE etcIt's disputed by no-one that Mark was being actively edited, and not finalized, into ~400. But you'll have to drag it out of the Christians who are pushing the "70 AD" dating, they'll only admit it if you already know it, otherwise they'll keep pushing their "no this language sounds like someone translated it from a galilean fisherman, so it's quite clearly 1st century" bullshit
>>18615582nobody thinks the Hykos are the jews from the exodus in the big 26 my man. If anything the exodus is a syncretic telling of multiple events occurring over a large timeline, which may or may not include the hykos expulsion, which itself might be in the 'middle' of the timeline of the various groups.
