Did John repudiate the “lie” of a carnalized Jesus?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Did John repudiate the “lie” of a carnalized Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Dec 04, 2018 10:50 am

According to Vinzent and Stuart, in Mcn, John the Baptist represents the prophet of the Christ of the Creator and accordingly, he could only repudiate the Christ of the Good God.

But what if the contrary happened? What if John was introduced as who repudiated a Jesus apparently kata sarka?


Afterall, what would make John an enemy of the marcionite Jesus is the fact that he was expecting the Jewish messiah.

But if we remove the incipit from Luke (about the baptism by John), what prevents from the other reading?


In particular, note what precisely scandalized John the Baptist:

Fear seized them all, and they began to glorify God, saying, “A great prophet has come forth among us!” and “God has come to help his people!” 7:17 This report about Jesus circulated throughout Judea and to John the Baptist who, having heard his works was scandalized.
7:18 And he called two of his disciples

7:19 and sent them to him to ask,
“Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?” 7:20 When the men came to him, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to you to ask,
Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?’”



7:22 And he answered them, “Go tell John what your ees have seen and your ears heard: The blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news proclaimed to them.

(Mcn's reconstruction derived from here)


If John adored the Good God, then he was scandalized by the works of Jesus resembling too much nearly the works of the Jewish Messiah. So he is repudiating Jesus because of the his APPARENT resemblance with the Christ of the Creator, and not for the his being a different and alien Christ (from the Jewish Messiah).


John was basically victim of the false popular 'report' about Jesus, that was making him the Jewish Messiah contra factum.

Read in this perspective, then the following words seem not really marcionite, since the Jesus who is talking is degrading (a marcionite!) John as one who is scandalized by the demiurgical nature of Jesus.

7:23 Blessed is anyone who is not scandalized by me.”
7:24 When John’s messengers had gone, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind?
7:25 What did you go out to see? A man dressed in fancy clothes? Look, those who wear fancy clothes and live in luxury walk in kings’ courts!
7:26 What did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet, that among those born of women no one is greater than John, the

Baptist. 7:27 This is the one about whom it is written, ‘Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.’

7:28 Amen I tell you, however, the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he is.”

John is made a figure like Elijah by mouth of Jesus himself, but this Jesus seems too much a judaizing Jesus, a Jesus who is judaizing John under the same eyes of the reader!

John was really expecting 'another', but this 'another' was the Messiah of the Good God!
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Did John repudiate the “lie” of a carnalized Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:50 pm

So John was made forcibly a precursor of Jesus, and of the Judaizing Jesus, because:

... the earlier tradition about John had him as an obstacle against the coming/growing judaization/euhemerization of Jesus.

This old historical opposition:

John('s tradition) versus coming judaizers

...was itself euhemerized/eclipsed by inventing another opposition in the his place:

John versus the king of the Jews, Herod

What originally the (tradition about) John was contrasting was not the Herod's vices but the judaization/euhemerization of the concept of baptism.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Did John repudiate the “lie” of a carnalized Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:37 am

Mark is really a Judaizer. See why the head of John the Baptist was put on a platter.


Tat. Why then did God, O father, not on all bestow a share of Mind?
Her. He willed, my son, to have it set up in the midst for souls, just as it were a prize.
4. Tat. And where hath He had it set up?
Her. 4 He tilled a mighty Cup 5 with it, and sent it down, joining a Herald [to it], to whom He gave command to make this proclamation to the hearts of men:

Baptize thyself with this Cup’s baptism, what heart can do so, thou that hast faith thou canst ascend to Him that hath sent down the Cup, thou that dost know for what thou didst come into being!
As many then as understood the Herald’s tidings and doused themselves in Mind, became partakers in the Gnosis; and when they had “received the Mind” they were made “perfect men.”

http://gnosis.org/library/grs-mead/TGH-v2/th209.html

So, ''Mark''allegorized/eclipsed the noûs (=the true spiritual baptism) by the “head” of John the Baptist.

Read in the light of the distinction (in the Corpus Hermeticum) between “perfects” and outsiders, then the point of Mark, as a real Judaizer, was really the contrary: the disciples converted a lot of people, without more distinction between “perfects” and outsiders.


While the disciples themselves require the original 'secrecy' (for the only insiders),

By this time it was late in the day, so his disciples came to him. “This is a remote place,” they said, “and it’s already very late. Send the people away so that they can go to the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.”

(Mark 6:35-36)


...the judaizing Jesus becomes definitely more universalist (=“catholic”):

But he answered, “You give them something to eat.”

(Mark 6:37)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Did John repudiate the “lie” of a carnalized Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:09 am

What I think is related someway with John the Baptist is the ''failed prophecy'' of Jesus:

And he said to them, "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power."

(Mark 9:1)

...these ''who are standing here'' will be reduced to only one person, precisely the centenarian disciple ''whom Jesus loved''. This disciple was believed to be ''John'', the author of the same Gospel.

