aa5874

Based on your own words, "....Do the math fucknuts".

Marcion and the Marcionites lived about 100 years after the SUPPOSED Jesus.

But, these are the supposed words of Jesus in the same NT.

Lu 18:18-19 Jesus of the NT did NOT want people to call him "GOOD"

Now, if "CHRESTOS" means "GOOD", based on your own words, "DO THE MATH FUCKNUTS, when did the MARCIONITES call JESUS of the NT "CHRESTOS" or "GOOD".

"First Apology" XXVI When did the Marcionites call Jesus the Messiah, CHRESTOS.

Based on your own words, "DO THE MATH FUCKNUTS"

Will your evidence from antiquity EVER ADD UP?

DrZoidberg

I only care which prophecies Jesus fulfilled according to the NT. Nothing else. Whether or not they actually happened has no bearing on the reason why I created this thread.

Switch89

Try this book:

All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible by Herbert Lockyer (or via: amazon.co.uk)

aa5874

Well, ALL the prophecies were FULFILLED that were mentioned in the NT, including the second coming once you don't care if Jesus did really come back or not.

stephan huller

I think you would be better served if you qualified your statement and ask instead - I only care which prophecies Jesus fulfilled according to what has become the normative interpretation in Christianity (i.e. the Catholic tradition).

Jews and Samaritans don't always agree on the interpretation of Scripture much less the sectarians of the late second and third centuries.

It is a common misunderstanding that the Marcionites 'rejected' the OT. This is simply not true. Their Apostolikon 'retained' references to the Pentateuch, Isaiah, and perhaps the Psalms. There are Marcionite interpretations of Daniel offered up by various Church Fathers. It wasn't that the Marcionites 'denied' the prophetic authority of the Law and prophets. They just didn't apply them to Jesus as the messiah.

avi

Alright, Stephan, let's read between the lines, shall we?

If I ask you, Stephan, or rather, DEMAND of you, as your superior, to cease and desist from ever again calling me "christos", is that act on my part not implying that I agree with the appellation you have provided, but simply don't wish anyone else to understand that I have accepted that title? Would you have written or spoken as is recorded, in that circumstance where someone accused you of improperly accepting the title of "christos"? The words that follow Peter's declaration are simply inconsistent with the notion that JC had failed to acknowledge Peter's awareness of JC's lofty stature. Ganz im gegenteil, JC here acknowledges that he was, in fact, "christos".

That's how I interpret this passage. Yes, Stephan, you are correct. It does not say: Then Jesus replied: "Yes, Peter, I am christos, but please folks, keep it to yourselves, ok?"

May I inquire, WHY ELSE would JC ask his apostles to refrain from mentioning this bit of nonsensical hyperbole?

a. JC was ashamed of his stature as "christos"? ("not worthy")

b. JC recognized that he was in fact NOT the "christos", therefore felt embarrassed by the appellation. But, in that case, why not simply assert this fact, instead of insisting that no one mention (the truth) to anyone else....?

How does John the Baptist reply, when confronted with a similar inquiry?

c. JC was not embarrassed, and he did plan to reveal his stature, publicly, but just not at that precise moment in time, so he asked for a reprieve from his disciples. But, again, why not write in this fashion, if so?

To me, perhaps no one else on the forum, the SIMPLEST explanation is generally the best, and here, the simplest interpretation is that this text (Mark 8:29) is written so that the reader will understand, by his modest acknowledgement, that JC does does in fact accept the title "christos".

avi

No Robots

The evangelists believe in Christ the Messiah; no more than the critics do they notice that their Messiah Christ speaks about his Messiahship and his divine Sonship in a way totally unlike their Jewish national Messiah—which he never became. But what do the evangelists and the critics notice! The whole Jewish people observed that Jesus was not their Messiah, as do all Jews right up to the present day; the only ones who still fail to observe it are the critics.--"On Criticism"/ Constantin Brunner. Appendix to Our Christ.

stephan huller

I am really busy today avi, but I will try to answer your point quickly but fully

I just report what the Church Fathers tell us about the Marcionites. I don't promote their understanding. But part of what is said about the Marcionite belief is actually reflected in Origen's Commentary on Matthew in the parallel passages.

1. The Marcionites first of all seem to interpret the name 'kepha' in its proper Aramaic sense - i.e. 'stone' not rock.
2. Tertullian seems to tells us that the Marcionites interpreted the prophesy in Isaiah regarding the 'kepha' that caused Israel to stumble (and thus the temple to be destroyed) as somehow being connected with Peter
3. The Marcionite seem to have used different punctuation on various scriptural passages. Jesus's warning in the Little Apocalypse that after his death 'many will come saying, 'I am he!' and will lead many astray.' Tertullian cites the passage without the 'in my name' in Book V from memory.

When you take the passages together and the fact that the Marcionites are always identified as separating Jesus and Christ (as many other heretics noted in Irenaeus and elsewhere) it cannot be coincidental that the Marcionites understood Peter to be left 'uncorrected' by the end of the gospel.

In other words, Jesus appearance on the earth as a heavenly being - a man in appearance only - set in motion two things. The first is that at least some of the world was going to be saved through the establishment of the 'perfect revelation' (or the true covenant which presumably Israel lost when it sinned with the golden calf). On the other hand the wicked, unrepentent portion of humanity - embodied by Peter - would continue to spread a false opinion about Jesus among the Jews (!) which would ultimately to the events of the Jewish War and the destruction of the temple.

Again, I am only lining up things which already appear in the anti-Marcionite literature. There can be no doubt that the Marcionite church can only begin with the destruction of the Jewish temple. There can't be a 'primitive Church' waiting for the destruction. Jesus comes, a historical 'chain reaction' is set in motion (i.e. the veil being torn, the darkness etc) which ultimately leads to the destruction of the old religion AND THEN Christianity as the true religion is established (which explains Tertullian's statement in Book Three that the Marcionites believed Paul - and hence themselves - had a special mission to the Jewish proselytes).

In other words, Jesus tells Peter not to say these things knowing full well that he cannot control his 'animal soul,' knowing full well that his teachings are a double edged sword - i.e. redeeming some, destroying others. But once again, Jesus's hands are left clean.

arnoldo

One of the more interesting OT prophecies that the gospel writers attribute to Jesus is found in Luke 4:16-21
The gospel writers apparently did not have the character of Jesus read the next line in the scroll, and the day of vengeance of our God, for some unknown reason.

stephan huller

Still busy but arnoldo two things:

1) Peter of Alexandria cites the full wording

but more importantly

2) Clement cites a completely different variant closely related to the Marcionite gospel.

Will cited it when I get some time.

One more point to add to my last. The Marcionite interpretation of the gospel is obviously more interesting than the Catholic one (for me at least because I like exotic things). I hope to convey this to the guy that started the thread.

The Catholics understand that everything is simply pointed to Jesus Christ (save for Justin, Clement, Origen etc. who have a two advent formula, and some of the prophesies apply to Jesus (i.e. the suffering servant) and some to the royal Christ who omes after (i.e. Dan 9:25 etc.)

The Marcionite interpretation is wacky. Those before Jesus has prophesy but imperfectly so they only knew so much. At least that is what the evidence suggests to me.