| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Seymour MacNicely" |
| Date: |
02 Sep 2007 05:09:03 PM |
| Object: |
The 4th Gospel: a Gnostic Forgery? |
Today on C-SPAN II, this week's "In Depth" discussion with Christopher
Hitchens at one point gave the man cause to mention a few words about
the notorious heretic Marcion, and it came in context with his
contention that the New Testament is even more 'evil' than the Old,
this assessment being held quite in reverse, he was given to note, to
that of Marcion who denied that the 'evil god' Jehovah could be the
Father of Christ Jesus. It now gives reason to restate, with somewhat
more clarity I hope, a few matters expressed in a reply
yesterday . . .
--
So this 'Jesus' created of the Marcionite imagination, whether by
Marcion himself, or more likely amplified and carried forth by him as
a legacy inherited from his father in heresy, that 'devil', Cerdo (of
Syria)--it matters not, for both of these, Cerdo and Marcion are one,
by definition, in Antichrist, as also they are joined at furry thigh
and cloven hoof in that anti-Semitic forgery of the late 1st Century,
the so-called "Gospel According to John," the number and name for the
authors of which are no doubt, Legion.
But the fathers of the Church had known this from the beginning, for
Marcion, like Cerdo had been positioned high in the hierarchy at Rome
before falling, as it would have been seen, after their father Lucifer
into the fire of their heresies. But by then alas, it was too late!
Their literary product, the "Fourth Gospel" like the proverbial cat
was already out of the ecclesiastical bag being already published
abroad among not a few of the churches, as indeed the earliest known
manuscript for which, unearthed from some corner of the ceiling of
Hell, in Egypt, is believed to date from sometime around the last
decade of the 1st century, if not the first of the 2nd.
Henceforth, much of the tradition of Ante-Nicene patristic writing
became an exercise in the art of closing the barn door after the goats
got out. Observe the method in action . . .
[15] Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
[16] And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but
I and
the Father that sent me.
--John 8:15,16
Get it? No snake could have wriggled out of the contradiction any the
more sneakily-- but vellum and parchment were expensive and it had to
be made right, as often it could, by addition of one more verse. It is
just such a neat little typical trick in the serpentine rhetoric of
gnostic homiletics.
But despite the ravings of Cerdo, and Marcion after him, it was
Cerinthus, yet another great Gnostic heresiarch for whom, contrarily
the name of Jehovah, and the Jewish Law continued to be sacred! While
yet, for him it was only the Creation itself that was dirty and
beneath the dignity of God. It was such a noble prejudice, so very
patrician in its attitude, that any Being so regal, so majestically
well born, so blue-blooded as a god should ever have to work? Heaven
forefend! No, not even in the act of creation, for so many as six days
out of an eternity would be six days far too many. Never! Roman slaves
had been created (or made) for such a purpose--certainly not their
gods.
There was just something about this Hebrew notion of a god who works
that struck the high-born Greek/Asiatic sensibility as being quite
strictly boorish, or which is to say, much too "Jewish". So the
problem for these spoiled silly, silver-spoon-fed Gnostic brats of the
purple Roman cloth was how to construct for Jesus some other father.
That was the trick, and for Marcion, entirely what it came down to.
Much as the Gentiles were enticed and enthralled by the Dionysian
attributes of Jesus as Paul had taught him, even so, something simply
had to be done about that all too shopkeeperish looking Father of his.
For Cerinthus, it was not nearly quite so conceited, bigoted and
uncircumcised of mind as all that, his reason for making Creation the
production of lower angels in demiurgic function. For him, the problem
was one of strict Pauline dualism--a spirit versus flesh problem. In
any case, other Greek Gnostics were having a hard time to tell him
from a Jewish Ebionite, indeed Cerinthus it was, against whom,
tradition says, the 4th Gospel was written, and that makes every bit
of sense--from the standpoint of a Marcion, or any other raging
antinomian of an arch docetic in the works at Rome, like Cerdo his
father in Antichrist--as according to the definition of an antichrist
by the real John, the Presbyter John, author of the three epistles,
wherein the matter is defined and addressed . . .
[3] And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in
the
flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye
have
heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. I
John
4:3
One of the most essential doctrines of Gnostic teaching, nearly all
across the board but especially in the doctrines of docetics like
Marcion is that Jesus was made of the spirit and not of the flesh. For
this reason, the 4th Gospel has absolutely nothing to say concerning
the nativity. It says nothing more than that "the Word was made
flesh." And what is meant to be understood by that is that the Word
was made to *appear* as flesh. The first chapter of the 4th Gospel
begins . . .
1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word
was God.
[2] The same was in the beginning with God.
[3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing
made that
was made.
The "Word" is the *Logos*. The Logos, better translated is "the
Reason". It means a lot more than just 'word'. It means that Jesus was
the Reason, or i.e. the 'thinking', the Meaning and the Purpose that
was with God from the beginning. But as it also says . . .
[3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing
made that
was made . . .
This means that Christ is the physics, the chemistry, and the biology
by which all things were made. Moreover, in this sense, in His
relation to God the Father, Jesus is the 'good demiurge' of Cerinthus.
Allegorically speaking then, it is not the Father who works, but the
Son, through whose Reason the worlds are created. And further, it is
through his 'work' in the flesh, through his teachings, and his self-
sacrifice on the cross, all the more that God's Purpose for man is
made known . . .
4] In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
[5] And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended
it not.
Man is left in the dark with Jesus' blood on his hands, in the cup
that he sips, asking still in our thirst, what is the meaning? What
was the purpose?
Well! When you are left standing in a light so bloody bright as Pure
Reason, Meaning and Purpose, you are blinded by such an intensity of
illumination. And somehow it just doesn't quite dawn on you that just
knowing so much as this is knowing quite entirely enough. All man
needs to get on with his life is to know that there is a reason,
meaning and purpose for it, that Creation happens, your own personal
existence comes into being for a reason that has been expressed in the
drama of the life of God's Son.
Of course there is meaning there! If everybody would take it into his
or her mind to live according to the Word that came of Christ,
everybody would be nice to each other, violence would disappear from
the earth, people would lose all their fear of each other, trust would
be golden, charity would abound--but fat chance for that!
Even so, as Kierkegaard put it down in his journals, the very fact
that He was here to bring his definition for what is good into the
world was enough to make at least some semblance of civilization
possible. For more than that, it can only devolve down to one's own
life and sphere of relations. All any person needs to obtain a greater
balance of happiness over grief in his life is to know (or at least
have faith) that something good is meant to come of it all; something
from God, something from the very beginning from before the worlds
were created.
So anyway, unlike that *sola fide* antinomian, anti-Semitic heretic
Luther with his hatred of the Epistle of James, I do not sit here
proposing to tear the 4th Gospel from the spine of every Bible.
Hardly. Clearly, the Church, in its time, had found the way to make of
the text of it something far more in line with an orthodox
epistemology than otherwise would have come of the rough prejudices of
its Gnostic origins. I surely doubt, and very strongly so, that the
text of this Gospel as we have it now, so very well put in order and
straightened out by this fine preface at the beginning of the first
chapter, is anything like what it would have been originally. We know,
for example, that the account of the Woman Taken in Adultery, in the
earliest extant Codex (Sinaiticus?) had that story in the Gospel
According to Luke.
