Were the Pillars the Cerinthians?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 5660
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Were the Pillars the Cerinthians?

Post by Giuseppe » Thu May 16, 2019 11:32 am

I read:
…that he (Cerinthus) was called John, and that this book is the work of one John, I do not deny. And I agree also that it is the work of a holy and inspired man. But I cannot readily admit that he was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, by whom the Gospel of John and the Catholic Epistle were written.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/timsteppin ... rd-of/amp/

I read it again as it was the first time:

Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.”

36 “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked.

37 They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.”

38 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?”

39 “We can,” they answered.

Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40 but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”

Ok, we are used to read that passage as de facto denying to Pillars the glory that is own of the Lord of the Glory. Afterall, it is a pure and simple fact that "Mark" was sarcastic against the Pillars.

But as I have noted in another thread, the crucifixion of the Lord of Glory (1 Cor 2:8) could be an anti-separationist dogma addressed against the Cerinthians (who denied that the Son was crucified: the mere man Jesus suffered in the his place).

Hence, according to Cerinthus, the Lord of Glory was not crucified. Paraphrasing Mark, the Cerinthus would have said:

The cross belongs to that for whom it has been prepared.

I.e., the victim who had to be crucified was merely the man Jesus, not the spiritual Christ, the Son of God.

Hence "Mark" makes a motive of embarrassment just what was the (historical) motive of pride for the Pillars:
  • In the real history, the Pillars preached that they, as members of the Body of Christ, were not crucified as Christ himself was not crucified (separationism). They were prideful for this belief.
  • Hence, in the fiction, the Pillars are embarrassed by Jesus denying them the sharing of the his same glory: the cross.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 5660
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Were the Pillars the Cerinthians?

Post by Giuseppe » Thu May 16, 2019 11:43 am

The Pillars preached that the man Jesus was crucified and not Christ.

Mark returns the favour by inventing that the two thieves were crucified, not the Pillars.

Hence in Mark the Pillars didn't share the glory of the Lord of the Glory: the crucifixion.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 5660
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Were the Pillars the Cerinthians?

Post by Giuseppe » Thu May 16, 2019 12:00 pm

The intriguing conclusion is that, before Mark, the followers of the Pillars - the Cerinthians - were already euhemerizing the Jesus by simply dividing him from the spiritual Christ.

The Pillars would have adored Jesus as the Just suffering of Isaiah and/or the Mystical Lamb of Revelation (not a historical man) but they didn't identify him with the Christ. Paul did.

Hence the followers of the Pillars were simply dividing again what Paul (and the Pauline "Mark") had united: the Jesus and the Christ.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 5660
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Were the Pillars the Cerinthians?

Post by Giuseppe » Fri May 17, 2019 7:26 am

But I remember that "Mark" himself is separationist. Hence the passage may be interpreted as a separationist passage. The Pillars are rewarded in what they ask for themselves, insofar another people (the two thieves) will die in their place. Just as the spiritual Christ will have another person (the mere man Jesus) who will die in the his place.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 5660
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Were the Pillars the Cerinthians?

Post by Giuseppe » Fri May 17, 2019 7:47 am

Therefore the passage is against the Pillars only insofar it is emphasized their ignorance about what means the sharing of the glory of the spiritual Christ. That glory is not the crucifixion. That glory is to be impassible while another person suffers on the cross, precisely the Cerinthus dogma.

Hence Matthew corrected the episode by believing that it was too much embarrassing a similar request of glory by the Pillars. But really the false view of which the Pillars were victims, according to the separationist "Mark", was the belief that the crucified one was just the Lord of the Glory and so that glory could be shared only by being crucified with Christ. When really the true glory is abandoning the flesh (=the Law) on the cross (precisely what the Cerinthian Christ did).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply