Naked with Jesus = Apostleship

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Naked with Jesus = Apostleship

Post by Secret Alias »

I'd like to start a thread that seeks to find the evidence to support the claim that Paul was the young ruler in Mark 10 (Porter has already assembled witnesses for that) but specifically that he was naked with Jesus thereafter and this formed the basis for his claim to be the apostle. I've already mentioned elsewhere that the same Aramaic root means both "naked" (or stripped) and "apostle." Now I'd like to focus on the other curiosity in the secret Mark fragment - that in that naked state the young man learned the "mystery of the kingdom of God."

For Paul in Colossians the mystery that was revealed to him (from Jesus) was apostleship https://books.google.com/books?id=rcAPA ... ip&f=false
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Naked with Jesus = Apostleship

Post by Secret Alias »

Was Moses clothed when he stood in the fire on Sinai? Why didn't his clothes burn? Jacob was naked with the same Man. Was he an apostle as Moses was the Apostle? The Samaritans refer go both Patriarchs as "the Man of God."
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Naked with Jesus = Apostleship

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

.
First, a good indication could be possibly the wording
14:51 And a young man (νεανίσκος) followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him, 52 but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.
16:5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man (νεανίσκον) sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe (στολὴν), and they were alarmed.
robe = στολή (stolé)
apostle = ἀπόστολος = ἀπό-στολος (apostolos)
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Naked with Jesus = Apostleship

Post by Giuseppe »

The parable of the sower may help.

Mark 4:
3 “Listen! A farmer went out to plant his seed. 4 He scattered the seed on the ground. Some fell on a path. Birds came and ate it up. 5 Some seed fell on rocky places, where there wasn’t much soil. The plants came up quickly, because the soil wasn’t deep. 6 When the sun came up, it burned the plants. They dried up because they had no roots. 7 Other seed fell among thorns. The thorns grew up and crowded out the plants. So the plants did not bear grain. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil. It grew up and produced a crop 30, 60, or even 100 times more than the farmer planted.”
''to be naked'' would be equivalent to be 'on good soil', lacking of birds, rocky places, thorns.

1) But the ''birds'' are allegory of Satan (the people possessed by evil spirits, met by Jesus on his path). They don't recognize Jesus even if freed and healed.

2) the ''rocky places'' are allegory of Peter (hence of the Twelwe). They don't recognize Jesus even if insiders.

3) The ''thorns'' are allegory of materialistic need and kata sarka goals (the crown of thorns put by Romans on Jesus is symbol of political power), hence of the young ruler. They don't follow Jesus even if they recognize him.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Naked with Jesus = Apostleship

Post by Giuseppe »

Note that the naked young of Secret Mark, in order to be Paul or the True Apostle, should pass through the initiation of 'birds', 'rocky places' and 'thorns'.

First initiation: ''BIRDS''.

We see that the Gerasene is impliciter naked, too, before to be healed by Jesus. An echo of the legend of Paul persecutor?

Mark 5:
15 When they came to Jesus, they saw the man who had been possessed by the legion of demons, sitting there, dressed and in his right mind; and they were afraid.
Second initiation: ''ROCKY PLACES''.

It is sufficient Peter for all.

Third initiation: ''THORNS''.

It is sufficient the young ruler episode.

The problem is that it is difficult to think that the Gerasene is the same young ruler. His naked state (as possessed) is the opposite meaning of the naked state (as risen) of the young ruler.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Naked with Jesus = Apostleship

Post by Secret Alias »

Retarded suggestion argued poorly (as always). When appealing to the gospel please argue from one of the (alleged) ancient languages
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Naked with Jesus = Apostleship

Post by outhouse »

Secret Alias wrote:Retarded suggestion argued poorly (as always).
The OP yes.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Naked with Jesus = Apostleship

Post by Giuseppe »

Maybe because there is no Paul in Mark nor in Secret Mark ? :)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Naked with Jesus = Apostleship

Post by Secret Alias »

I know my methodology is not very popular. However I did learn the basic concept from a 'real scholar' I R M Boid so let me spell it out again for the group. There are a lot of 'Mark first' scholars here at the forum and IMO they are 'Mark first' scholars as a result of there being no other method of making sense of early Christianity. There are apologists (= those who take the existing Scriptures as the word of God), neo-apologists (= Mark Goodacre, Andrew Criddle) who won't go so far as to say 'the existing Scriptures are the word of God' but basically take the apologist assumptions and re-word them in scientific or 'reasonable sounding' terminology (and so oppose any non-canonical scriptures out of a veiled 'principle') and then the 'Mark first' scholars which allow for Matthew and Luke to be forgeries basically and assume that all keys to unlock the secrets of early Christianity are to be found in Mark.

As I see it though even the 'Mark first' proponents are just degenerate apologists. But what are the alternatives to 'Mark first'? Unfortunately it is my (borrowed) hypothesis from my teacher I R M Boid. The answer here is to assume that we have lost the gospel but the cultural 'backboard' or spine of Christianity was a 'Biblical tradition' of some sort. This leads me to 'dissonance' of arguing that Marcion had a basis in the Torah.

Now before we get sidetracked with (yet another) assault against my assumptions let's take the example of this topic - naked = apostle. According to my understanding the canonical gospels are not going to be much of a help because they were (according to any neo-Marcionite hypothesis) developed AGAINST the ur-gospel(s). Mark in particular might be of some help but the answer is not going to be found there either. If we had either the Marcionite or its antithesis (the gospel of the apostles known to Justin's circle) we might be able to make some headway. Yet in the end all we are left with is the Torah.

Is there something in the Torah which helps us understand apostleship = nakedness. Let's start with the fact that Isaiah is explicitly said to have walked around naked as a prophet (Isaiah 20:2 - 3):
the Lord spoke through Isaiah son of Amoz. He said to him, “Take off the sackcloth from your body and the sandals from your feet.” And he did so, going around stripped and barefoot. Then the Lord said, “Just as my servant Isaiah has gone stripped and barefoot for three years, as a sign and portent against Egypt and Cush, so the king of Assyria will lead away stripped and barefoot the Egyptian captives and Cushite exiles, young and old, with buttocks bared—to Egypt’s shame.
The Hebrew word 'galut' (exile) comes from the verb galah which means literally 'to go naked.' I have always been tempted to suppose that the first Pauline epistle allegedly to Christians in 'Galatia' is in fact 'to the naked' or 'to the exiles' owing to the fact that it was written with the gospel after 70 CE. But of course this is an unproven assumption (maybe even wishful thinking).

But let's stick with the Jewish writings and assumptions. Isaiah both takes off his shoes and walks around naked. The word for 'naked' is the same as that of Adam and Even in the garden - וַיִּֽהְי֤וּ שְׁנֵיהֶם֙ עֲרוּמִּ֔ים הָֽאָדָ֖ם וְאִשְׁתּ֑וֹ i.e. naked and unashamed. Contradicting the word of God makes them clothed and shameful. So nakedness is a state of purity. Indeed in the original Torah of the tradition of the heretic Elisha ben Abuyah the ayin in 'skin' (= coats of skin) was really one of many substitutions where alef originally appeared (= coats of light).

In other words, Adam in the garden was naked in flesh made of light. As much as Stuart at the forum (and other neo-Marcionites) makes a dichotomy between flesh and spirit the evidence would seem to suggest to me that the Marcionites assumed that 'Jesus' was the man of the light flesh (and thus was within rather than outside of the Torah).

Why does this matter? Well if you spend enough time with the Samaritans things start to make sense simply because they focus all of their exegetical energy on understanding one document - the Pentateuch. To this end, they understand from the text of Exodus that Moses takes off his sandals in Exodus chapter 3 when he encounters the heavenly Ish. Then however they stop short of acknowledging that he completely strips on Sinai. In fact in a Facebook message that I sent to my friend Benny last night it is clear that they now assume that he was fully clothed when he stepped into the fire of Ishu on Sinai (Benny used the example of the burning bush as an example of the fire not burning an object like Moses's clothes).

But I think my friend has misunderstood or ignored an important clue in Marqe the great first century exegete of Samaritanism. In his analysis of Exodus he says over and over again that Moses displayed the original flesh of Adam on Sinai. Why so? The answer has to be in my opinion that when he stood in the fire he stood there naked displaying himself to the Israelites as a promise of heavenly redemption. "for he was vested with the Form which Adam cast off in the Garden of Eden; and his face shone up to the day of his death" (M. Marqah 5.4, Furnish 215). The idea is clearly that Moses stepped into Ishu ('his fire' Deut 4:36) on the mountain naked - in effect 'immersed' or 'baptized' in fire - and then took on the restored glory of Adam.

Of course there are hundreds of books which have used this quote from Marqe to explain early Christianity. But I think the underestimate the significance of the importance of nakedness. Not only was Adam naked in his original state of purity (and thus would not need to be 'clothed' in skins of material things) but more importantly we get an important clue as to Moses standing before the Israelites naked by the strange scene which unfolds after Moses comes down from the mountain naked:
Now when Moses saw that the people were out of control-- for Aaron had let them get out of control to be a derision among their enemies-- then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, "Whoever is for the LORD, come to me!" And all the sons of Levi gathered together to him
Why are the Israelites running around a fire naked? Clearly they are only reflecting what they saw appear before them on Sinai. Their situation is indeed pitiable as Aaron explains that they simply threw all their gold into a (non-divine) form of fire and the Calf appeared. It wasn't as if they made the calf. They indeed even invoked the name of the god of Israel before the idolatry occurred.

Exodus 32:1 actually has the Israelites say 'make us Elohim' (before the commandment about graven images is given) and then as Aaron recounts "o I told them, ‘Whoever has any gold jewelry, take it off.’ Then they gave me the gold, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!” The point of course is that the fire in the sanctuary is a special kind of fire. This was probably established to distinguish the nascent cult from Persian religion. The Israelites then start off with worrying that Moses has been gone for more than 6 days and then reenact what they saw on the mountain - i.e. (a) fire (b) nakedness. The one innovation is throwing gold into the fire but the actual idolatry is not intentional. They just want Elohim, the god of Israel to appear before them now that Moses has disappeared.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Naked with Jesus = Apostleship

Post by Secret Alias »

The implication (for the less gifted intellectually) is that even though the original gospel is lost we can retrace what it must have (might have) looked like by merely following what it's 'source code' says - i.e. the Pentateuch. Jesus (Ishu) is just restoring the holiness of Moses on to his Apostle (Moses is the first apostle cf. Exodus 3). The presumption is that in order to be an apostle you have to step naked into the fire and be baptized (immersed) and thus return to the original state of purity of Adam (or indeed the Form upon which he was based = 'Jesus'). I think the logic is pretty sound.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply