Cruci f i c t i o n

[Giuseppe]

Well. I continue following the game rules of Heretical.

‘Prophesy now’ (Mark 14:65) links the process with Peter’s denial, which is the fulfilment of Jesus’ prediction (14:30) and thus shows that Jesus is indeed a true prophet.

Now, if we assume that 'vade retro satana' is indeed a prophecy, then that prediction is going to be fulfilled precisely at that point: from that moment on, not only Peter denies Jesus three times (fulfillment of the prophecy of his denial to the singing of the cock) but Peter will go ''behind'' Jesus (fulfillment of 8:33) - he will assume the face of Jesus before Pilate.

In whiletime, the true Jesus will become Jesus Bar-Abbas, as fulfillment of Mark 14:36.

[Giuseppe]

Jesus himself talks about Satan in Mark 3:23-27 :

So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan?
If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come.
In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house.

I wonder if these ''facts'' about Satan reveal particular 'game rules' to win or lose the cosmic conflict in act:

1) Satan kills Jesus
2) But Jesus is Satan (when a 'Jesus' is crucified)
3) therefore: Satan kills Satan.

...And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come...


The sense would be that Satan is led by Jesus to kill himself, through a particular deception (the ''strong man'' is neutralized).

The only actors that know the true identity of Jesus are the demons and... ...Simon Peter!

[Giuseppe]

In conclusion, the strongest argument to doubt that the man on the cross was just Jesus (in Mark) is the coincidence that Jesus calls his Father 'Abbà', while the person in prison was called 'Jesus Bar-Abbas' (and Mark doesn't see strictu sensu him as a rebel, allowing a different reading). Which was the point behind a name so intimate and affectionate - Abbà - for both the prisoner Jesus and for the God prayed by the pacific Jesus in Gethsemani? The midrash from Leviticus 16 is not very persuasive about that specific detail point.

The second strongest argument is that in Mark 4 the ''thorns'' are the place where the Word dies, and a ''crown of thorns'' is put on Jesus during the Passion. A mere coincidence?

The third strongest argument is a possible reading of Mark 8:33: Peter is Satan because he (as the demons!) is the unique human being that knows Jesus and, despite of it, he denies him. For divine contrappasso, Peter would not be recognized when he was on the cross, replacing the true Jesus. The real identity of the denier of Jesus is in turn denied, replaced by an apparent 'Jesus', on the cross.

The only actors that know the true identity of Jesus are the demons and... ...Simon Peter!

it may be that just because Jesus saw that Peter at Caesarea was the only one to recognize his true nature (TU ES CHRISTUS), that was the test for Jesus that Peter was possessed by Satan and therefore Peter was Satan, since only demons could have the privilege of recognize the true nature of the Son on earth.


Personally, I'm the first to admit that this reading of the evidence in Mark is only one possible reading. I do not want to commit the fallacy of possibiliter. On the other hand, I'm curious to know as much as possible from Heretical (if he wants).

So, I go back to be an avid fan and ardent reader/supporter of the priority of Mcn above all the other Gospels. I am inclined, after this analysis, to believe more and more that if we had only the Gospels (and Mark as earliest Gospel) and not the epistles, we would be totally in the dark about the question of historicity.

[Giuseppe]

“Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny three times that you even know me.”

What does the rooster mean?

The rooster's crow is metaphor of the message 'victory is near'. But there is not victory for Jesus the morning of Passover, since he is crucified, according the traditional reading.

Under the hypothesis 'Peter=the crucified 'Jesus''', the rooster's crow stands in for a symbol of revenge: differently from the last night - the true passion of Jesus (his capture and trial by Sinedrium) - at morning of the day after it is another 'Jesus' that is crucified, therefore the rooster's crow describes, accordingly, the beginning of a reversal of destiny. To be persecuted is now another ''Jesus'', not the true Jesus (Son of Abbas).

[Giuseppe]

The rooster is here, too:

“Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn.
(Mark 13:35)

This raises the suspicion that all the ''apocalyptic'' prophecies of Jesus are realized exactly by what happens when enters Judah until the end of the gospel.


It's curious that the only entities that suffer in Mark because of Jesus's will (and only that) are the demons and Simon Peter (Judah doesn't suffer, in Mark, but only a negative prophecy is made about him, without fulfillment of it):

“What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”

(Mark 1:24)

He shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God’s name don’t torture me!”

(Mark 5:7)

Immediately the rooster crowed the second time. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows twice you will disown me three times.” And he broke down and wept.

(Mark 14:72)

An explanation is that Peter in Mark is possessed by Satan since the moment when he calls Jesus as 'the Christ' (8:29). Curiously, Jesus doesn't say him 'thank you' but he gives him the same invitation that gives to demons:

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.”
Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

(8:29-30)

Matthew, that wants to rehabilitate Peter at least to the extent that his only merit is to recognize the true identity of Jesus, puts into the mouth of Jesus words of congratulation in answer.

[DCHindley]

Ain't found a way to kill me yet
Eyes burn with stinging sweat
Seems every path leads me to nowhere
...
Here they come to snuff the rooster
Yeah here come the rooster, yeah
You know he ain't gonna die
No, no, no, ya know he ain't gonna die

"Rooster", Dirt (1992)

DCH

[MrMacSon]

From Josephus -

"And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered."

http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/autobiog.htm

[MrMacSon]

Thousands of Jews were crucified according to Josephus.

In Wars of the Jews 1 it is also claimed incident 800 Jews were crucified -

• Nay, his rage was grown so extravagant, that his barbarity proceeded to the degree of impiety; for when he had ordered eight hundred to be hung upon crosses in the midst of the city, he had the throats of their wives and children cut before their eyes.

Wars of the Jews 2 -

• 3. "Accordingly, they themselves slew Diogenes, a person of figure, and one that had been a friend to Alexander; and accused him as having assisted the king with his advice, for crucifying the eight hundred men ..."

In 'Wars of the Jews' 5 it is claimed that hundreds of Jews were CRUCIFIED daily.

• " ...and when they were going to be taken, they were forced to defend themselves for fear of being punished; as after they had fought, they thought it too late to make any supplications for mercy; so they were first whipped, and then tormented with all sorts of tortures, before they died, and were then crucified before the wall of the city. This miserable procedure made Titus greatly to pity them, while they caught every day five hundred Jews; nay, some days they caught more: yet it did not appear to be safe for him to let those that were taken by force go their way, and to set a guard over so many he saw would be to make such as great deal them useless to him. The main reason why he did not forbid that cruelty was this, that he hoped the Jews might perhaps yield at that sight, out of fear lest they might themselves afterwards be liable to the same cruel treatment.
  
  "So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies "

In Antiquities of the Jews 17 it is claimed 2000 were crucified -

• 10. "Upon this, Varus sent a part of his army into the country, to seek out those that had been the authors of the revolt; and when they were discovered, he punished some of them that were most guilty, and some he dismissed: now the number of those that were crucified on this account were two thousand."

In the Life of Flavius Josephus says Josephus saw many persons crucified -

• "I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered."

[Giuseppe]

Thomas Schmidt’s thesis in “Jesus’ Triumphal March to Crucifixion: The Sacred Way as Roman Procession,” is that the crucifixion procession is modeled on a Roman triumphal march, with Jerusalem’s Via Dolorosa replacing the Sacra Via [sic] of Rome. Schmidt’s rhetorical purpose is to convince us that Mark presents Jesus’ defeat and death, the moment of his greatest suffering and humiliation, as both literally and figuratively a triumph.

http://ifpeakoilwerenoobject.blogspot.i ... on-on.html

Schmidt may be wrong insofar the Jesus of the Passion is not the conqueror in a Roman triumph, but the conquered.

If this is the case, then Simon Peter/''Jesus'' may be allegory of the Simon bar Jora killed in Rome, on Golgotha/Capitolium.


"If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.
(Mark 9:42)

Josephus makes it very simple. “Simon, the son of Gioras, … had then been led in this triumph among the captives; a rope had also been put upon his head, and he had been drawn into a proper place in the forum, and had withal been tormented by those that drew him along; and the law of the Romans required that malefactors condemned to die should be slain there.” Simon was thrown off the Tarpeian Rock (a clear play on his title Kepha).

http://therealmessiahbook.blogspot.nl/2 ... giora.html

About the prophecies on ''Son of Man'', he is really a mere ''son of man'' who is crucified (''Jesus''/Simon Peter) while the other man, ''Andrew'', will be the possent Son of Man manifested at tomb.

[Giuseppe]

A short summary of posts above:

Simon Peter will be crucified, masked behind Jesus. The metamorphosis of Peter in Jesus takes place in Mark 14:14. Peter starts to cry not because he repents of his actions (in which case he would release Jesus by using the force, as he did in Getsemani) but because he realizes that the prophecy of Jesus (Mark 8:33, 8:38) is being fulfilled, since the cock crowed at dawn. As punishment, Peter becomes a ''Christomorphic'' apostol, will turn into Jesus to be crucified in his place. It reaches its culmination so the process began in Mark 14:67: Peter is not only denounced as being next to Jesus, but within that night he will turn into Jesus outwardly.
The day after tomorrow, the Jesus who is presented to Pilate is therefore just Peter! The real Jesus is released as Barabbas. So Peter is mute: the Word in him does not sprout. He is covered with spines, fulfilling the prophecy of Mark 4:18.
The role that should have occupied Peter will be occupied by Simon of Cyrene, father of gentiles representing Greece and Rome (Rufus is Edom founder of Rome according to the Talmud).

Peter is really the ''son of man'' destined to suffer in Jerusalem. His brother is another son of man: Andrew.

Then Jesus began to tell them that the son of man [Simon Peter] must suffer many terrible things and be rejected by the elders, the leading priests, and the teachers of religious law. He would be killed, but three days later he [Andrew] would rise from the dead.
(Mark 8:31)


Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released the ''Son of Father'' to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.
(Mark 15:15)

If Roger Parvus is right about the original mythical story:

an earlier succinct myth about a divine figure, the Son of God, who briefly descended to this world to trick the princes of this world into wrongfully crucifying him. He did this by transforming himself and surreptitiously switching places, as Simon Kyrenaios, with a failed Jewish Messiah being led out by the Romans for crucifixion. To this was prefaced a cryptic allegorical portrayal of the apostolic career of “Paul”/Simon of Samaria.

http://vridar.org/2012/09/23/marks-para ... llegories/

...then, by the time when the simonian allegory was written, the place of the Son of God on the cross was occupied by Simon Peter/''Jesus'', meaning that the Simonians started to reject the same name 'Jesus' as alluding to the messiah sent from (one of the) archons (''Son of Father'' being a more appropriate title for the son of a stranger God).