The carpocratians believed that it was not Jesus who was crucified, but one of his followers who very closely resembled him.
The follower of Jesus by definition is Simon Peter, since Jesus himself commanded him: vade retro me, satan!
Therefore Simon Peter could be that crucified!
Cruci f i c t i o n
Re: Cruci f i c t i o n
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Re: Cruci f i c t i o n
John21:18-19 mentions how Peter will die.
Clement of Rome also writes concerning the death of Peter in the following passage.
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.
This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.
Clement of Rome also writes concerning the death of Peter in the following passage.
1Clem 5:4
There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... tfoot.html
There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... tfoot.html
Re: Cruci f i c t i o n
Did I forget to tell you it was Simon Peter who betrayed Jesus in this cleverly devised myth (Gospel of Mark)? Ohh yes, Simon Peter kissed Jesus, not Judas (the false one).
Mark did a good job hiding it.
Maybe I have to write down some of the reasons one day...
Mark did a good job hiding it.
Maybe I have to write down some of the reasons one day...
Re: Cruci f i c t i o n
As I have written, I think Simon Peter is the one crucified, with James and John on his left and right, Andrew is the naked dude running away reappearing at the tomb, and Judas is just a trick - it’s Simon Peter who kiss/betray Jesus.
That last bit there is important. I’m pretty sure about it, but instead of arguing for it I will tell you where I ended.
It looks like Mark got his main idea for his story about faith right after the Bar Kochba Revolt. That must have been an massive happening for the jews, so we would expect someone to react to it in all sort of ways.
Mark just changed the names of the main people involved and moved the story back in time. That means everybody knew Jesus was an heavenly figure at the time… and Mark just mixed the crucified Jesus (Paul was talking about) with his own Messiah/Jesus.
Rabbi Akiva hailed Simon Bar Kochba as the Messiah, but Kochba failed. Mark had Rabbi Akiva hailed Elazar the Priest as the Messiah instead of Simon Bar Kochba. Bar Kochba became his opponent/Satan. While people saw a failed Messiah in Simon Bar Kochba, Mark saw the true Messiah in Eleazar the Priest (that dude had faith!)…
Remember, Jesus warned about choosing the false one. (Mark 13:5-6)
John the Babtist = Rabbi Akiva
Jesus (faith in God) = Eleazar the Priest (faith in God)
Simon Peter (kissed Jesus) = Simon Bar Kochba (kicked Eleazar)
James and John (power-mad) = "Two brothers in Kefar Haruba" (power-mad)
Ghetsemane (where Jesus prayed… and was betrayed) = Bethar (where Eleazar prayed… and was betrayed)
The religious leaders (stormed Gethsemane) = Roman soldiers (stormed Bethar)
Judas (who helped the religious leaders take Gethsemane) = The "Cuthean/Samaritan" (who helped the Romans take Bethar)
And someone escaped Bethar, just like Andrew escaped Ghetsemane. I believe that guy is Simeon ben Gamliel II. Wiki: "Shimon was a youth in Betar when the Bar Kokhba revolt broke out, but when that fortress was taken by the Romans he managed to escape the massacre".
That last bit there is important. I’m pretty sure about it, but instead of arguing for it I will tell you where I ended.
It looks like Mark got his main idea for his story about faith right after the Bar Kochba Revolt. That must have been an massive happening for the jews, so we would expect someone to react to it in all sort of ways.
Mark just changed the names of the main people involved and moved the story back in time. That means everybody knew Jesus was an heavenly figure at the time… and Mark just mixed the crucified Jesus (Paul was talking about) with his own Messiah/Jesus.
Rabbi Akiva hailed Simon Bar Kochba as the Messiah, but Kochba failed. Mark had Rabbi Akiva hailed Elazar the Priest as the Messiah instead of Simon Bar Kochba. Bar Kochba became his opponent/Satan. While people saw a failed Messiah in Simon Bar Kochba, Mark saw the true Messiah in Eleazar the Priest (that dude had faith!)…
Remember, Jesus warned about choosing the false one. (Mark 13:5-6)
John the Babtist = Rabbi Akiva
Jesus (faith in God) = Eleazar the Priest (faith in God)
Simon Peter (kissed Jesus) = Simon Bar Kochba (kicked Eleazar)
James and John (power-mad) = "Two brothers in Kefar Haruba" (power-mad)
Ghetsemane (where Jesus prayed… and was betrayed) = Bethar (where Eleazar prayed… and was betrayed)
The religious leaders (stormed Gethsemane) = Roman soldiers (stormed Bethar)
Judas (who helped the religious leaders take Gethsemane) = The "Cuthean/Samaritan" (who helped the Romans take Bethar)
And someone escaped Bethar, just like Andrew escaped Ghetsemane. I believe that guy is Simeon ben Gamliel II. Wiki: "Shimon was a youth in Betar when the Bar Kokhba revolt broke out, but when that fortress was taken by the Romans he managed to escape the massacre".
Re: Cruci f i c t i o n
As others have argued for I think Mark is an riddle/parable with christian teachings and important lessons. Mark made it all up and here is the most important thing that I have to say about that.
The Abomination of Desolation
"So when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it should not be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains"
In Mark 13 Jesus is ONLY talking to Simon Peter, James, John and Andrew about what’s to come in the future, but the HOUR is not yet…
When they see this really bad thing they are to flee to the mountains. So, what do they/we see (later in the text) that is so bad they should flee?
The next time we read about someone fleeing is at the betrayal of Jesus. I think that is what Mark want his inside-readers to understand. Something bad is happening at that precise moment. Now we read that "the HOUR has come". From the context it seems like Judas is stepping forward and kiss Jesus. This is bad, right?
But here is where I think Mark had his chance to say goodbye to the readers on the outside, only the insiders knew that it’s Simon Peter who is the real betrayer. He is Satan, the one that Jesus struggles with. "Let the reader understand", Simon Peter is the abomination of desolation, standing where he ought not to stand, stepping forward and kiss Jesus.
Nowhere does it read "Judas kissed Jesus".
Nowhere does it read "Judas had arranged a signal with them".
No, the "betrayer" kissed Jesus and he is "one of the twelve", meaning everyone of the twelve is a suspect.
I think Judas just handed over the betrayer.
While Simon Peter, James and John did ignore Jesus plea to stay awake Andrew is the one awake and sees Judas take a sword and cut off Simon Peter’s ear. For Andrew this is it, he run like hell, naked.
(In Matthew we read that it was Simon Peter’s dialect that "revealed him",) but in Mark it’s the missing ear that revealed him when he "sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire" and "the servant girls of the high priest came by" and first «saw Peter», THEN "she looked closely at him", meaning looked closely at the bloody area where his ear was missing. What is the point of having ears when you do not listen, right?
Going back to the betrayal… there is even more that reveals Simon Peter as the betrayer/kisser. The betrayer called Jesus "Rabbi" before he kissed him. Simon Peter had called Jesus "Rabbi" two times before (9:5 and 11:21), so this is the third time. For those of you who know how extremely many times Mark used three times for everything throughout his gospel this is pretty revealing. Three times this, three times that...
Mark and his sect had a good story here, but the story has a serious weakness if anyone else wanted to build on the story and make their own spin on it, just like Matthew did. Mark couldn't just reveal everything to outsiders to answer Matthew.
The Abomination of Desolation
"So when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it should not be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains"
In Mark 13 Jesus is ONLY talking to Simon Peter, James, John and Andrew about what’s to come in the future, but the HOUR is not yet…
When they see this really bad thing they are to flee to the mountains. So, what do they/we see (later in the text) that is so bad they should flee?
The next time we read about someone fleeing is at the betrayal of Jesus. I think that is what Mark want his inside-readers to understand. Something bad is happening at that precise moment. Now we read that "the HOUR has come". From the context it seems like Judas is stepping forward and kiss Jesus. This is bad, right?
But here is where I think Mark had his chance to say goodbye to the readers on the outside, only the insiders knew that it’s Simon Peter who is the real betrayer. He is Satan, the one that Jesus struggles with. "Let the reader understand", Simon Peter is the abomination of desolation, standing where he ought not to stand, stepping forward and kiss Jesus.
Nowhere does it read "Judas kissed Jesus".
Nowhere does it read "Judas had arranged a signal with them".
No, the "betrayer" kissed Jesus and he is "one of the twelve", meaning everyone of the twelve is a suspect.
I think Judas just handed over the betrayer.
While Simon Peter, James and John did ignore Jesus plea to stay awake Andrew is the one awake and sees Judas take a sword and cut off Simon Peter’s ear. For Andrew this is it, he run like hell, naked.
(In Matthew we read that it was Simon Peter’s dialect that "revealed him",) but in Mark it’s the missing ear that revealed him when he "sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire" and "the servant girls of the high priest came by" and first «saw Peter», THEN "she looked closely at him", meaning looked closely at the bloody area where his ear was missing. What is the point of having ears when you do not listen, right?
Going back to the betrayal… there is even more that reveals Simon Peter as the betrayer/kisser. The betrayer called Jesus "Rabbi" before he kissed him. Simon Peter had called Jesus "Rabbi" two times before (9:5 and 11:21), so this is the third time. For those of you who know how extremely many times Mark used three times for everything throughout his gospel this is pretty revealing. Three times this, three times that...
Mark and his sect had a good story here, but the story has a serious weakness if anyone else wanted to build on the story and make their own spin on it, just like Matthew did. Mark couldn't just reveal everything to outsiders to answer Matthew.