On the identity of Jesus revealed by negation on the cross

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 5418
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

On the identity of Jesus revealed by negation on the cross

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Feb 28, 2019 6:54 pm

As the reader knows, one of the my favorite hobbies is to inquiry the possibility that proto-Mark was a gospel written by Judaizers against Gnostic "serpentists" (= adorers of Jesus as the Serpent of Genesis, seen as a positive figure of revealer of sacred gnosis).

I think that the hypotesis is one of the very few to allow a complete explanation of the enigmatic words of the dying Jesus on the cross:

33 At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. 34 And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?”).

35 When some of those standing near heard this, they said, “Listen, he’s calling Elijah.”

36 Someone ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,” he said.

37 With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

Until now, the scholars have interpreted the Messianic Secret as revealed, if revealed on the cross, by a positive claim (for example, the explicit recognition of the centurion, "Really this man was the Son of God!"), as opposed to a revelation by negation, i.e. by showing what Jesus is not.

Of course, a typical example of what Jesus is not is the explicit negation, made known to readers, that Jesus is Elijiah. Only the people around believe that Jesus needs an expiation of the his sins, since they believe that he is praying Elijiah redivivus, i.e. John the Baptist. But then, if on account of it Jesus doesn't need of an expiation of the his sins, then, along the same lines, the his rapid death works as a blunt negation of the his cry on the cross:

My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?”

As rhe logic goes, if the rapid death is a direct effect of the need of a negation of the fact that Jesus is really abandoned by god, then in that precise moment Jesus's identity is going to be revealed as the identity of who is not abandoned par excellence.

Who is not not abandoned par excellence ?

He may be the first man, Adam, since he was abandoned by God after the Fall. Abandoned as a living being. Whereas Jesus is not abandoned in virtue of the his rapid death.

But I think that the original separationist reading of the Jesus's cry on the cross may reveal even more than this. According to that original reading, of which the sound in the related Aramaic translation fits better the presumed invocation of Elijiah (so Marc Stephane), is the following:


My God, my God, why have you cursed me?”

As the logic goes, also in this case the rapid death serves to deny that Jesus was really cursed, just as the readers know that Jesus wasn't invoking really Elijiah redivivus.

Jesus is who is dead because he is not cursed by God.

Who was alive despite of the his being cursed by God?

Genesis gives the answer:


14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,

Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

So the readers know now who Jesus is: he is really the Jewish Christ, and not the Serpent revealer of a higher god, different from the god creator.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 5418
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the identity of Jesus revealed by negation on the cross

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:27 am

The following passage may be a judaizing interpolation:
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”

(Galatians 3:13)
...insofar the Christ is also cursed in the act itself of the his death, proving so that he is different from the Serpent, who was cursed but not died.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 5418
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the identity of Jesus revealed by negation on the cross

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:41 am

Really, the entire Talmudic tradition betrayes a lot of insistence about a Jesus who was hunged and cursed again and again "by the Jews", to mean cryptically that the Judaizers preached a cursed/crucified Jesus, and as such one who was not the Serpent of Genesis, notoriously cursed but not crucified.

The historical nucleus is therefore the judaizing trend behind the portrait of a crucified and cursed Jesus. The same trend that found then expression in the Gospels (where the Roman crucifixion preserves the feature of the cursing of the victim).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 5418
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the identity of Jesus revealed by negation on the cross

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Mar 01, 2019 12:26 pm

The precise difference between a Jesus who is cursed and crucified in the same time, and a Jesus who was cursed but not crucified , is that the first one does a redemptive act, whereas the second does a revelatory act. The death by impaling/crucifixion was the way by which an original Revealer antinomianist figure was converted in a nomianist Redeemer figure.
The death played no role for a Revealer. A Revealer who is crucified ceases eo ipso to be a Revealer and becomes a Reedemer. (Partial exception: Prometheus was impaled apparently against the fact that he was a Revealer and not a Redeemer: but he was freed by Hercules/Tammuz, notoriously the figure of a Redeemer). Barabbas is the Markan parody of the Jesus (= an attack against the his adorers) who was cursed for the his crimes but one who was not crucified.

The steps are the following ones:

1) Jesus was the Serpent of Genesis: Revealer and not crucified.

2) the Jesus of the point (1) was cursed as diabolic by pious Jews.

3) the Judaizers tried a mediation by (1) and (2) : Jesus was cursed and crucified. So the crucifixion removed the cursing, by working as act of expiation. Jesus became a Redeemer.

4) in the Talmud there was a merge of (2) and (3). Jesus was both cursed and crucified, but he was a false Revealer (=a sorcerer) and he was not redeemed.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10601
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: On the identity of Jesus revealed by negation on the cross

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Mar 01, 2019 4:24 pm

Why do translations still render this Psalm 22:1 passage in such obscure language. Who says 'forsaken' any more? 'My god, my god why have you left me.'
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Giuseppe
Posts: 5418
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the identity of Jesus revealed by negation on the cross

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Mar 02, 2019 5:52 am

Is not a coincidence that fact that Jesus, invoking ABBA in the Getshemani, obtains as (contrary) effect the liberation of Bar-ABBAS?

Now, he invokes again the same god while being on the cross, and he seems to obtain the exact contrary of a salvation: the death.

who is wrongwho is right
Who Jesus is not?
Jesus asks that ABBA saves himJesus Bar ABBAS is freed Jesus is not the Son of Father who is not the Jewish Christ.
the people believe that Jesus is invoking ElijiahJesus isn't invoking Elijiah Jesus is not John the Baptist, nor Elijiah.
Jesus believes that he is abandoned/cursed by godgod makes him die rapidly Jesus is not the Serpent who was abandoned/cursed "all the days of his life".

The Serpent is seen also as tempter of Jesus in that precise moment on the cross : by the rapid death of the tempted Jesus, the Serpent didn't "saw" more, he was made bluntly unable to tempt the his prey. So the creator god defeated the Serpent by making Jesus die rapidly on the cross.

It is as if the creator interrupted in advance the dialogue between Eve and the Serpent in Genesis.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 5418
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the identity of Jesus revealed by negation on the cross

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Mar 02, 2019 11:12 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Mar 02, 2019 5:52 am
The Serpent is seen also as tempter of Jesus in that precise moment on the cross : by the rapid death of the tempted Jesus, the Serpent didn't "saw" more, he was made bluntly unable to tempt the his prey. So the creator god defeated the Serpent by making Jesus die rapidly on the cross.
Here is the origin of the separationism in Mark: the riotous nature of who was adored as the Serpent (''Jesus'') had to be corrected by the judaizing spiritual Christ to undergo an entire Jewish life and death and resurrection in Judea.

Until now, the exegetical error of a lot of scholars is been to confuse the possessor Christ with the alien spirit of the Serpent (or how you would like to call the supreme god as different from the demiurge), when at contrary it was the mere man Jesus who was the result of the euhemerization/judaization of the original celestial Revealer. The man was already a converted being, i.e. one who was repented for the his past of rebel against the creator god. If he was going to be still tempted on the cross, it was why the his conversion was questioned still, when Mark was written. In other terms, Sabaoth was already a repented deity when ''Mark'' wrote, but some hated still him as the worthy abortion of the evil Yaldabaoth.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply