Was the original Eucharist the giving of the prohibited fruit by the Serpent-Jesus?

[Giuseppe]

I realize my ignorance (at the moment) of this great Mythicist scholar, Jean Magne.

I have found only this short review (where the case of the title is also done):

http://www.egodeath.com/JeanMagneEarlyEucharist.htm

In particular, I read:

The gnostic myths often make the paradise account be preceded by an account of a fall of a Sophia, from which the first Archon who created the illusionary world, and its offspring, come forth. Sophia rebukes and punishes the first archon for its arrogance, throwing it down the abysmal Tartaros. One of the offspring, Sabaoth, converts and is rewarded by Sophia with the throne in the seventh heaven.

Thus some later Gnostics divided the archons apart into a good one, Sabaoth, and an evil one, who turns later into Satan, the ruler of the Aion of this world. Note that Genesis puts the Bounty of the angels a few chapters after the paradise snake tale, so the identification of devil, Satan, Lucifer, and the serpent is nowhere near straightforward.

The Jews could not be content with Sabaoth just being a subdeity, but there was a way to reconcile them: Lord Sabaoth of the Gnostic myth was interpreted as the outer face of the Jewish God. Jesus, in a first step, became identified with this repentant archon, thus distinguished from the supreme God. This Jesus appeared in two forms, as a serpent in Paradise and in human shape during the reign of Tiberius. Also, Jesus' father had to be changed from the former archon to the supreme God.

This stage is mirrored in something called pre-Pauline hymn of the epistle to the Philippians, 2:6-11 which underlines the parallels between Paul's Jesus and the Sabaoth of the gnostic myth. Also some other traces of this stadium [?] in the NT, the patristic and liturgical literature are given.

Of course it still offended Jews to have now Sabaoth as a second deity, violating their monotheistic claims. Thus Jesus could not be kept as Lord, but had to be lowered to a different status, and precisely that of the Messiah announced by the prophesies of the Tanakh, as the canonical Gospels now state it. The crucifixion is integrated from its astrological-geometrical [gematrial?] sources. The roman representants [representatives?], the Saducean priests, and Herod adopt the role of the celestial powers.

So far to the development of Jesus from the gnostic roots to Judaised Christianity, as derived from considerations about the holy supper, in the remaining part of the article Magne turns to the second important rite of Christianity, the baptizing ceremony, its development and mythical foundation

If this scholar's view is correct, then I was right, when I said again and again in this forum that Jesus, when he is called "carpenter and son of Mary'' by the blind people of Nazareth, was considered by them the demiurge son of Sophia.


Only that article would make Jean Magne the greatest mythicist of all the times.

[Giuseppe]

The conversion of the demiurge Jesus is easily seen in the incipit of Mark: the baptism of the his sins by John the Baptist.

[outhouse]

If this scholar's view is correct, then I was right, when I said again and again in this forum that Jesus, when he is called "carpenter and son of Mary'' by the blind people of Nazareth, was considered by them the demiurge son of Sophia.

Its nor correct, it is absurd.

You have no way in hell to substantiate what context Aramaic peasants from Nazareth actually used, EVEN if correct. And your not even close playing atom bombs and horseshoes.

[Giuseppe]

Its nor correct, it is absurd.

only in your mind. It seems that Jacob Neusner reviewed positively the Magne's book.

https://vridar.org/2018/09/30/pz-myers- ... ment-87435

[Giuseppe]

Of course it still offended Jews to have now Sabaoth as a second deity, violating their monotheistic claims. Thus Jesus could not be kept as Lord, but had to be lowered to a different status, and precisely that of the Messiah announced by the prophesies of the Tanakh, as the canonical Gospels now state it.

A relatively strong objection addressed against the mythicism (and against dr. Carrier in particular) is always been, in my view, that argued just against the theory of an “euhemerization in action”:

There’s a comment thread in your initial “Questioning the Historicity of Jesus” post that might be worthy of reply – the commenter “Peter Piper” suggests (by means of quoting an unfavorable review of your UNCG lecture) euhemerization was a way to denigrate a deity, rather than simply creating an earthly backstory. Euhemerization would therefore not be in the interest of early Christians (unless they were employing it against other deities). This position appears to be an assertion (ie, presented without evidence), that even if true, doesn’t disprove the claim that “histories are created for deities”, but rather proves the claim (motives not withstanding).

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archive ... ment-10302

I had realized already that the counter-example given by Carrier is not so satisfying:

Plutarch’s biography of Romulus is classic euhemerization. Yet there is nothing in it to suggest he was euhemerizing Romulus to denigrate him.

In fact, I am not actually aware of any cases in antiquity of euhemerization used to denigrate a deity. There might be some (I haven’t made an exhaustive check), but all the examples I am aware of are serious, not mocking. They are more often (but not solely) part of a philosophical trend to rationalize religion and thus make it more intellectually respectable, not less.

... since surely it is not Plutarch the first who euhemerized Romulus, hence he wasn't lowering him: Romulus was already lowered for the time Plutarch wrote.


An example of an euhemerization as the lowering of a god is the same Joshua in the OT, where he was an ancient Palestinian god who was “lowered” to make him lower than YHWH. Idem for Abraham, etc. The same five kings crucified by Joshua were really ancient palestinian Gods who were later euhemerized.

About the Gospel Jesus, he may be seen as the outcome of an euhemerization (meant from the beginning to “lower” him) if the original deity or “high christology” of Jesus was too much embarrassing for the first euhemerizer just in virtue of the his being a deity. If that deity was a rival to YHWH, if that deity was even the Paradise Snake (!) or the Supreme Gnostic Revealer or the Higher God than the Jewish god, then yes, the Judaizing euhemerizer had surely and very probably a strong reason to lower him.

[neilgodfrey]

If this scholar's view is correct, then I was right, when I said again and again in this forum that Jesus, when he is called "carpenter and son of Mary'' by the blind people of Nazareth, was considered by them the demiurge son of Sophia.

I wonder if turning Jesus into a carpenter or son of a carpenter was a way of offending those who believed he stood opposed to the demiurge?

[Giuseppe]

If this scholar's view is correct, then I was right, when I said again and again in this forum that Jesus, when he is called "carpenter and son of Mary'' by the blind people of Nazareth, was considered by them the demiurge son of Sophia.

I wonder if turning Jesus into a carpenter or son of a carpenter was a way of offending those who believed he stood opposed to the demiurge?

it is a possibility, yes. But I have thought that the irony is that they (as worshippers of YHWH) are rejecting the same demiurge (insofar they believe that Jesus comes from Nazareth, i.e. from themselves) but not a higher god. As I wrote better in another post:

A solution of the enigma may be that, by rejecting the 'carpenter' and brother of James, Simon, etc., as such (i.e., just for the his being 'carpenter' and brother of these guys), these Jewish-Christians (believers in YHWH) would have had to reject coherently their same god (the creator) and the same patriarchs, as such (i.e., just in virtue of being himself).

This doesn't mean that the episode was invented by an enemy of Marcion. A gnostic could have invented it to give the irony of Jewish-Christians who reject (wrongly) the Gnostic Alien Christ for the same reasons the gnostics would have rejected (rightly) the Jewish god:

1) to be the craftsman of this world ('carpenter'),

2) to be the bastard son of the lost Sophia ('Mary'),

3) to be friend of the OT patriarchs ('brother of James, Simon, Joseph, Judas'), i.e. the OT god.


In this way the author attacked the Jewish-Christians called Nazarenes, the Christians with relations to the essene world.

[Giuseppe]

Is it ironic that the Jews reject the so-called Messiah Jesus and claim Jesus Barabbas, that is Jesus Son of the Father, whom the Sanhedrin condemned as a blasphemer? Would not the narrative rather be the transposition of an opposition to the messianization, or "Christianization", of the Lord Jesus, Son of God, within the movement that later on in Antioch will take the name of Christianity? “Son of the Father” is the title that Jesus claims by calling God his Father. It is attributed to him in the Second Epistle of John (v.3), and every day still thousands of pious voices acclaim him "Filius Patris" in the liturgical recitation of Te Deum and Gloria in excelsis.

(Jean Magne, http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/bibiloth ... xion-a.pdf my bold)


Paraphrasing Magne, I may say with equal right:

Is it ironic that the people of Nazaret reject the “Carpenter” and “son of Mary” Jesus, brother of Simon, Jacob, Judah, etc? Would not the narrative rather be the transposition of an opposition to the bastard son of the lost Sophia, or "Demiurge", the creator god and friend of the Jewish heroes and Patriarchs, within the sect of Nazarenes that later on in Antioch will take the name of Christianity?