So, the original Marcionite production of 'John' is not entirely this
John. Even so, much of the original anti-nomian and anti-Semitic
polemic remains, not only in John but also in Matthew, Luke, Acts,
much of the Pauline canon, as most notably in Galatians, Titus,
Timothy (I & II), II Corinthians--such content is in them. But, as the
earliest recensions of the texts were being edited by the fathers,
mainly at Alexandria, you can be sure that changes were being made,
glosses were being added into the text itself to defuse such
utterances so as to make, such as they would suppose, the Gnostic
poison inert. This was an art not of taking things out, but of adding
things in. So you get both; you get a kind of esoteric, or hidden
Gemara on the Mishnah, and reading the New Testament is an art of
learning to discern which is which. Once you've read it more than just
a few times through, so that a memory of what you've gleaned is a
fairly complete database of all that's there, then you know. You know
the wheat from the chaff.
This has been a digression from the original text as written here, so
here's getting back to brass exegetical tacks . . . -- Whereas the
contradictory assertion by the Alogi (a later heretical sect of the
2nd or 3rd century) that it was he, Cerinthus who had written "John"
and "Revelation"--this must be considered, if possible, to be the case
only in part, for indeed, maybe it was he who wrote that lovely
preface--but as to much of rest? Utterly impossible! Let the
Marcionite tone of the text in the 8th chapter prove it . . .
[33] They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in
bondage to
any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
[34] Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever
committeth sin is the servant of sin.
--John 8:33,34
Never in bondage to any man. What--the Hebrews? Verily, Verily, I say
unto you, "Whoever it was, whether Cerdo or Marcion, who wrote that
utterly ignorant lie is surely lone gone to Hell to be with his
father, the Pope or Pastor of it."
Good night. Never in bondage to any man? How people can sit there and
read a thing like that and not have the sense to see right through it
is only a reflection of their idolatry and cowardice.
And as to this contention of Fedallah . . .
A Marcionite reading would be one where Yahweh is the father of
*EVERYONE.*
Indeed? Then certainly a Marcionite would have him or her one hard
time with something like this, again from the *8th chapter . . .
[37] I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me,
because my
word hath no place in you.
[38] I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that
which ye
have seen with your father.
Jesus has one father, the Jews another. And if Fedallah is right about
what a Marcionite 'reading' in this is, then just as he says . . .
You can't claim both simultaneously without contradicting yourself.
But never fear! For Mackie would never be trapped in a snare of such
transparently tricky construction. F's assertion that "a Marcionite
reading would be one where Yahweh is the father of *EVERYONE*," can
arise not from texts, not from tradition but only from the faulty view
that Jehovah, being Creator of everything, is by necessity of that,
also the 'father' of everything. But now we shall see how it is
strictly one thing to be 'father' and utterly another to be Creator.
By F's reasoning, as fatherhood is somehow made universal and not
particular, not a matter of choosing, and a special begetting of the
Chosen, it would be willy-nilly, across the board, broad as creation
itself, and Jehovah would be father not only to the Jews and the
Norwegians but as according to the "Jesus" of the 4th Gospel, Father
also to "their father the Devil."
It is one thing to be the objective creator of evil and the Devil, and
quite another to be the loving, caring Father of Evil and the Devil.
The office of God the creator is not by any means the same as the
office of God, the Father.
And, in any case, for Marcion, Yahweh wasn't the devil . . .
That statement made on pure authority of nothing, and of no more
substance than the spume of your own mouth is altogether so full of
sheer caprice as not to rate comment.
so a Marcionite reading wouldn't really pan out either, if you decided to
settle on that one.
Har! Read on MacBluff, and dig very closely down to every single
little word of it, for if these are not the words of your darling
heresiarch Marcion, then they can only be those of the writer that he
came to Rome to represent in a then little known so-called 'gospel'
that he meant, by his riches to publish through all the Roman
world . . .
[37] I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me,
because my word hath no place in you.
{Lies! Only the highest ranking, swanky rich envious swine of priests
in the Sanhedrin wanted to kill Jesus--not the "Jews," not the "Seed
of Abraham."}
[38] I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that
which ye have seen with your father.
{And what is this slander? That their Father is not Jehovah? No! For
in the view of Marcion, their Father *is* Jehovah, the low Demiurge,
but the father of Jesus is an Unknown God--and *that* is Marcionism,
totally.}
[39] They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus
saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works
of Abraham.
{Which they indeed are doing! if this so-called 'Jesus' word is true,
or if this writer, this "John" knew his Torah--what else but that they
should seek to kill him, even as Abraham did with his only son Isaac,
as begotten of his own wife, Sarah? Indeed they do the works of their
father, Abraham.}
[40] But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth,
which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
{What 'did not Abraham'? Abraham did not seek to kill somebody? He
sought to kill his own beloved son, in obedience to the word of God.
What 'did not Abraham'? Where does it say that Abraham did not tell
the truth which he had heard of God? Abraham twice told lies that he
heard from his own mind to two separate big shots, a king of Canaan
and the Pharaoh of Egypt, when he introduced Sarai as his "sister".
But as to anything Abraham ever heard of God--of this there is nothing
on record to show that he ever held back or misrepresented any such
word from God. The content of verse 40 is absolutely meaningless.}
[41] Ye do the deeds of your father.
{Contradiction! Now the Jews do do the deeds of their father. This so-
called 'Jesus' should make up his mind.}
Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one
Father, even God.
{Apparently, Cerdo or Marcion had got wind of that scuttlebutt going
around among the rabbis about Jesus being the ***** son of a Roman
centurion, got of his Jewish prostitute mother, Mary?}
[42] Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father . . .
{He clears up his meaning as to who the 'father' is in verse 41.
Abraham is no longer the 'father' in question, but God.}
.. . . ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God;
neither came I of myself, but he sent me. [43] Why do ye not
understand my speech?
{Clearly because the Jews have been predestined to burn in hell.}
.. . . even because ye cannot hear my word. [44] Ye are of your father
the devil . . .
[See?}
.. . . and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from
the beginning . . .
{That doesn't mean Abraham. That means Jehovah.}
and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he
speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own . . .
{the Jews. Strictly, the Jews.}
.. . . for he is a liar, and the father of it.
--
The Jews have the devil, the Demiurge for a father, and the name of
that demiurge is Jehovah.
That is Marcionism. There is no other.
--
Mackie
http://www.mackiemesser.zoomshare.com/0.html
http://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
| User: "Kater Moggin" |
|
| Title: Re: The 4th Gospel: a Gnostic Forgery? |
02 Sep 2007 11:20:11 PM |
|
|
Mac the Nice <mac_the_nice@bigstring.com>:
....
I see Mac's once again inserted a tendentious subject-line.
Evidently he's afraid that his evidence and arguments are
unable to stand on their own. Reading ahead it becomes obvious
his fears are well-founded.
Easy to see where this is going-
Especially since it's a re-play of an earlier conversation
where Mac attacked Marcion while demonstrating severe
ignorance of the evidence about him. Mac began with the notion
Marcion was the head of gnosticism: already wrong, since
gnostics were separated into many different schools without any
'gnostic Pope' above them.
Then Mac moved along, misattributing the Sethian depiction
of a "crazed, evil creator" to Marcion, who questions the
Creator's goodness w/out labeling him insane. He also insisted
Marcion wrote _Titus_ and _John_, not realizing both are
missing from Marcion's canon, the oldest known NT, and answered
-- when I pointed out what he overlooked -- by demanding I
"present the text of Marcion": a howler, since Marcion's ideas
survive entirely in other materials like Tertullian's
attempted refutation. His own work has been lost for the large
part of two millennia.
Speaking of what's missing, Mac never offered even a scrap
of evidence from the sources showing Marcion attacking the
Jews as a group, leaving his claim of M's anti-Semitism totally
unsupported.
[John 8:15-16]
So this 'Jesus' created of the Marcionite imagination--whether by Marcion
Mac likes making his failures into assumptions. Unable to
find any evidence backing his assertion Marcion was an
anti-Semite, Mac argued he wrote the Gospel of John in order to
blame him for the anti-Semitic verses there. But Mac
fucked-up that project by confessing he had nothing more to say
than Joseph Turmel, who limits his speculation to dual
authorship, claiming John includes both Catholic and Marcionite
themes.
But despite the ravings of Cerdo, and Marcion after him, it was Cerinthus,
yet another great Gnostic heresiarch for whom, contrarily the name of
Jehovah, and the Jewish Law continued to be sacred! While yet, for him it
was only the Creation itself that was dirty and beneath the dignity of God.
Mac is confusing Cerinthus with the Ebionites. The source
he quoted earlier, Irenaeus' _Adv. Haer._, discusses them
together, apparently leading Mac to jumble their different ways
of thinking. Cerinthus isn't said to respect either the
Creator of this world or the law he imposed. The opposite: he
teaches the Creation was the work of low angels and he
considers the law their doing, too. By contrast, the Ebionites
-- not a gnostic group -- worship Yahweh, believe that his
world is a divine creation, and consider his laws binding. See
Irenaeus, AH 1.26:1-2.
There was just something about this Hebrew notion of a god who works that
struck the high-born Greek/Asiatic sensibility as being quite strictly
boorish, or which is to say, much too "Jewish".
Heh. The concept of the Demiurge comes from Greek
philosophy, namely Plato's _Timaeus_. And the saying "much too
'Jewish'" is Mackie's own contribution, quite possibly
indicating where the anti-Semitism he imagines in Marcion comes
from.
So the problem for these
spoiled silly, silver-spoon-fed Gnostic brats of the purple Roman cloth was
More of Mac's ignorance. If gnosticism is associated with
any one locale, it would be Alexandria. In fact the Dads
assert Cerinthus learned from the Egyptians. Harnack's formula
is "acute Hellenization." And Marcion, Mackie's original
target, was from Sinope, a city on the Black Sea, also Diogones'
hometown.
how to construct for Jesus some other father. That was the trick, and for
Marcion, entirely what it came down to.
That is Mac's one trick, entirely what it comes down to in
his posts: argument-by-assertion. Although to be fully
honest I have to admit that he has other kinds of trickery, too.
other Greek Gnostics were having a hard time to tell him from a Jewish
Ebionite
Pure projection for pop people. Mac gets himself mixed up
about Cerinthus and the Ebionites, posts his confusion as
though it were the gospel truth, then insists some unidentified
gnostics had trouble dividing the two.
indeed Cerinthus it was, against whom, tradition says, the 4th
Gospel was written, and that makes every bit of sense--from the standpoint
Tradition assigns the authorship of the 4th Gospel to John
and passes along a story saying he "rushed out of the
bath-house without bathing" when he noticed Cerinthus was there.
Why? Because he was afraid that Cerinthus' presence would
make the place collapse, crushing him along with the heresiarch.
Irenaeus, AH 3.3.4.
If the Gospel of John was written against Cerinthus -- all
speculation, of course -- its intentions were also aimed
against Marcion, since he too rejected both the Creator and the
Creator's law.
[1 John 4:3]
1 John 4:3 insists on Jesus' fleshiness -- contrary to the
Marcionite perspective -- but on the other hand 1 John 5:4
says "the whole world is in the power of the evil one," an idea
very much in keeping with gnosticism, with the standard
qualification about the many gnostic schools, differences among
and within them, etc.
One of the most essential doctrines of Gnostic teaching, nearly all across
the board but especially in the doctrines of docetics like Marcion is that
Jesus was made of the spirit and not of the flesh.
Docetism isn't essential to gnosticism, but it's a typical
feature of gnostic thinking. The Johannine writings are
anti-docetist, claiming that anybody who denies the incarnation
"is not of God" as well as depicting the resurrected Jesus
commanding Thomas, a skeptic, to see his hands, feel his wounds
and believe. John 20.
For this reason, the 4th
Gospel has absolutely nothing to say concerning the nativity. It says
nothing more than that "the Word was made flesh."
Um, no. Claiming the Word was made flesh already diverges
from docetism, but the Gospel of John doesn't stop where
Mackie apparently quit reading. Instead it contends that Jesus
was flesh even after his resurrection. John 20 pictures
Thomas doubting and Jesus inviting him to "behold my hands; and
reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be
not faithless, but believing" (John 20:27) -- the very opposite
of docetist christology.
So anyway, unlike that *sola fide* antinomian, anti-Semitic heretic Luther
Unlike Luther, Marcion wasn't an anti-Semite, according to
the existing evidence. Luther's writing contains plainly
anti-Semitic remarks, but nothing in the sources backs up Mac's
accusation against Marcion.
Clearly, the Church,
in its time, had found the way to make of the text of it something far more
in line with an orthodox epistemology than otherwise would have come of the
rough prejudices of its Gnostic origins.
Clearly the Gospel of John contains orthodox prejudices as
well as gnostic ones. Since Christian orthodoxy has a
notoriously anti-Semitic history, it's easy to figure what more
than likely goes with which.
[John 8:37-38]
Jesus has one father, the Jews another.
Mac is playing tricks again, and not even intelligent ones.
To Marcion all earthly beings are Yahweh's creatures, so
verses claiming Jews are from the devil argue against Marcion's
authorship.
Jesus is a heavenly being, not an earthly one in Marcion's
understanding.
That statement made on pure authority of nothing, and of no more substance
A good description of Mac's meaningless arguments from his
non-authority. I supplied chapter and verse demonstrating
Yahweh and Satan are two different people to Marcion during the
last run through: Tertullian, AM 2.28, where Marcion
reportedly awards Yahweh responsibility for permitting "sin and
death, and the author of sin too--the devil," implying that the
devil and Yahweh are not the same. So if John identifies
Yahweh with the devil, then it's at odds with Marcion's outlook
in doing so.
of it, for if these are not the words of your darling heresiarch Marcion
Again, none of Marcion's own writings have survived. He's
known only through other sources, e.g. Tertullian's
five-volume polemic against him, the account in Irenaeus, so on
and so forth.
The Jews have the devil, the Demiurge for a father, and the name of that
demiurge is Jehovah. That is Marcionism.
That was Mac's reading of the Gospel of John, which places
the relevant passages directly in conflict with Marcion's
outlook (Mackie's unwitting destruction of his own case), since
Marcion divides Yahweh from Satan rather than equating them
and he thinks all earthly beings are Yahweh's creatures instead
of assigning the Jews to Satan.
There is no other.
In other words, Mac's picture of "Marcion" totally ignores
the historical evidence about him, which shows Marcion
distinguished Yahweh from the devil and believed that everybody
on earth -- aside from visitors -- belonged to Yahweh: in
both cases precisely the opposite of what Mackie is claiming to
be true.
-- Moggin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mac the Nice" |
|
| Title: Re: The 4th Gospel: a Gnostic Forgery? |
03 Sep 2007 02:03:05 AM |
|
|
"Kater Moggin" <kimmerian@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:kimmerian-48AAB7.00162103092007@news.verizon.net...
Mac the Nice <mac_the_nice@bigstring.com>:
...
I see Mac's once again inserted a tendentious subject-line.
Evidently he's afraid that his evidence and arguments are
unable to stand on their own. Reading ahead it becomes obvious
his fears are well-founded.
Easy to see where this is going-
Mac began with the notion
Marcion was the head of gnosticism . . .
But the record of these conversations will show no such assertion.
Then Mac moved along, misattributing the Sethian depiction
of a "crazed, evil creator" to Marcion . . .
I hold to the assertions of Irenaeus--despite the hatchet job of
hair-splitting by fiat of less than literal translations that followed.
He also insisted
Marcion wrote _Titus_ and _John_, not realizing both are
missing from Marcion's canon, the oldest known NT . . .
Okay, say that I've been in error to make these assertions, that I've been
attributing to the name of one heretic the authorship for all the
(monstrously obvious) docetic, antinomian and anti-Semitic content of the
New Testament. Your point about the absence of the said 'books' from
Marcion's canon would indeed bear strong evidence, if not conclusive proof
toward that point.
Nevertheless, I continue to hold that the powerful influence of Marcion,
Cerdo and other Gnostics of their evil, Jew-baiting stripe can be shown
conclusively from those two texts (Titus and John) to have crept mightily
not only into the New Testament as we still have it, but into the
epistemology of the orthodoxy also as we still have it, not only at Rome,
and as you properly point out, Alexandria, but right on up through the
Crusades, the Inquisition, the Lutheran Reformation and hence therefore from
that, the rise of the Nazi Third Reich in Germany, this to the most
diabolically desolate effect to show forth the 'humor' of its murderously
antinomian irony in that infamous inscription over the gate to Hitler's
Auschwitz--or would Marcion Luther's little *sola fide* Antichrist joke in
that still be lost upon some?
Yes, it might as well have been a last and final posthumous addition to the
Ninety-Nine Theses of Martin Luther, that wrought iron inscription, for it
certainly suited his style of humor to throw a thing like that at the Jews,
that "by their works they would be saved", or which is the same, "Arbeit
Macht Frei".
It all comes down to one thing, Faith versus Works. James versus Paul.
Marcion versus the Ebionites and not to mention versus the dear, sainted
Justin Martyr who may well have been one of Marcion's first victims--given
such influence as he may well have had at the Imperial Roman court, for all
we know. And by 'his', again I mean of Antichrist; and by Antichrist, I mean
Marcion/Luther/Hitler, that 'spirit', as John wrote, which is "with us even
today," in every church from whose pulpit is still read the news from the
4th Gospel, by the mouth of "Christ" that the Devil is the Father of the
Jews.
I tell you that the holocaust needed *no other* origin than that, from the
doctrines of the heresiarch and Antichrist, Marcion, as that 2nd Century
forgery known as the "Gospel According the John" was written under prime
influence of his thinking, and that of the other Gnostic devils who came
before and after him.
--
Mackie
http://www.mackiemesser.zoomshare.com/0.html
http://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
--
..............................................................
Posted thru AtlantisNews - Explore EVERY Newsgroup <
http://www.AtlantisNews.com -- Lightning Fast!!! <
Access the Most Content * No Limits * Best Service <
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kater Moggin" |
|
| Title: Re: The 4th Gospel: a Gnostic Forgery? |
03 Sep 2007 02:18:14 PM |
|
|
Mac the Nice <mac_the_nice@bigstring.com>:
Okay, say that I've been in error to make these assertions, that I've been
Mackie is more than merely "in error" and his mistakes are
not just speculative, what-if-I'm-wrong slip-ups: his
claims about both gnosticism and the Gospel of John are clearly
contradicted by the evidence -- so much so that Mac's
assertions are self-indictments making him into a preening fool.
Take his claim that Marcion wrote John and Titus: Mac had
no idea both those writings are missing from Marcion's own
canon, the oldest known NT, and made matters worse by demanding
me to "present the text of Marcion": a true howler, since
none of Marcion's work has survived. He's known _only_ through
others' accounts and commentary.
More: Mac unwittingly destroyed his argument that Marcion
is the author of the Gospel of John, first by resting his
confidence on Joseph Turmel, who confines to his conclusions to
dual authorship, Catholic as well as Marcionite, then by
citing verses directly at odds with Marcion's reported position.
In Mac's reading, John 8:15-16, John 8:37-38 and John 8:44
argue that the father of the Jews is the devil and that the
devil is Yahweh. By contrast, Marcion considered _all_ earthly
beings Yahweh's creatures instead of assigning the Jews to
Satan and distinguished Yahweh from the devil while criticizing
the both of them, blaming Yahweh for "sin and death, and the
author of sin too - the devil" (I'm quoting from Tertullian, AM
2.28) rather than equating the two.
Or consider Mac's statement he's going by Irenaeus when he
blathers about the supposedly "crazed, evil" demiurge in
Marcion's theology. Not so. That idea _does_ appear elsewhere
in gnosticism (it's part of Sethian myth), but Irenaeus
doesn't attribute it to Marcion. The only thing Mac could come
up with was the expression "infirm of purpose" --
significantly not "infirm of mind" -- that precedes a reference
to Yahweh's inconsistency. AH 1.27.2.
Mac did just as badly with the canonical NT, frex labeling
2 Corinthians "a rejection of all things Jewish in the
synoptic tradition" (2 Cor. 11:22: "Are they Hebrews? so am I.
Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of
Abraham? so am I") and arguing that the Gospel of John teaches
docetism -- i.e., rejects the notion Jesus was flesh and
blood -- by asserting "It says nothing more than that 'the Word
was made flesh.'" Apparently Mac never noticed the scene
where the resurrected Jesus tells Thomas, the skeptic, to touch
him and believe. John 20.
And let's recall that Mac's original accusation, the claim
Marcion was an anti-Semite, is still totally unsupported by
evidence from the sources, which so far as I know never contend
he attacked the Jews as a group. Mac was foolish enough to
compare him to Luther, which brought out the difference between
them: Luther's writings contain clearly anti-Semitic
statements -- a theme in Christian orthodoxy that dates back to
ancient times -- while nothing in the evidence backs up
Mackie's assertion about Marcion. Mac was bullshitting, is all.
Justin Martyr who may well have been one of Marcion's first victims--given
such influence as he may well have had at the Imperial Roman court, for all
we know.
More of Mac's bull. There's zero evidence the Marcionites
martyred anyone or had anyone martyred, despite his
insinuations. They're reported to have _been_ martyred (by the
Romans, of course, ruining Mac's natter about influence in
Rome), not to have done the same to anybody else. His
accusation is based on a lie, just like the ones that he tossed
before.
-- Moggin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mac the Nice" |
|
| Title: Re: The 4th Gospel: a Gnostic Forgery? |
10 Sep 2007 04:48:17 PM |
|
|
"Kater Moggin" <kimmerian@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:kimmerian-9E5507.15142303092007@news.verizon.net...
Mac the Nice <mac_the_nice@bigstring.com>:
Okay, say that I've been in error to make these assertions, that I've
been
Mackie is more than merely "in error" . . .
Right. He is or must most certainly be, as Terry Southern would put it, some
kind of 'deviated prevert'--and this which follows proves it!
and his mistakes are
not just speculative, what-if-I'm-wrong slip-ups: his
claims about both gnosticism and the Gospel of John are clearly
contradicted by the evidence -- so much so that Mac's
assertions are self-indictments making him into a preening fool.
Here I was just getting around to gaining liberation (if not salvation) in
comfort of the insight that "it takes one to know one"--when suddenly, I
recalled something from a play of Oscar Wilde . . .
LORD GORING (Leaning back with his hands in his pockets). Well, the English
can't stand a man who is always saying he is in the right, but they are very
fond of a man who admits that he has been in the wrong. It is one of the
best things in them. However, in your case, Robert, a confession would not
do. The money, if you will allow me to say so, is... awkward. Besides, if
you did make a clean breast of the whole affair, you would never be able to
talk morality again. And in England a man who can't talk morality twice a
week to a large, popular, immoral audience is quite over as a serious
politician. There would be nothing left for him as a profession except
Botany or the Church. A confession would be of no use. It would ruin you.
--Oscar Wilde *An Ideal Husband*
Will there be any end to Mackie's shame, and the degradation that must now
follow fast upon it?
--
Mackie
http://whosenose.blogspot.com
http://doo-dads.blogspot.com/
http://www.mackiemesser.zoomshare.com/0.html
http://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
P.S. What follows hereafter is constructed *for the most part* of nothing
but prattle based on distortions of the record in false or mistaken
interpretations of it which, though these would be most easily dismissed at
the merest twist of a wrist, it certainly strikes one--character of the
present company considered--as ever and always as all too often before, an
exercise in futility. Or as Kater Moggin would put it, some kind of "non
sequitor".
We should be content to allow the dear boy always, as he allows himself, to
be in the right--even at great hazard of what the English would think of him
for it.
--
Take his claim that Marcion wrote John and Titus: Mac had
no idea both those writings are missing from Marcion's own
canon, the oldest known NT . . .
Which would not, all in itself prove anything except that they were not in
his canon--not that he hadn't authored
, and made matters worse by demanding
me to "present the text of Marcion": a true howler, since
none of Marcion's work has survived. He's known _only_ through
others' accounts and commentary.
More: Mac unwittingly destroyed his argument that Marcion
is the author of the Gospel of John, first by resting his
confidence on Joseph Turmel, who confines to his conclusions to
dual authorship, Catholic as well as Marcionite, then by
citing verses directly at odds with Marcion's reported position.
In Mac's reading, John 8:15-16, John 8:37-38 and John 8:44
argue that the father of the Jews is the devil and that the
devil is Yahweh. By contrast, Marcion considered _all_ earthly
beings Yahweh's creatures instead of assigning the Jews to
Satan and distinguished Yahweh from the devil while criticizing
the both of them, blaming Yahweh for "sin and death, and the
author of sin too - the devil" (I'm quoting from Tertullian, AM
2.28) rather than equating the two.
Or consider Mac's statement he's going by Irenaeus when he
blathers about the supposedly "crazed, evil" demiurge in
Marcion's theology. Not so. That idea _does_ appear elsewhere
in gnosticism (it's part of Sethian myth), but Irenaeus
doesn't attribute it to Marcion. The only thing Mac could come
up with was the expression "infirm of purpose" --
significantly not "infirm of mind" -- that precedes a reference
to Yahweh's inconsistency. AH 1.27.2.
Mac did just as badly with the canonical NT, frex labeling
2 Corinthians "a rejection of all things Jewish in the
synoptic tradition" (2 Cor. 11:22: "Are they Hebrews? so am I.
Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of
Abraham? so am I") and arguing that the Gospel of John teaches
docetism -- i.e., rejects the notion Jesus was flesh and
blood -- by asserting "It says nothing more than that 'the Word
was made flesh.'" Apparently Mac never noticed the scene
where the resurrected Jesus tells Thomas, the skeptic, to touch
him and believe. John 20.
And let's recall that Mac's original accusation, the claim
Marcion was an anti-Semite, is still totally unsupported by
evidence from the sources, which so far as I know never contend
he attacked the Jews as a group. Mac was foolish enough to
compare him to Luther, which brought out the difference between
them: Luther's writings contain clearly anti-Semitic
statements -- a theme in Christian orthodoxy that dates back to
ancient times -- while nothing in the evidence backs up
Mackie's assertion about Marcion. Mac was bullshitting, is all.
Justin Martyr who may well have been one of Marcion's first
victims--given
such influence as he may well have had at the Imperial Roman court, for
all
we know.
More of Mac's bull. There's zero evidence the Marcionites
martyred anyone or had anyone martyred, despite his
insinuations. They're reported to have _been_ martyred (by the
Romans, of course, ruining Mac's natter about influence in
Rome), not to have done the same to anybody else. His
accusation is based on a lie, just like the ones that he tossed
before.
-- Moggin
--
..............................................................
Posted thru AtlantisNews - Explore EVERY Newsgroup <
http://www.AtlantisNews.com -- Lightning Fast!!! <
Access the Most Content * No Limits * Best Service <
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kater Moggin" |
|
| Title: Re: The 4th Gospel: a Gnostic Forgery? |
11 Sep 2007 01:06:43 AM |
|
|
Mac the Nice <mac_the_nice@bigstring.com>:
Here I was just getting around
Mac was just totally full of crap: top to bottom, left to
right and diagonally. He began with the completely
unsupported accusation that Marcion was anti-Semitic, providing
no evidence from the historical sources -- none -- showing
Marcion ever attacked the Jews as a group. Rather than fix his
mistake, Mac asserted Marcion wrote the Gospel of John in
order to blame him for the anti-Semitism there. When I pointed
out John is missing from Marcion's canon (the first New
Testament, or anyway the oldest one known), Mackie came back by
demanding, "Present the text of Marcion," showing his
ignorance of the subject: Marcion's own stuff has been missing
for most of the last two thousand years. He's known only
through ancient accounts and commentary, tho in Mac's case he's
hardly known at all.
By fraudulently comparing Marcion to Luther, Mackie showed
precisely why his accusations failed. Luther's writing
contains explicit attacks on the Jewish people -- a theme found
in Christian orthodoxy since ancient times -- but there's
nothing of the kind in the evidence on Marcion, thus nothing to
back up Mac's blathering.
Mac wasn't through making himself into a fool. He pursued
his argument that Marcion wrote John by claiming that the
father of the Jews is the devil and the devil is Yahweh in John
8:15-16, John 8:37-38, and John 8:44, not realizing that he
was reasoning _against_ Marcion's authorship, since the sources
report that to Marcion all earthly beings are Yahweh's
creatures -- not the Jews alone -- and that Marcion divided the
devil from Yahweh rather than equating them (Tertullian, AM
2.28). Mackie's evidence directly contradicted his conclusions.
Mac's other assertions were just as foolish. He contended
the Gospel of John is docetist, i.e., denies that Jesus was
flesh and blood, asserting "It says nothing more than that 'the
Word was made flesh.'" Evidently he didn't notice the
resurrected Jesus telling Thomas to feel his wounds and believe
in John 20.
Mackie's reference to 2 Corinthians as "a rejection of all
things Jewish in the synoptic tradition" is another of his
howlers. "Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so
am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I." 2
Corinthians 11:22, where the writer strongly affirms his Jewish
identity.
Back to Marcion. Mackie wrongly claimed that the demiurge
is crazed and evil in Marcion's view, misattributing the
insane Creator in Sethian mythology to Marcion, who rejects the
idea Yahweh is good without calling him nuts. Mackie's
supposed evidence was less than flimsy. "Infirm of purpose" is
not "infirm of mind." Marcion is referring to Yahweh's
inconsistency in the Hebrew scriptures, not arguing he's looney
tunes.
The speculation that "Justin Martyr ... may well have been
one of Marcion's first victims--given such influence as he
may well have had at the Imperial Roman court, for all we
know" is a good example of Mac's ***** at work. Marcion had
no known victims, despite Mac's insinuation that there's a
long list, and no known influence on Rome. Instead of carrying
out Marcion's imagined commands the Romans martyred
Marcionites along with other Christians: the opposite of Mac's
claim.
-- Moggin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mac the Nice" |
|
| Title: Re: The 4th Gospel: a Gnostic Forgery? |
11 Sep 2007 12:48:28 PM |
|
|
"Kater Moggin" <kimmerian@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:kimmerian-64D68F.02024111092007@news.verizon.net...
Mac the Nice <mac_the_nice@bigstring.com>:
Here I was just getting around
Mac was just totally full of crap: top to bottom, left to
right and diagonally. He began with the completely
unsupported accusation that Marcion was anti-Semitic . . .
From http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx210.htm . . .
"Marcion was very anti-Semitic, and the term Marcionism is even used in
modern times by some to refer to various anti-Jewish tendencies and
teachings in some Christian churches."
And http://www.theologian.org.uk/pastoralia/antisemitic.html
"There were anti-Semites in the early church; one of them, Marcion . . ."
Also http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/22/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3-2/
"An avowed anti semite, Marcion included only the gospel of Luke and ten
epistles of Paul in his version of the New Testament. He deleted Paul's
pastoral epistles . . ."
<blather-blither>
Mackie came back by
demanding, "Present the text of Marcion," showing his
ignorance of the subject: Marcion's own stuff has been missing
for most of the last two thousand years. He's known only
through ancient accounts and commentary . . .
See Adolf von Harnack, __Marcion: Das Evangelium vom Fremden Gott (Gospel of
the Alien God): Eine Monographie zur Geschichte der Grundiegung der
Katholischen Kirche_ in which quotation from the "Proevangelium" (or
*Antitheses*, as otherwise known) of Marcion appear via writings of the 4th
Century Syrian, Ephrem.
Also, Marcion (again in Harnack) is quoted at some length, discoursing at
Rome before the bishops on the parable of the New Wine and Old Bottles (or
skins), this from Epiphanius, the _Pararion 42, 2.
And of course, the anti-semitism of Harnack who deeply admired Marcion is
well established. See Stan Meyer, "Hitler's Theologians" . . .
http://www.appleofhiseye.org/Whatdoyouthink/HitlersTheologians/tabid/923/Default.aspx
<slather-slither>
The remainder of what was slandered (and or splattered) by Prater Moggin
hereinafter will be blown, after like fashion, clear out of the water as
time and leisure may (or may not) permit.
Your friendly Yiddischer "Whose Nosejob?" Smiley . . .
:~)
--
Mackie
http://whosenose.blogspot.com
http://doo-dads.blogspot.com/
http://www.mackiemesser.zoomshare.com/0.html
http://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
--
..............................................................
Posted thru AtlantisNews - Explore EVERY Newsgroup <
http://www.AtlantisNews.com -- Lightning Fast!!! <
Access the Most Content * No Limits * Best Service <
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kater Moggin" |
|
| Title: Re: The 4th Gospel: a Gnostic Forgery? |
11 Sep 2007 05:10:19 PM |
|
|
Kater Moggin <kimmerian@fastmail.fm>:
Mac was just totally full of crap: top to bottom, left to
right and diagonally. He began with the completely
unsupported accusation that Marcion was anti-Semitic, providing
no evidence from the historical sources -- none -- showing
Marcion ever attacked the Jews as a group.
Still true. Reading ahead I see Mac is now quoting random
websites that echo his accusations without offering any
evidence: zilch from the ancient sources to prove Marcion made
attacks on the Jews as a group.
Mac the Nice <mac_the_nice@bigstring.com>:
From http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx210.htm...
"Marcion was very anti-Semitic
So Mac likes to say. But still zero evidence of Marcion's
supposed anti-Semitism: not one scrap of evidence from the
historical sources showing he attacked the Jews as a group. In
fact Tertullian, who attempted to refute Marcion while
defending orthodoxy, linked him to the Jews, describing them as
poisonous vipers and calling Marcion as an asp who borrows
their poison (Anti-Marcion 3.8.1). Now _there's_ anti-Semitism.
and the term Marcionism is even used in
modern times by some to refer to various anti-Jewish tendencies and
teachings in some Christian churches.
And http://www.theologian.org.uk/pastoralia/antisemitic.html
"There were anti-Semites in the early church; one of them, Marcion . . ."
Also http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/22/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3-2/
"An avowed anti semite, Marcion included only the gospel of Luke and ten
epistles of Paul in his version of the New Testament. He deleted Paul's
pastoral epistles . . ."
Opinionating isn't evidence. Still nothing -- not a shred
-- from the source materials supporting Mac's slanderous
assertion Marcion was an anti-Semite, i.e., nothing showing him
attacking the Jews as a group. By contrast, Christian
orthodoxy has been famously anti-Semitic. Mac's false parallel
between Marcion and Luther shows exactly why his accusation
fails: Luther's writing contains anti-Semitic remarks, but the
evidence on Marcion doesn't attribute anything of the same
kind to him. That's why Mack is busy peddling opinions instead
of quoting the ancient sources.
See Adolf von Harnack, __Marcion: Das Evangelium vom Fremden Gott (Gospel of
the Alien God): Eine Monographie zur Geschichte der Grundiegung der
Katholischen Kirche_ in which quotation from the "Proevangelium" (or
*Antitheses*, as otherwise known) of Marcion appear via writings of the 4th
Century Syrian, Ephrem.
Also, Marcion (again in Harnack) is quoted at some length, discoursing at
Rome before the bishops on the parable of the New Wine and Old Bottles (or
skins), this from Epiphanius, the _Pararion 42, 2.
Harnack tried to reconstruct Marcion's work using the info
available to him: mainly Tertullian, but also Ephraem's
_Prose Refutations_, etc. In the _Panarion_ Epiphanius reports
a dialogue between Marcion and some Church elders. As I
mentioned, none of Marcion's own writings survive, making Mac's
demand "present the text of Marcion" a display of his
ignorance alongside howlers like his contention that the Gospel
of John denies Jesus' flesh ("reach hither thy hand, and
thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing" is
evidently not in Mac's copy) and his idea 2 Corinthians
rejects "all things Jewish" ("Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are
they Israelites? so am I").
And of course, the anti-semitism of Harnack who deeply admired Marcion is
well established. See Stan Meyer, "Hitler's Theologians" . . .
http://www.appleofhiseye.org/Whatdoyouthink/HitlersTheologians/tabid/923/Default.aspx
Of course Mac isn't above guilt by association. He's been
unable to convict Marcion, so the next best thing is
slandering him by connection to one of his scholars. But there
isn't anything in the above demonstrating that Harnack
attacked the Jews. Could be he did, but glancing around I find
it said that "Harnack repeatedly disassociated himself from
the antisemitic movement and criticized its doctrines of racial
supremacy" (review of Wolfram Kinzig, _Harnack, Marcion und
das Judentum_ by Roderick Stackelberg), e.g. in his response to
Stewart Chamberlain's anti-Semitism:
You are really possessed by an anti-Jewish demon
that clouds your vision and disfigures your wonderful
book.... I believe that we owe Isaiah, Jeremiah, the
Psalms, and above all Jesus Christ himself to the Jews.
Harnack writing to Chamberlain in 1912
According to the same source, Harnack also "criticized the
antisemitism of Imperial Court Chaplain Adolf Stoecker
(1835-1909) as a 'sad scandal' and insisted antisemitism had no
place in the Church or Christian religion." Tho he granted
the possibility of a national or economic "Jewish question," he
"unequivocally denied the validity of notions of racial
determinism" in politics and society, publically announcing his
opinion:
There is nothing more disgusting and infuriating than
the fanaticism and hypocrisy that seek to conceal
egoistic claims to power and dominance under the cloak
of race and religion.
Harnack in the _Neue Freie Presse_ 1907
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=270071183910426
Walter Benjamin makes an interesting comment stemming from
his reading of Harnack's _History of Dogma_. Writing to
Gershom Scholem (October 22, 1917, _Correspondence_ 99-100), he
suggests Christian anger to Jews and Judiasm is due to its
"hope of wrestling the Old Testament from the Jews" dating back
to antiquity. "Because of this, universal and historical
enmity of Christians against Judaism had to be created." Could
be true of Christian orthodoxy but doesn't apply to the
gnostic heresies, since they don't claim the OT or the OT deity.
-- Moggin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Clancey" |
|
| Title: Re: The 4th Gospel: a Gnostic Forgery? |
21 Sep 2007 11:46:58 PM |
|
|
The Gospel of John owes a great deal to Plato.
--
rich clancey
"Shun those who deny we have eyes in order to see, and instead say we
see because we happen to have eyes." -- Leibniz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Klaus Schilling" |
|
| Title: Re: The 4th Gospel: a Gnostic Forgery? |
22 Sep 2007 01:01:51 AM |
|
|
Rich Clancey <rhc@shell01.TheWorld.com> writes:
The Gospel of John owes a great deal to Plato.
all gospels do
Klaus Schilling
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Whitehead" |
|
| Title: Re: The 4th Gospel: a Gnostic Forgery? |
22 Sep 2007 03:59:54 AM |
|
|
"Klaus Schilling" <schilling.klaus@web.de> wrote in message
news:876423w84w.fsf@web.de...
Rich Clancey <rhc@shell01.TheWorld.com> writes:
The Gospel of John owes a great deal to Plato.
all gospels do
Klaus Schilling
where is the evidence that Plato even existed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Klaus Schilling" |
|
| Title: Re: The 4th Gospel: a Gnostic Forgery? |
22 Sep 2007 04:46:18 AM |
|
|
"James Whitehead" <somewhere@overtherainbow.com> writes:
where is the evidence that Plato even existed?
that's of no relevance. Platonism exists, with or without Plato,
and that's all what matters for the formation of Christianity and Gnosis.
Klaus Schilling
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Whitehead" |
|
| Title: Re: The 4th Gospel: a Gnostic Forgery? |
22 Sep 2007 05:47:59 AM |
|
|
"Klaus Schilling" <schilling.klaus@web.de> wrote in message
news:87bqbvuj6d.fsf@web.de...
"James Whitehead" <somewhere@overtherainbow.com> writes:
where is the evidence that Plato even existed?
that's of no relevance. Platonism exists, with or without Plato,
and that's all what matters for the formation of Christianity and Gnosis.
Klaus Schilling
its existence was from some idea of man created in gods image?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: The 4th Gospel: a Gnostic Forgery? |
22 Sep 2007 08:21:58 PM |
|
|
Rich Clancey wrote:
The Gospel of John owes a great deal to Plato.
===>More directly to the Platonic philosopher
PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA. -- L.
SEE: The Gospel of John and the Hellenization of Jesus
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/gospel_john.html
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Klaus Schilling" |
|
| Title: Re: The 4th Gospel: a Gnostic Forgery? |
23 Sep 2007 01:16:50 AM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> writes:
Rich Clancey wrote:
The Gospel of John owes a great deal to Plato.
===>More directly to the Platonic philosopher
PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA. -- L.
SEE: The Gospel of John and the Hellenization of Jesus
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/gospel_john.html
all gospels are derived from Philo's works,
and deal with Jesus son of Nun,
the allegorical leader of the chosen ones into katapausis.
Klaus Schilling
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mac the Nice" |
|
| Title: Allahu Akbar! |
11 Sep 2007 03:22:46 AM |
|
|
From: "Mac the Nice" <mac_the_nice@bigstring.com>
Subject: Allahu Akbar!
Date: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 2:54 AM
As ever, it is such an invaluable service being performed here . . .
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/
And especially for those who need to be exposed to the Atlas Shrugs POV
most, all the pitifully unhappy slaves of Islam and these 'liberal' pc pomo
multiculturalist toadies to it who never will be made to see the light by
any means other than just as it is shone here without a shade of dhimmitude
straight through the veil to the eyes.
And of course, the same thing goes for me, as for those poor devils or
anyone else. You've got to face the truth, that no one will appreciate the
power of these images from six years ago to this day more than those who
made them possible in the first place, namely Bin Laden and the millions of
Moslems who see in all that smoke, fire and death the truest spirit of Islam
(and/or multiculturalism).
But now, as longer more complete clips of the latest Al Qaeda video release
begin to show up on the internet, I find it, to my endless chagrin harder
and harder to hold to my earlier impression that the tape is a fake. And
much as I would wish it to be so, that bin Laden had long been taken, body
and soul into the reeking smoke of that aforementioned "spirit of Islam",
unfortunately, my own faith demands of me to face the truth even against my
strongest or fondest beliefs, and all the more especially when I don't like
it, and am personally bound to be made the fool for it.