In virtue of the same reason, ''Mark'' (the presumed author of the gospel, and therefore the better candidate to figure among ''some who are standing here'') became ''John Mark'' in Acts.

But I think that originally a ''John'' expected and saw ''the kingdom of God coming with power'' . So ''Mark'' introduced the failed prophecy to project this witness in the future, so to distance it from the past, when originally that prophecy was fulfilled by John the Baptist.


For the same reason, John was made dead before the effective coming of the Kingdom (via Jesus). Or, alternatively, he was made the last prophet of the Kingdom to come.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Did John repudiate the “lie” of a carnalized Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:23 am

Really, I start to suspect that John the Baptist was modeled on Theudas. Already Lena Einhorn had introduced that possibility, by listing some similarities.

Here I find another ''coincidence'':

Theudas (/ˈθjuːdəs/; died c. 46 AD) was a Jewish rebel of the 1st century AD. Scholars attribute to his name a Greek etymology[1] possibly meant as “flowing with water”,[2] although with a Hellenist-styled ending.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theudas

If the water was so strictly linked with Theudas (in the his name and in the place of the his apocalyticism, the Jordan river) then ''John the Baptist'' was modeled on Theudas to judaize the Gnostic concept of noûs (the true spiritual baptism).

See also the importance of water in relation to John here.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5748
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Did John repudiate the “lie” of a carnalized Jesus?

Post by MrMacSon » Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:40 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:23 am

Really, I start to suspect that John the Baptist was modeled on Theudas. Already Lena Einhorn had introduced that possibility, by listing some similarities.

Here I find another ''coincidence'':

Theudas (/ˈθjuːdəs/; died c. 46 AD) was a Jewish rebel of the 1st century AD. Scholars attribute to his name a Greek etymology[1] possibly meant as “flowing with water”,[2] although with a Hellenist-styled ending.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theudas

If the water was so strictly linked with Theudas (in the his name and in the place of the his apocalyticism, the Jordan river) then ''John the Baptist'' was modeled on Theudas to judaize the Gnostic concept of noûs (the true spiritual baptism).

See also the importance of water in relation to John here.*
.

* that Link is to an article by Neil Godfrey, titled "Jesus’ Baptism in the Context of the Myth of Water, Flight and Wilderness", in which Neil begins his commentary with "Our canonical gospels all begin the career of Jesus with John the Baptist", and moves to the baptism and wilderness experience/journey of Jesus, prompted by and James M. Robinson's On the Gattung of Mark (and John) (1970) and the Apocalypse (or Revelation) of Adam -

Robinson suggests a common source lies behind the Gospel of Mark’s beginning with the baptism and wilderness experience of Jesus, our canonical Book of Revelation’s reference to the birth of a child and the fleeing of its mother to the wilderness, a section of the “gnostic” "Apocalypse (or Revelation) of Adam" and a passage in the now mostly lost Gospel of Hebrews.

Robinson does not think that our Gospel of Mark was an attempt to historicize spiritual gnostic teachings but that Mark adapted genuinely historical traditions to conform to a pattern of gnostic thought. We may wonder if it is necessary to bring any assumption of historical traditions to the question but that’s for each of us to decide.

The section of the Apocalypse of Adam is a list of proclamations from thirteen kingdoms ...

https://vridar.org/2018/12/06/jesus-bap ... ilderness/


Neil cites the the thirteen kingdoms passage from the Apocalypse (or Revelation) of Adam (from from Barnstone’s The Other Bible). The Apocalypse (or Revelation) of Adam is also available here, at the online Gnostic Society Library.

All the thirteen verses of the passage include "And thus he came to the water." Neil notes that "Another possible translation of this phrase is “And thus he came upon the water”." Nearly all are preceded by reference to glory and power. The thirteenth ends with an additional suffix -

And thus he came to the water, in order that the desire of those powers might be satisfied.


Now, the the Apocalypse (or Revelation) of Adam is an early Gnostic text, another core one being 'The Apocryphon (Secret Revelation/Book) According to John' which provides narration of a elaborate Gnostic myth of creation and salvation by the Saviour to John.

When the text of 'The Secret Book According to John' opens the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus have already happened, and the disciple John is on his way to the Temple in Jerusalem, when he meets a Pharisee. The Pharisee tells John that Jesus has misled him and turned him away from the true traditions of his ancestors, the Jews. This encounter upsets John, who begins to question his beliefs.

At this point, the heavens open, and the Savior appears to John (strangely taking three forms—a child, a young person, and an elderly person). The Savior then begins a long speech to John: about God, and its nature and many spiritual dimensions, including aeons in male-female pairs, etc. A key aspect of the Gnostic God is thinking and actions arising, especially via a first thought called Forethought and/or Barbēlō and known as 'the womb of the Entirety', the first power who came forth via luminous water, "living water [which] provides all the realms" -


The One is majestic and has an immeasurable purity.

The One is a realm that gives a realm, life that gives life, a blessed one that gives blessedness, knowledge that gives knowledge, a good one that gives goodness, mercy that gives mercy and redemption, grace that gives grace.

