- Truly, You Have a Dizzying Intellect.jpg (56.38 KiB) Viewed 10635 times
Why in Luke Jesus is not beaten before the high priest
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Is the Good Thief a coverage for the marcionite Jesus?
I would like Phantom Blot.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Re: Is the Good Thief a coverage for the marcionite Jesus?
Apparently Celsus would give evidence of a Gospel where Jesus disappeared entirely just on the cross:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... en162.html
But even if it had been related in the Gospels, according to the view of Celsus, that Jesus had immediately disappeared from the cross, he and other unbelievers would have found fault with the narrative, and would have brought against it some such objection as this: "Why, pray, did he disappear after he had been put upon the cross, and not disappear before he suffered?" If, then, after learning from the Gospels that He did not at once disappear from the cross, they imagine that they can find fault with the narrative, because it did not invent, as they consider it ought to have done, any such instantaneous disappearance, but gave a true account of the matter, is it not reasonable that they should accord their faith also to His resurrection, and should believe that He, according to His pleasure, on one occasion, when the doors were shut, stood in the midst of His disciples, and on another, after distributing bread to two of His acquaintances, immediately disappeared from view, after He had spoken to them certain words?
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... en162.html
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Is the Good Thief a coverage for the marcionite Jesus?
Unfortunately, no, as is already implied by the form of the condition even in English ("even if it had been related"). Here is the Greek:Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 12:17 pm Apparently Celsus would give evidence of a Gospel where Jesus disappeared entirely just on the cross:
But even if it had been related in the Gospels, according to the view of Celsus, that Jesus had immediately disappeared from the cross, he and other unbelievers would have found fault with the narrative, and would have brought against it some such objection as this: "Why, pray, did he disappear after he had been put upon the cross, and not disappear before he suffered?" If, then, after learning from the Gospels that He did not at once disappear from the cross, they imagine that they can find fault with the narrative, because it did not invent, as they consider it ought to have done, any such instantaneous disappearance, but gave a true account of the matter, is it not reasonable that they should accord their faith also to His resurrection, and should believe that He, according to His pleasure, on one occasion, when the doors were shut, stood in the midst of His disciples, and on another, after distributing bread to two of His acquaintances, immediately disappeared from view, after He had spoken to them certain words?
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... en162.html
Origen, Against Celsus 69: 69 .... Ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰ καθ' ὑπόθεσιν ἐγέγραπτο ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις ὅτι ἀπὸ τοῦ σκόλοπος ἀφανὴς εὐθὺς ἐγένετο, ἐκάκιζεν ἂν τὸ γεγραμμένον ὁ Κέλσος καὶ οἱ ἄπιστοι, καὶ κατηγόρησαν ἂν καὶ οὕτω λέγοντες· τί δή ποτε μετὰ τὸν σταυρὸν γέγονεν ἀφανής, οὐ πρὸ τοῦ παθεῖν δὲ τοῦτ' ἐπραγμα- τεύσατο; Εἴπερ οὖν ἀπὸ τῶν εὐαγγελίων μεμαθηκότες ὅτι οὐ γέγονεν εὐθὺς ἀφανὴς ἀπὸ τοῦ σκόλοπος ἐγκαλεῖν οἴονται τῷ λόγῳ, μὴ πλασαμένῳ, ὡς ἐκεῖνοι ἠξίωσαν, τὸ εὐθὺς αὐτὸν ἀφανῆ γενέσθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ σκόλοπος ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀληθὲς ἱστορήσαντι, πῶς οὐκ εὔλογον πιστεῦσαι αὐτοὺς καὶ τῇ ἀναστάσει αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὡς βουληθεὶς ὁτὲ μὲν «τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων» «ἔστη ἐν μέσῳ» τῶν μαθητῶν, ὁτὲ δὲ δοὺς ἄρτον δυσὶ τῶν γνωρίμων εὐθὺς «ἄφαντος ἐγένετο ἀπ' αὐτῶν» μετά τινας, οὓς ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς, λόγους;
This condition is the "contrary to fact" condition (secondary sequence indicative in the protasis, secondary sequence indicative + ἄν in the apodosis), which means that the statement in the protasis is not true. It is like saying: "If I had been born female (but I was not), my parents would have named me Brenda (but they did not)." In our case: "If Celsus had read this in the gospels (but he did not), he still would have objected (but he did not)."
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Re: Is the Good Thief a coverage for the marcionite Jesus?
My point is that the Passion episodes seem to be so much designed to insist that the victim was left on the cross and died on the cross, that the opposed reality is betrayed (and therefore shows itself), the reality of a Jesus disappearing on the cross itself.
Note by yourself:
Mark 15 | On what the author insists |
| Jesus will be the crucified one, not Simon, who only bears the cross. |
| There are no doubts that an execution is going to happen. |
| Mere fulfillment of prophecy. Obviously the Jewish scripture is always witness about the Jewish Christ. |
| There are no doubts about when or who was crucified: the Jewish Christ. |
| You have two witnesses even among the crucified people: how can you doubt that Jesus was crucified? |
| How can you doubt that Jesus didn't disappear from the cross in that precise moment? All the people around were witnessing the his not disappearance! |
| Even Jesus himself confirms that he is left on the cross, so how can you argue the contrary? |
| The people around were still (!) witnessing that Jesus is left there, he is not disappeared. Even (!!!) when they hope that he is going to disappear, they realize rather the Jesus is died and is left there. |
| Now what is disappeared is the Sekinah from the Temple, and not Jesus from the cross. |
| These women were witnessing the not-disappearance of Jesus from the cross. |
| How can you doubt now that the Jesus disappeared from the empty tomb, and not from the cross? |
Now, about Celsus: he is not evidence of the absence of an Oldest Gospel where Jesus disappeared from the cross. He is evidence about the fact that the missing disappearance of Jesus from the cross was embarrassing for a lot of Pagan readers. So we can be sure that that particular embarrassment was overcame by a theological point:
Jesus Christ… was truly born, and ate and drank. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died… He was also truly raised from the dead.
(pseudo-Ignatius, Trallians 9)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
On the docetic meaning of the purple robe
What I should inquiry now is the concrete possibility that not only Jesus disappeared from the cross (I have given good reasons to believe it here and here and here) but also that Jesus didn't suffer really before the crucifixion.
Origen confirms that not only Celsus could like a not-suffering Jesus (without really finding it in a Gospel), but that a lot of the his “enemies” really liked (and adored, and found it in a Gospel) a not-suffering Jesus:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... en162.html
There are only two times when Jesus is suffering, before the crucifixion, respectively before the high priest and before Romans. In whiletime, I note that the Cyrenaic episode serves to prevent that Jesus suffers in bearing himself the cross.
16 The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers. 17 They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. 18 And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” 19 Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. 20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him.
I wonder why the docetic meaning of the purple robe is not seen, until now, not even by the my loved Mythicist authors.
Note the particular of the sequence of acts:
1) Jesus receives a purple robe.
2) Jesus is beaten, etc.
3) Jesus gives back the purple robe.
The purple robe is allegory of the fleshly appearance.
So Jesus is suffering only during the time he receives an appearance of flesh. Immediately after he gives up this appearance of flesh: not coincidentially, he is not more beaten.
So the “real”, naked Jesus, without a real body (=the purple robe), was not really beaten.
Note, as corollary, the identical function of the “crown of thorns”: Jesus is not really beaten on the his head, since he bears the appearance, and only the appearance, of a fleshly head, but only for all the time he bears the crown of thorns.
Curiously, in Luke we have Herod who puts on Jesus the purple robe. If Herod allegorizes an archon (see evidence in this thread), then Jesus with the purple robe received by Herod allegorizes the assumption of fleshly appearance of the Son during the his entry in the lower spheres.
Origen confirms that not only Celsus could like a not-suffering Jesus (without really finding it in a Gospel), but that a lot of the his “enemies” really liked (and adored, and found it in a Gospel) a not-suffering Jesus:
But even if it had been related in the Gospels, according to the view of Celsus, that Jesus had immediately disappeared from the cross, he and other unbelievers would have found fault with the narrative, and would have brought against it some such objection as this: "Why, pray, did he disappear after he had been put upon the cross, and not disappear before he suffered?"
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... en162.html
There are only two times when Jesus is suffering, before the crucifixion, respectively before the high priest and before Romans. In whiletime, I note that the Cyrenaic episode serves to prevent that Jesus suffers in bearing himself the cross.
16 The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers. 17 They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. 18 And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” 19 Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. 20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him.
I wonder why the docetic meaning of the purple robe is not seen, until now, not even by the my loved Mythicist authors.
Note the particular of the sequence of acts:
1) Jesus receives a purple robe.
2) Jesus is beaten, etc.
3) Jesus gives back the purple robe.
The purple robe is allegory of the fleshly appearance.
So Jesus is suffering only during the time he receives an appearance of flesh. Immediately after he gives up this appearance of flesh: not coincidentially, he is not more beaten.
So the “real”, naked Jesus, without a real body (=the purple robe), was not really beaten.
Note, as corollary, the identical function of the “crown of thorns”: Jesus is not really beaten on the his head, since he bears the appearance, and only the appearance, of a fleshly head, but only for all the time he bears the crown of thorns.
Curiously, in Luke we have Herod who puts on Jesus the purple robe. If Herod allegorizes an archon (see evidence in this thread), then Jesus with the purple robe received by Herod allegorizes the assumption of fleshly appearance of the Son during the his entry in the lower spheres.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
On the docetic meaning of the bandage (II)
Continuing the post above, the other time when Jesus is suffering is the following:
(Mark 14:64-65)
I don't think that the episode of the denial of Peter is original. It is true, Peter is a denier, but he is forgiven by the reader, whereas Marcion condemned him also after his presumed denial. Peter was a judaizer in the eyes of Marcion.
I note that there are some similarities between the Passion of Jesus before the high priest and the “Passion” of Peter. Both are encircled. Both are assaulted (Jesus by real shots, Peter by embarrassing questions). Both can't deny these assaults (Jesus is really beaten, and Peter is really accused). So I think that the episode is anti-docetic, meant to secure the reader that just as Jesus is really beaten, so Peter is really accused.
