Applying the Criterion of Embarrassment on Luke 4:18

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Applying the Criterion of Embarrassment on Luke 4:18

Post by Giuseppe »

Surely a lot of readers agree with me about the presence of separationism if not in Mark (notoriously adoptionist for the hoi polloi) at least in proto-Mark.

Jesus is a mere man and Christ is pure spirit.

Surely, it is only myself today in the world to argue that the separationism has an antinomianist origin in proto-Mark: the mere man Jesus is Sabaoth, the (son of the) demiurge (Yaldabaoth) who is converted (by the baptism) and becomes possessed by the Spirit of the supreme god (not the god of the Jews).

So w have both evidence of:
1) old traces of separationism
2) anti-YHWH clues connected with this separationism

Given that external evidence, I have therefore the right to apply the Criterion of Embarrassment on Luke 4:18 to prove that the late Gospels were really embarrassed by the separationism and the related antinomianism of the previous lost Gospels.



16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

The episode insists on the fact that there are not doubts about the real identity of the spirit who is possessing the mere man Jesus already from the baptism: that spirit is "of the Lord" (genitive possessive). I.e. of the creator. Who therefore is eo ipso the supreme god. Pace the Gnostics.

The embarrassment proves that the identity of the spirit who possessed the mere man Jesus was different from the "spirit of the Lord". It was the spirit of a higher god (not the god of the Jews). □
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Applying the Criterion of Embarrassment on Luke 4:18

Post by Giuseppe »

In Luke at least this Jesus reading the Torah to claim the his possession by the spirit of YHWH (and not of a higher god) is probably based on Jesus the son of Saphat, as Frans Vermeiren says.
FransJVermeiren wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:49 am Jesus is a messianist
Life 35 discusses one of the three political parties in Tiberias: The second faction, composed of the most insignificant persons, was bent on war. From the context it becomes clear that these ‘most insignificant persons’ and the ‘destitute class’ of verse 66 are one and the same party. This means that Jesus is the leader of the party that is bent on war. As the war against the Romans can safely be called the Great Messianic War, Jesus comes forward from this verse as a convinced messianist, a revolutionary who wants to fight to throw out the Romans and for the ideal of an independent Jewish state lead by their messiah.
We also see Jesus as a messianist in the gospels, although an important objective of these writings is to depict Jesus not as a messianist but as the messiah himself. I refer to one pericope, Luke 4:16-22, which is traditionally interpreted as messianic in the sense that Jesus posits himself as the messiah. This is not the case, however. Jesus reads a messianic text from Isaiah and then says: “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” Jesus does not say in this sentence that he is the messiah, but that the longed-for messianic age is dawning.
Only, Jesus the son of Saphat was used by (at least) Luke and he wasn't the "historical" Jesus, pace Frans. Just as historically that Jesus son of Saphat did insist on the Torah against the Romans, so now, in the judaizing fiction, the Gospel Jesus (based on Jesus son of Saphat) insists on the Torah against the more dangerous "invasors": the antinomianist Gnostics.

In the bold part above, I may say: Jesus does not say in this sentence that he is the messiah, but that he is posessed by the spirit of the Jewish Christ.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Applying the Criterion of Embarrassment on Luke 4:18

Post by Giuseppe »

Decisive evidence that the separationism in Mark has antinomianist origin insofar the mere man Jesus is the demiurge (Sabaoth) while the spirit is Chrestos and comes from a higher god (not the creator) is the episode of Mark 5: "My make is Legion" implies that Jesus, since he commands them, is "Sabaoth", the "Lord of Hosts". Precisely who the gnostic Paul named "the prince of the powers of air".

The possessed man is therefore Paul himself,
insofar he has to confute the Gnostic hearsay that makes him an hater of YHWH, by preaching at contrary that "the Lord" is good and merciful. Here is the origin of the legend of Paul as abortion, injected in the epistles. Here it is also the point by which the author of Acts was inspired, about the his invention of the conversion of Paul. The gerasene is also the "strong man" of the parable, by which Jesus-Sabaoth proves that himself is not possessed by a spirit who is alien to Judaism (pace the Gnostics) but rather by the spirit of the creator.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Applying the Criterion of Embarrassment on Luke 4:18

Post by Giuseppe »

Note how I had proved independently from all this, that the parable of the Strong Man was a Judaizing apology meant to secure the not-Christian Jews that the Gospel Jesus is not possessed by a satanic spirit (=the equivalent of the gnostic Serpent) but by the spirit himself of the creator.

now the calculations come back: if the Strong Man is the Gerasene and is Paul, then to defeat him means to defeat the Gnostics who are enemies of YHWH.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Applying the Criterion of Embarrassment on Luke 4:18

Post by robert j »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:44 am
... I have therefore the right to apply the Criterion of Embarrassment on Luke 4:18 to prove that ...

The episode insists on the fact that there are not doubts about the real identity of the spirit ...

The embarrassment proves that the identity of the spirit who possessed the mere man Jesus was ...
Giuseppe wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:20 am
Note how I had proved independently from all this, that ...
Getting a bit too far-out over your skis?
Last edited by robert j on Sat Feb 23, 2019 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Applying the Criterion of Embarrassment on Luke 4:18

Post by Giuseppe »

The criterion of embarrassment has to be used in a legitimate way only when there is also external evidence of the thing that is said to be "embarrassing".
I think that it is already a proved fact that:

1) there is separationism in proto-Mark (only ask to Joe Wallack)
2) that separationism is antinomianist for at least some Gnostic sects (see Irenaeus, I, 30:11-12).

Hence my certainty of what I say in the first post of this thread is relatively greater.

Then, what I can't prove is if the historical Paul adored really or not the creator, but here we are talking about proto-Mark, definitely written in a time when the Gnostic* invasion was already a realized fact there out.

* = haters of the creator.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply