Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Recently, Vridar has described the view of a French Mythicist, Marc Sthéphane:

Before the gospel was written, the view of the death of Jesus that was set out in 1 Cor 2:8 aligned with the same narrative we read in the Ascension of Isaiah: the Prince of this world, Satan and his archangels, killed the Lord of Glory and hung him up on a cross;
The Ascension of Isaiah, in a Latin manuscript, conforms with the standard Jewish law that an executed criminal’s body would be hung on a tree as a public warning; that is, the hanging of a body on the tree an act that followed the execution; this was the standard Jewish understanding of what it meant for a body to be cursed by hanging on a tree;
In one manuscript line of the Gospel of Mark Jesus is said to have called out at his moment of death, “My God, my God, why have you cursed me?” — thus adhering to what Paul wrote about the fate of the Son of God;

https://vridar.org/2018/10/13/jesus-fro ... n-a-cross/

before killed by the demons (how?), and only after his corpse was crucified: this would be the original myth, according to this Mythicist.

Now, in the Talmud we have that Jesus ben Stada was before stoned, and after his corpse was hung on the tree.


In the Gospels, the surprising fact is that we have Judas who died hunging himself on the tree.

But not only this is surprising.



Matthew 27:1-10




Note the sequence of actions:

1) Judas “threw the money” into the temple

2) Judas hungs on a tree and dies.

3) the scribes buy the Potter's field.


The act of throwing the money remembers closely the act of stoning someone.

And it is highly ironic that Judas is “stoning” the physical temple of Jerusalem, when the spiritual temple is Jesus.

Hence, according to separationism, it is not the spiritual Christ who is crucified, but the carnal Jesus.


Therefore here what can be seen in nuce is the stoning of the same Jesus, at least in the eyes of the his enemies.


But then something of very strange happens: who is hung on a tree is Judas, and not Jesus.

Secret Alias, in a rare moment of Buddhistic illumination by him, revealed that the “Potter” is the Demiurge.


Hence here have in short the original Gnostic myth: the demons stoned Jesus and hung him on a tree, and in this way Jesus ransoms the souls from the Demiurge (YHWH) who had them previously in the his possession.

Against this Gnostic myth, the Judaizers invented the legend of a Judas who was really “cursed” by hanging on a tree. Something as:


Curiously, the Muslims argue that the crucified on a Roman cross was Judas, not Jesus!

Where is the evidence that Gnosticism preceded more Orthodox forms of Christianity, and that Orthodoxy devolved out of Gnosticism?

lsayre wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 7:15 am Where is the evidence that Gnosticism preceded more Orthodox forms of Christianity, and that Orthodoxy devolved out of Gnosticism?

This is not precisely the argument of this thread. At any case, to answer to your question, the great mythicist Jean Magne has proved that the “fundamental exegesis” to understand the NT is to realize that Luke 24:13-35 is the midrash from Gn 2:9-3:19, revealing the existence of a pre-orthodox Christian Gnosticism where the Serpent (and enemy of the Jewish god) was just Jesus.

Jean Magne has proved that the “fundamental exegesis” to understand the NT is to realize that Luke 24:13-35 is the midrash from Gn 2:9-3:19

There you go again - 'proved.' To prove something you have to go beyond mere interpretation. How and why do you continue to abuse logic and language on a daily basis? You should be thrown off the forum.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 7:59 am You should be thrown off the forum.

This is offensive by you.

When I would argue with a Christian apologist, I would like that he read OHJ of Richard Carrier so that at least he knows the better Mythicist arguments. This is the reason I like GakuseiDon in comparison to other apologists.

But if you want to argue with me about the origins of Gnosticism, please read Jean Magne's arguments before, and only then you can come with more humility to talk to me to decide if I have to be “thrown off the forum”.

You are a modern Judaizer of old heresies and there is something of sectarian in this.

It was not me who was “throwing off the forum”.

it's more like throwing up on

it's his CONSTANT use of HYPERBOLE and overstatement. Proof is a high standard. Stop saying something is "proved" when nothing has been proved. It's so fucking annoying. Giuseppe is a complete simpleton

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 9:25 am it's his CONSTANT use of HYPERBOLE and overstatement. Proof is a high standard. Stop saying something is "proved" when nothing has been proved. It's so fucking annoying. Giuseppe is a complete simpleton

Is so necessary this your refrain in this context?

Is the reader not able to see alone what is “annoying” (for him) and what isn't ?


For the chronicle, the famous Jewish scholar (received in Vatican by the previous pope) Jacob Neusner found this as surely not-annoying.


https://vridar.org/2018/10/01/enticed-b ... mythicist/