Was the man Jesus punished by the spiritual Christ via crucifixion?

[Giuseppe]

If the spiritual Christ abandoned the man Jesus on the cross, was it so as a form of punition of the same man Jesus (his carnal nature) as not-worthy recipient of the spiritual Christ?

We see that the the Spirit moved Jesus in the wilderness against his will. In the same way he abandoned the suffering Jesus on the cross against his will. It is not a coincidence that during the first and the last action of the spiritual Christ (as an active agent distinct from the his recipient) the man Jesus is clearly despised in his passive carnal nature of mere recipient.

The question is: why?

Which was the guilty of the man Jesus?

He proclaimed himself as "Christ" before the high priest., and said that the Son of Man had to be victorious. That was a lie. And a betrayal of the true Christ. Since the Son of Man had to suffer. And the spiritual Christ had to be victorious, not the mere his recipient (the Son of Man).

Therefore the irony is that the high priest was right: the man Jesus was guilty really of blasphemy. He wasn't the Christ but only the man possessed by Christ. So the crucifixion was a right punition.

Christ punished the his human recipient on the cross. In this way the riotous spirit of the messianic Zealots was punished in the figure of Jesus: the man who proclaimed himself the "Christ" was an usurper like the other two lesthai crucified with him. But he was really only possessed by the Christ.

By his death - the death of a false messianist - the man Jesus recognizes that the Christ is a distinct being from him and therefore he is forgiven and saved. But in whiletime the real Christ is already came as a thief during the night.

[Giuseppe]

So the secret of Mark is that Jesus "called Christ" is not the Christ but a his human substitute on the cross. That human substitute deserved the crucifixion insofar he had answered, by a mix of ignorance and hybris before to the high priest, that he was the Christ.

So the high priest condemns the same Zealot Jewish messianism, the human claim to be the Christ. In other words, he is condemning rightly "Joshua" as the mere man who declared himself as the Christ.
He is a false Christ. In pauline terms, "another Christ".

Rightly the anathema is on him, per Paul's words and per the biblical quote ("cursed is who is hanged on the tree").

This usurper had to be seriously embarrassed on the cross.

Therefore there would be perfect consistence between Paul's hate of "another Christ" and the Mark's introduction of someone considered by "Mark" himself (if I am correct) as a false Christ.

Therefore the same talmudic hate against the earthly Jesus may be seen as originally PAULINE and MARKAN insofar both the talmudic writer and "Mark" put on the man Jesus the guilty of blasphemy and arrogant claims: to have usurped the title of Christ. As a real thief of the title of another being.

[robert j]

... In pauline terms, "another Christ".
...
... Paul's hate of "another Christ"

If you are using 2 Corinthians 11:4 here, the text reads "another Jesus".

[Giuseppe]

... In pauline terms, "another Christ".
...
... Paul's hate of "another Christ"

If you are using 2 Corinthians 11:4 here, the text reads "another Jesus".

Correct. I wonder how much "Jesuophobe" was Paul.
For him Jesus and Christ are one and the same being. But he admits the possibility that "another Jesus" could be preached under the usurped title of "Christ" (title that for Paul is only of the his Jesus).

Mark seems to introduce this "another Jesus" and therefore the his false claim of being him the Christ. The guilty of this "another Jesus" would be precisely in this point:

60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

The name "Jesus" is named again and again during the trial. The spiritual Christ is entirely absent during the trial. Is there some meaning?

[lsayre]

The name "Jesus" is named again and again during the trial. The spiritual Christ is entirely absent during the trial. Is there some meaning?

How can the Christ be absent if Jesus claims he is the Christ? It seems like the connection (or rather disconnection, or dissociation) is only being made by your source via his/her twisting this beyond anything that the author(s) we refer to as Mark may likely be assumed to have have truly imagined.

Your various sources (books) appear to be taking you all over the map, and as you read them you appear to drop one ball and pick up the next, yet you do not seem to ever pause to reflect upon on the inconsistencies in this.

For example: Awhile ago I seem to recall that you were suggesting that for Mark it is Simon who goes to the cross in the place of Jesus. Now you offer that it was actually Jesus who went to the cross, but with a twist. Drop one ball and pick up another. And when you read another book you will potentially drop both of these ideas and come up with a third.

If Mark was pooling oral (or earlier written) traditions, and conveying to us his intention that Jesus fundamentally goofed up and sinned via his proclamation before Caiaphas, this would imply that the earliest traditions likewise held that Jesus was punished for his mistaken proclamation. Do you believe that the earliest layers of oral tradition actually held forth this belief, and Jesus was venerated anyway? Do any early commentaries hint at this (I.E., Jesus error and therefore sin) as the central irony in Mark? Which heresy was so proclaimed due to its holding this position? Or did Mark ponder the possibility that at some juncture in the far distant future someone (such as your source) would come along and uncover the wool that he was secretly pulling over our eyes for millennia?

[Giuseppe]

The name "Jesus" is named again and again during the trial. The spiritual Christ is entirely absent during the trial. Is there some meaning?

How can the Christ be absent if Jesus claims he is the Christ? It seems like the connection (or rather disconnection, or dissociation) is only being made by your source via his/her twisting this beyond anything that the author(s) we refer to as Mark may likely be assumed to have have truly imagined.

The Christ has to be absent in 14:62 (i.e. is the man Jesus who is answering, not Christ) for three reasons:
1) in Mark 13 Jesus advices against who proclaims "I am the Christ". In contradiction with the same Jesus of Mc 14:62.
2) the answer of Jesus in Mc 14:62 would break the Messianic Secret (even if all the people called Jesus "Christ").
3) Jesus predicted the death of the Son of Man, not the his arrival from the celestial clouds.

Your various sources (books) appear to be taking you all over the map, and as you read them you appear to drop one ball and pick up the next, yet you do not seem to ever pause to reflect upon on the inconsistencies in this.

For example: Awhile ago I seem to recall that you were suggesting that for Mark it is Simon who goes to the cross in the place of Jesus. Now you offer that it was actually Jesus who went to the cross, but with a twist. Drop one ball and pick up another. And when you read another book you will potentially drop both of these ideas and come up with a third.

My imagination moves continually me to explore new ways and new books. What never changes is my mythicism (since I like to inquiry only under the Christ Myth Theory: historicism has done his time.).


I think that this hypothesis fits what Iraeneus says about the readers of Mark (that Christ was impassible while the man Jesus suffered). I never meant that claim as a positive view of the man Jesus. These readers were truly happy for the sufferings of the man Jesus. So there are three actors on the stage:

1) the scribes and pharisees
2) the man Jesus and the his followers
3) the spiritual Christ

[lsayre]

I can see where you (or your source) are (is) trying to tie ends together and logically make this claim, but is it realistic to assume that this claim would lie dormant for roughly 2,000 years, with no early heretical group(s) being singled out for specifically this heresy via the Orthodox heresy hunters? Unless, as you state above, this was all implied in Irenaeus declaration that for those who venerate Mark's Gospel Jesus suffered while Christ remained impassible. Is this specifically what Irenaeus meant by "impassible"?

[Giuseppe]

I can see where you (or your source) are (is) trying to tie ends together and logically make this claim, but is it realistic to assume that this claim would lie dormant for roughly 2,000 years, with no early heretical group(s) being singled out for specifically this heresy via the Orthodox heresy hunters?

note that there existed really some Christians called by Price with the name of "Jesuophobes". Price infers their existence from 1 Cor 12:3.

These Christians were cursing really the man Jesus as the false Christ who died in the place of the spiritual Christ.

[Giuseppe]

1 Cor 12:3 :

Wherefore I make known unto you, that no man speaking in the Spirit of God saith, Jesus is anathema; and no man can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit

Paul was polemizing against separationist Christians already during the his time.

[Giuseppe]

Unless, as you state above, this was all implied in Irenaeus declaration that for those who venerate Mark's Gospel Jesus suffered while Christ remained impassible. Is this specifically what Irenaeus meant by "impassible"?

So Bob Price:

Schmithals[38] is certainly correct in understanding the shocking 1 Corinthians 12:3 as a disapproving reference to the practice of Gnostics who underscored their preference for the Christ Spirit over the human Jesus (merely the channeler of the former) by ritually cursing the fleshly Jesus. Origen already understood that such a practice, still familiar in his own day from the blasphemous rites of the Ophite Gnostics, underlies the passage: “They do not admit anyone into their meeting unless he has first pronounced curses against Jesus” (Contra Celsum VI:28). “There is a certain sect which does not admit a convert unless he pronounces anathemas on Jesus; and that sect is worthy of the name which it has chosen; for it is the sect of the so-called Ophites, who utter blasphemous words in praise of the serpent” (Catena fragm. 47 in I Corinthians xii.3). Ophis is Greek for “serpent.”

(The Amazing Colossal Apostle, p. 185, my bold)

So I think that on the cross the man Jesus was really rightly abandoned by the spiritual Christ as a form of real punishment for the his sins.

In this thread I have advanced the hypothesis that Jesus was punished because he answered to the high priest that he, Jesus, was the Christ and that the Son of Man has to be glorious and not to suffer, contra the previous Christ's prophecies about the sufferings of the Son of Man).

So in the illusion that ''Jesus was the Christ'' not only Peter and the 12 and the people and Herod and Pilate did fall, but also the same man Jesus (only possessed by the Christ, but not the same one as the Christ).

The Messianic Secret was known only by the only directly interested one: the Christ (and his Father). Not even by Jesus.

And maybe, by crying ''My God, My God, why do you abandon me?'' (that in the Gospel of Peter reads: ''My power, my power, why do you abandon me?'') , Jesus, and only him, recognized the Secret Messianic:

that he was not the Christ.

This is the reason why Mark invented the fact that the people around have heard wrongly the Jesus'cry, meaning it as an invocation to Elijiah.

From this follows that the mere man Jesus Nazarene was vindicated by God as the only person in all the universe who recognized the Christ as a being distinct from him.

On the cross.