In addition to this, as I explain here, I think that the Peter's denial episode serves to secure a reader already surprised (and highly embarrassed) by the fact that Jesus is accused of being a false prophet and beaten just before the high priest, who represents for any reader, a priori, the god of the Jews, YHWH. Could YHWH beat Jesus? Only for the gnostics.
I think that the not-real (=docetic) nature of the sufferings of Jesus before the high priest is partially described by this author:
http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/CW_2.htm
My point is partially different. Precisely as the Jews “blindfold” him, before striking him, they are really blindfolding themselves in believing that the Jesus's body is real before them.
If the bandage that had to blindfold him is allegory fo the fleshly appearance, and only appearance, of the his head (the precise target of the shots), then they were strucking not really him, but only his fleshly appearance given by themselves to Jesus.
A very archontic operation, the act of giving a fleshly appearance to who is just entered in the lower heavens.
So where a docetist is really confuted by the our Mark, apart the Judaizing words of some parable or OT-based act of Jesus, apart the judaizing incipit with John the Baptist, is only from the crucifixion episode forward where the emphasis is all meant to insist that Jesus didn't disappear from the cross.
They all condemned him as worthy of death. 65 Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him.
(Mark 14:64-65)
I don't think that the episode of the denial of Peter is original. It is true, Peter is a denier, but he is forgiven by the reader, whereas Marcion condemned him also after his presumed denial. Peter was a judaizer in the eyes of Marcion.
I note that there are some similarities between the Passion of Jesus before the high priest and the “Passion” of Peter. Both are encircled. Both are assaulted (Jesus by real shots, Peter by embarrassing questions). Both can't deny these assaults (Jesus is really beaten, and Peter is really accused). So I think that the episode is anti-docetic, meant to secure the reader that just as Jesus is really beaten, so Peter is really accused.
In addition to this, as I explain here, I think that the Peter's denial episode serves to secure a reader already surprised (and highly embarrassed) by the fact that Jesus is accused of being a false prophet and beaten just before the high priest, who represents for any reader, a priori, the god of the Jews, YHWH. Could YHWH beat Jesus? Only for the gnostics.
I think that the not-real (=docetic) nature of the sufferings of Jesus before the high priest is partially described by this author:
Being struck from behind, or by a stranger, Jesus was called upon to tell who struck him. It was an impulsive action. But the author of Luke has the Jews deliberately blindfold Jesus, before striking him.
http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/CW_2.htm
My point is partially different. Precisely as the Jews “blindfold” him, before striking him, they are really blindfolding themselves in believing that the Jesus's body is real before them.
If the bandage that had to blindfold him is allegory fo the fleshly appearance, and only appearance, of the his head (the precise target of the shots), then they were strucking not really him, but only his fleshly appearance given by themselves to Jesus.
A very archontic operation, the act of giving a fleshly appearance to who is just entered in the lower heavens.
So where a docetist is really confuted by the our Mark, apart the Judaizing words of some parable or OT-based act of Jesus, apart the judaizing incipit with John the Baptist, is only from the crucifixion episode forward where the emphasis is all meant to insist that Jesus didn't disappear from the cross.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Re: On the docetic meaning of the purple robe
irony of the consensus exegesis:Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:41 pm Note the particular of the sequence of acts:
1) Jesus receives a purple robe.
2) Jesus is beaten, etc.
3) Jesus gives back the purple robe.
The purple robe is allegory of the fleshly appearance.
So Jesus is suffering only during the time he receives an appearance of flesh. Immediately after he gives up this appearance of flesh: not coincidentially, he is not more beaten.
it has no esitation to argue that the mantle of the naked young is symbol of the fleshly nature abandoned by him and recovered in a new celestial form in the empty tomb.
But in virtue of the same reason, it doesn't see that the purple robe of Jesus, and/or his bandage, allegorize the fleshly appearance received by him only when he is beaten (=docetism).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Re: Why in Luke Jesus is not beaten before the high priest
. Jesus said, "The Pharisees and the scholars have taken the keys of knowledge and have hidden them. They have not entered nor have they allowed those who want to enter to do so.
As for you, be as sly as snakes and as simple as doves."
As for you, be as sly as snakes and as simple as doves."
(Gospel of Thomas 39)
What is surprising is the occurrence of the terms "knowledge" and "Snakes" just during an attack against the pharisees. The Pharisees here have taken the place of the demiurge: really, the Demiurge was who had imprisoned the knowledge (Sophia) by preventing the humanity from knowing the his real origin from a supreme god (not the god of the Jews).
So not coincidentially Jesus is saying:
As for you, be as sly as snakes and as simple as doves."
if the pharisees allegorize the Demiurge, then the true Christians addressed by Thomas (the "perfects") allegorize the Snake par excellence, the Serpent of Genesis who is the revealer of the gnosis from the supreme god (not the god of the Jews).
So against the Demiurgical pharisees (=Judaizers) the "serpentine" Christians (=Ophites) have to combat.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.