Not as if the One possesses all this. Rather, it is that the One gives immeasurable and incomprehensible light.

What shall I tell you about it? Its eternal realm is incorruptible, at peace, dwelling in silence, at rest, before everything.

It is the head of all realms, and it sustains them through its goodness.

We would not know what is ineffable, we would not understand what is immeasurable, were it not for what has come from the father. This is the one who has told these things to us alone.


Now, this father is the One who beholds himself in the light surrounding him, which is the spring of living water, and provides all the realms. He reflects on his image everywhere, sees it in the spring of the spirit, and becomes enamored of his luminous water, for his image is in the spring of pure luminous water surrounding him.

The father’s thought became a reality, and she who appeared in the presence of the father in shining light came forth. She is the first power who preceded everything and came forth from the father’s mind as the forethought of all. Her light shines like the father’s light; she, the perfect power, is the image of the perfect and invisible virgin spirit.

She, the first power, the glory of Barbelo, the perfect glory among the realms, the glory of revelation, she glorified and praised the virgin spirit, for because of the spirit she had come forth.

She is the first thought, the image of the spirit. She became the universal womb, for she precedes everything,
  • the mother-father,
    the first human,
    the holy spirit,
    the triple male,
    the triple power,
    the androgynous one with three names,
    the eternal realm among the invisible beings,
    the first to come forth.

Barbelo asked the invisible virgin spirit to give her foreknowledge, and the spirit consented. When the spirit consented, foreknowledge appeared and stood by forethought. This is the one who came from the thought of the invisible virgin spirit. Foreknowledge glorified the spirit and the spirit’s perfect power, Barbelo, for because of her, foreknowledge had come into being.

She asked again to be given incorruptibility, and the spirit consented. When the spirit consented, incorruptibility appeared and stood by thought and foreknowledge. Incorruptibility glorified the invisible one and Barbelo. Because of her they had come into being.

Barbelo asked to be given life eternal, and the invisible spirit consented. When the spirit consented, life eternal appeared, and they stood together and glorified the invisible spirit and Barbelo. Because of her they had come into being.

She asked again to be given truth, and the invisible spirit consented. Truth appeared, and they stood together and glorified the good invisible spirit and its Barbelo. Because of her they had come into being.

This is the father’s realm of five. It is:

  • the first human, the image of the invisible spirit, that is, forethought, which is Barbelo, and thought,
    along with foreknowledge,
    incorruptibility,
    life eternal,
    truth.
This is the androgynous realm of five, which is the realm of ten, which is the father.

The father gazed into Barbelo, with the pure light surrounding the invisible spirit, and its radiance. Barbelo conceived from it, and it produced a spark of light similar to the blessed light but not as great. This was the only child of the mother-father that had come forth, its only offspring, the only child of the father, the pure light …

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn-meyer.html
.

ie. water was important to the Gnostics, too.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Did John repudiate the “lie” of a carnalized Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:20 am

(No need, by you MrMacSon, of quoting all from the link given above)

The marcionite Jesus says that John is more than a prophet: he is an angel. Translated wrongly as "messenger".

The same angel alluded by Paul in Gal 1:8.
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5748
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Did John repudiate the “lie” of a carnalized Jesus?

Post by MrMacSon » Sat Dec 08, 2018 5:29 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:20 am
(No need, by you MrMacSon, of quoting all from the link given above)
That post arose out of thoughts I had from the discussion you were having with Lena Einhorn on the other thread. I wasn't sure whether to post it at all or whether to put it there or here. I guess it is off-topic on each thread.

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:20 am

The marcionite Jesus says that John is more than a prophet: he is an angel. Translated wrongly as "messenger".

The same angel alluded by Paul in Gal 1:8.

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed

Marcionism has similarities to Gnosticism in the bad creator God / better other true god dichotomy, at least.

I don't think one can be certain who Gal 1:8 is about, but Gal 1:6-8 is probably an attempt to sideline other gospels -

Gal 1:6-8 (NIV) -

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!


Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Did John repudiate the “lie” of a carnalized Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Dec 08, 2018 7:48 am

MrMacSon wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 5:29 am
.
I don't think one can be certain who Gal 1:8 is about, but Gal 1:6-8 is probably an attempt to sideline other gospels
Gal 1:8 meant surely a different thing for the his original author, but the my point is that Marcion allegorized the figure of this presumed rival angel of Gal 1:8 by introducing John the Baptist as an angel ("messenger") of the Creator and therefore scandalized by Jesus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Did John repudiate the “lie” of a carnalized Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Dec 08, 2018 7:53 am

So for Marcion just as the "angel" of the Judaizers prepared the way in Galatia before the return of Paul (enemy of the judaizers),

... so the "angel" John the Baptist prepared the way in Judea before the coming of Jesus (enemy of John the Baptist) .

Therefore John the Baptist is not evidence of Markan priority.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply