On the disappearance of Jesus in Luke 24:31

[Giuseppe]

Luke 24:31
Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared

Per J. Magne, the Emmaus episode is an anti-Gnostic midrash from Genesis episode about the Serpent.

Clearly, the Revealer becomes for the judaizer the Risen Messiah Jesus, and not the Serpent of Eden.

But in Luke the Risen Jesus disappears after having revealed who he is.

In Genesis, the Serpent doesn't disappear after the his gnosis given to Adam. He is still there just the time to be cursed by the demiurge.

So there is a substantial difference between the Jewish Christ and the Messiah of a higher god:

The Jewish Messiah reveals himself and disappears.

The Messiah of a Higher God reveals himself and is punished.

Could the Judaizer have allegorized also this difference in the first gospel, by postulating an impassible (Jewish) Christ and a distinct suffering Jesus? The disappearance of the first (by abandoning the second on the cross) reveals that the second is fully submitted to the first even if he will disappear later in the tomb.

So the separationism confirms that the man Jesus is fully servant of YHWH, and consequently the Higher God is YHWH and not an alien god.

[Giuseppe]

The sense may be also this:

The Jewish Christ abandons the man Jesus on the cross and disappears: he is really the Jewish Christ.

The man Jesus will disappear later from the tomb: he is really adopted definitely by the Jewish Christ.

The two disappearances, in that strict sequential order, proves that Jesus called Christ is fully the Jewish Christ predicted in the scriptures.

Who wanted to prove that Jesus was not the Jewish Christ had to prove therefore that Jesus was not disappeared from the tomb. Or (like Marcion) that the Son of Father (and not the Jewish Christ) was crucified really.

Hence an Ignatius could insist that who was crucified was really the Jewish Christ.


Hence in a first step the not-suffering of the Jewish Christ proves him be higher than Jesus.


In a second step, after that the Judaizers saw that the men like Marcion were gnosticizing even the same Jesus invented by the Judaizers, by proclaiming that who suffered was the Son of an unknown Father...,


...then as reaction they fabricated Gospels where now who suffered really was the Jewish Christ. The way to Ignatius is open.

So it is explained why Irenaeus likes the original readers of Mark: the separationism was only a primitive way to contrast the original gnosticism. The goal was good, in the eyes of Ireneus, only: the tool had to be corrected.

"But if they read it with love for truth...".

[Giuseppe]

Hence in a first step the not-suffering of the Jewish Christ proves him be higher than Jesus.


In a second step, after that the Judaizers saw that the men like Marcion were gnosticizing even the same Jesus invented by the Judaizers, by proclaiming that who suffered was the Son of an unknown Father...,


...then as reaction they fabricated Gospels where now who suffered really was the Jewish Christ. The way to Ignatius is open.

and the "judaizing signature" of this later reaction was the parallel interpolation in any Gospel of the Barabbas episode, the final "evidence" that the crucified one was really only and only the Jewish Christ, and not the gnostic Son of Father.

From this POV, there is no difference between the interpolator of Barabbas and the insistence of Ignatius about the true identity of the victim on the cross.