Indeed, if it really is that fiend bin laden on the new tape, just it would
appear, it can only leave one little less than certain that we are soon to
see it proven true by terror on so grand a scale as once again to have been
quite beyond our capacity ever to imagine or foresee it. But this is only as
can be the case when it comes to the immensity of potential for a power of
evil in this world, as millions more men learn to take Death on as a friend,
as an ally and a god. It is just as they are forced to say of him in all his
infernal majesty . . .
Allahu Aqbar!
Karen Armstrong Aqbar!
Chomsky Aqbar!
Katha Pollitt & Nation Magazine Aqbar!
--
Mackie
http://whosenose.blogspot.com
http://doo-dads.blogspot.com/
http://www.mackiemesser.zoomshare.com/0.html
http://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
--
..............................................................
Posted thru AtlantisNews - Explore EVERY Newsgroup <
http://www.AtlantisNews.com -- Lightning Fast!!! <
Access the Most Content * No Limits * Best Service <
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Barber" |
|
| Title: Re: The 4th Gospel: a Gnostic Forgery? |
11 Sep 2007 04:47:15 AM |
|
|
On Sep 2, 11:09 pm, J Seymour MacNicely <mac_the_n...@bigstring.com>
wrote:
Today on C-SPAN II, this week's "In Depth" discussion with Christopher
Hitchens at one point gave the man cause to mention a few words about
the notorious heretic Marcion, and it came in context with his
contention that the New Testament is even more 'evil' than the Old,
this assessment being held quite in reverse, he was given to note, to
that of Marcion who denied that the 'evil god' Jehovah could be the
Father of Christ Jesus. It now gives reason to restate, with somewhat
more clarity I hope, a few matters expressed in a reply
yesterday . . .
--
So this 'Jesus' created of the Marcionite imagination, whether by
Marcion himself, or more likely amplified and carried forth by him as
a legacy inherited from his father in heresy, that 'devil', Cerdo (of
Syria)--it matters not, for both of these, Cerdo and Marcion are one,
by definition, in Antichrist, as also they are joined at furry thigh
and cloven hoof in that anti-Semitic forgery of the late 1st Century,
the so-called "Gospel According to John," the number and name for the
authors of which are no doubt, Legion.
<snip>
read more =BB <no thanks>
You write about a turgidly written, convoluted book of fiction in a
turgid, convoluted style. Is this a homage to the Gospel of John?
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Seymour MacNicely" |
|
| Title: Re: The 4th Gospel: a Gnostic Forgery? |
11 Sep 2007 10:04:13 AM |
|
|
"Peter Barber" <peterbarber73@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
1189504035.709270.292370@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
You write about a turgidly written, convoluted book of fiction in a
turgid, convoluted style. Is this a homage to the Gospel of John?
An homage? Rather more to the point it might easily appear (to the
more well studied eye) as an affectionately penned parody of a style
employed by certain well-known ecclesiastical writers of a somewhat
later era, such grand old ecclesiastical hierophants of heretic
hunters from Ante-Nicene times as Tertullian, Irenaeus, Polycarp and
Ignatius.
But if there is a more worn out, constantly cribbed or might one say
'copy-catted' descriptor in the lexicon of wannabee internet writers
and dilettante literary critics than the word "turgid" I'd love to see
it--dedicated old collector of clich=E9 that I am. Why, I might even
like to try my best shot at a bit of true turgidity in my own style,
but short of dipping a finely plumed goose quill into an inkpot spiked
with Viagra, I'm at a loss to know quite how to begin.
So long as conformists and other lesser idiots abound, comedy is life,
and life remains ever such a good laugh! :~)
--
Mackie
http://whosenose.blogspot.com
http://doo-dads.blogspot.com/
http://www.mackiemesser.zoomshare.com/0.html
http://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The 4th Gospel: a Gnostic Forgery? |
02 Sep 2007 05:11:43 PM |
|
|
On Sep 2, 6:09 pm, J Seymour MacNicely <mac_the_n...@bigstring.com>
wrote:
snip
No one in alt.atheism cares about your tinfoil hat.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Seymour MacNicely" |
|
| Title: Re: The 4th Gospel: a Gnostic Forgery? |
02 Sep 2007 06:02:16 PM |
|
|
On Sep 2, 5:11 pm, wrote:
No one in alt.atheism cares about your tinfoil hat.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
Floyd must be cool. Eh? He must be sooooooo cool going around with
that "Pananma" sitting on top of a name like that, and he just got to
have it, with a name that rhymes in Brooklyn with something not so
cool. Ain't that right, Flerd?
But I've been taught, in any case to be nice to a noyd like Floyd, for
is it not written . . .
[26] Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did
their fathers to the false prophets.
Think about it, Flerd.
[27] But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies . . .
Love me, baby!
Do good to them which hate you,
Do me some good, Dad.
[28] Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully
use you.
And all that good stuff.
--
Mackie
http://www.mackiemesser.zoomshare.com/0.html
http://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The 4th Gospel: a Gnostic Forgery? |
03 Sep 2007 02:21:19 PM |
|
|
On Sep 2, 7:02 pm, J Seymour MacNicely <mac_the_n...@bigstring.com>
wrote:
snip
Ah, shaddap, you fruitcake. Take your insipid bible quotes and shove
`em where the sun don't shine.
-PF, Atl.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mac the Nice" |
|
| Title: Re: The 4th Gospel: a Gnostic Forgery? |
09 Sep 2007 05:33:30 PM |
|
|
<panamfloyd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188847279.029140.270600@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 2, 7:02 pm, J Seymour MacNicely <mac_the_n...@bigstring.com>
wrote:
snip
<snap>
It's so cool to have a name like "Panama Floyd".
Maybe I should start to call myself, "Parguay Pete"?
You'll see me with a cat-chain drooping down to my knees,
Truckin' the cool fool boogie with a feather in my brim,
And a zoot suit coat cut just 2 inches from my shoes,
So when they see me boppin', they stop and say,
Wouldja looka him, it's Paraguay Pete,
Who ain't no noyd,
He jus' the coolest steppin' cat,
Since we heard word of Panama Floyd
in a backward cap,
And a Schlitz beer 't' shirt,
A beer-tab in his ear for a ring,
and floppy short pants.
The Kosher Mac the Nice Smiley . . .
:-~)
--
Mackie
http://whosenose.blogspot.com
http://doo-dads.blogspot.com/
http://www.mackiemesser.zoomshare.com/0.html
http://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
--
..............................................................
Posted thru AtlantisNews - Explore EVERY Newsgroup <
http://www.AtlantisNews.com -- Lightning Fast!!! <
Access the Most Content * No Limits * Best Service <
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The 4th Gospel: a Gnostic Forgery? |
09 Sep 2007 06:18:52 PM |
|
|
On Sep 9, 6:33 pm, "Mac the Nice" <mac_the_n...@bigstring.com> wrote:
<panamfl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188847279.029140.270600@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 2, 7:02 pm, J Seymour MacNicely <mac_the_n...@bigstring.com>
wrote:
snip
<snap>
It's so cool to have a name like "Panama Floyd".
It's a nickname hung on me by my old college girlfriend. It's supposed
to be the low-budget poor white trash version of "Indiana Jones".
-PF, etc.
yada yada yada
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
