The origin of the name 'Jesus CALLED Christ''

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The origin of the name 'Jesus CALLED Christ''

Post by Giuseppe »

hakeem wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:58 pm

What you say makes very little or no sense. In the story of Mark 8.27-30 the people thought Jesus was a prophet and he did not even tell his supposed disciples he was Christ, the people did not know he was the Christ. Only Peter claimed Jesus was the Christ and immediately they were told not to tell anyone.

Mark 8
27 And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?
28 And they answered, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.
29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.
But the verses :
28 And they answered, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.
29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
...are anti-marcionite interpolations, given the fact that in the Gospel used by marcionites there was no mention of John the Baptist or Elijah. By removing these verses, the answer of Peter becomes: ''the men say that Thou art the Christ''.

This explains why in the words of Pilate addressed to the crowd (during the Barabbas episode), he says: ''Jesus called Christ'' (in Matthew) and Jesus ''called King of Jews'' in Mark.

If the people believed that Jesus is John the Baptist REDIVIVUS or Elijah REDIVIVUS or one of the old prophets REDIVIVUS, there is no reason to consider him ''called Christ'' by the same people. Only assuming the verses 28 and 29 as interpolations we can overcome that intrinsic difficulty.

About Mark 15:
Mark 15.61-64
.....Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death....
[/quote]The corrispondent passage in Luke says that Jesus claimed to be ''the son of God'', not ''the Christ''.
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: The origin of the name 'Jesus CALLED Christ''

Post by Giuseppe »

To be Christ is a limit for Jesus. He is divine because he is called with a human--too-human title ("Messiah") without being really what that human title says.

There is no need of saying that Christ is a celestial title. Christ is a human title. Jesus was more divine than a mere Christ. A deity was seen wrongly as a human king, as a "Christ".

This remembers Simon Magus.
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: The origin of the name 'Jesus CALLED Christ''

Post by Giuseppe »

This may be the origin of the separationist christology: Jesus suffers but the Christ doesn't suffer. Implying that Jesus is not the Christ, even if he is "called Christ" by the people in Caesarea Philippi in proto-Mark.
The impassibility of the Christ, differently from the suffering Jesus (who isn't the Christ but is "called Christ" by the people) , opens the way to later Gnostic dualism.

The error of the people is to identify the man "Jesus Nazarene" - the mere son of man - with "the Christ". But the Christ is really the spiritual being who possessed the humanoid body of a "son of man", without being really the suffering son of man. Marcion will say that the son of man is only a hologram (docetism) to mean that the appearance ("son of man") hasn't ontological consistency, contra the opinion of the Judaizers.

This would explain why Ireneus is less critical with the Cerinthians (separationists) than with Marcion. In the eyes of Ireneus, the former kept at least secret the meaning of their christology (appearing to outsiders as a pious catholic "yahwist" adoptionism) while the latter proclaimed openly the explicit separation between the Christ of the demiurge and the Christ of another god.

Now, the separationism is functional to the euhemerization of the Jesus Christ of the early Christians.

The "archons of this aeon" (euhemerized by the demons and the Romans and the Jews and especially Herod) realize in advance, by listening what the people says, that "the Christ" is came. This is the meaning of Herod who was eager to see the Christ. The Catholic interpolator has inserted the idea that Herod thought that Jesus was John redivivus but the previous version of proto-Mark had Herod absolutely persuaded that Jesus was "the Christ" just as the people said. But vox populi is not vox dei in a gospel. The archons are deceived. Jesus is not the Christ but only appears as such. The result is that Jesus is crucified without that his killers realize his identity. The risen therefore is not the son of man. The risen is never died. The real Christ (not Jesus). The true resurrection is the knowledge that Christ is not really crucified, but the one "called Christ" is.
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: The origin of the name 'Jesus CALLED Christ''

Post by Giuseppe »

As corollary of the previous post, in the "real" world, the crucifixion of the true Christ happened in the celestial realm, under the moon in the archontic territory.

On the earth, mere reflection of what happened in heaven, who is going to be crucified is only the avatar of Christ: i.e., not really the Christ.

Paraphrasing Nietzsche,
Marcionism is separationism for the stupid hoi polloi.
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: The origin of the name 'Jesus CALLED Christ''

Post by Giuseppe »

This explains why the First Euhemerizer thought that he was authorized to lie about the "historical" existence of Jesus "called Christ". His same Gospel could justify him. After all, he wasn't lying against his "truth". It was false that the true Christ suffered in Judea and his Gospel proclaimed just that truth. The insiders knew very well that the true Christ suffered between the earth and the moon. While it was true that on the earth only the ones "called Christ" were crucified daily by the Romans. Maybe even someone called really "Jesus Nazarene". Maybe even someone crucified by Pilate. But he was not the true Christ. He was the parody of the true Christ. The true liars were the same Jews who, believing that the Christ was appeared really on the earth (and, in their insane minds, even as a victorious Christ), did lead themselves on the way to final destruction.

In 70 C.E.
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: The origin of the name 'Jesus CALLED Christ''

Post by Giuseppe »

The meaning of the empty tomb is not that the one "called Christ" (without being really Christ) is vindicated by God etc, but that the one "called Christ" never existed but was only an illusion. The suffering on the cross was only an illusion. To suffer was a humanoid body, not his temporary possessor. Therefore the words of the angel were interpolated: Jesus Nazarene is not the risen one because he is not the Christ.
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: The origin of the name 'Jesus CALLED Christ''

Post by Giuseppe »

Only by removing the interpolation (the answer that the people believe that Jesus is Elijiah or John redivivus) it becomes clear why the episode happens in Caesarea Philippi.

The people have an egoistic interest in their belief that Jesus was the Christ. Only so Jesus could be compared to the Pagan Christ, i.e. Caesar.

But Jesus is not the Christ. And his kingdom was not of this world.

Therefore the Earliest Gospel condemns the messianism of the Zealots.

But frankly I am disappointed by the final of Mark. I don't accept the idea that the son of man will resurrect. Therefore I am inclined to follow Markus Vinzent. In Mcn (proto-Luke) it is more clear that the Risen One is a phantom. Not a body.

(The final of) Mark continues to be a too much "Catholic" Gospel for the my feelings. I'm sorry. :(
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply