The accusation by Jesus (the gnostic Son of Father) against the Jews is that the Jews are the sons of the fornication between the demiurge and the first woman Eve. In that way Abel was born, also, according to Gnostics.
This is the reason they want the death of Jesus.
John 8:41: “We were not born of sexual immorality.”
John 8:41: “We were not born of sexual immorality.”
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Re: John 8:41: “We were not born of sexual immorality.”
Prof April DeConick is a judaizer without knowing that she is a Judaizer. She is totally wrong when she says that the original Gnostic reading of John 8:44:
...was:
Since, at contrary, pace DeConick, the true original Gnostic reading was:
The "devil" being the god of the Jews.
It was just the judaizer who interpolated the reference to the "father of the devil" as being the same father of the Jews. In this way, the Father of the devil is also the Father of Jesus: the only difference between Jesus and the Jews is that the first was obedient to his Father (YHWH) while the second, just as the diable, were rebels against their Father (YHWH).
This is the problem with modern scholarship: it is judaizing even when it would like to inquiry the Gnostic traces in NT.
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
...was:
Ye are (sons) of the father of the devil...
Since, at contrary, pace DeConick, the true original Gnostic reading was:
Ye are (sons) of the devil...
The "devil" being the god of the Jews.
It was just the judaizer who interpolated the reference to the "father of the devil" as being the same father of the Jews. In this way, the Father of the devil is also the Father of Jesus: the only difference between Jesus and the Jews is that the first was obedient to his Father (YHWH) while the second, just as the diable, were rebels against their Father (YHWH).
This is the problem with modern scholarship: it is judaizing even when it would like to inquiry the Gnostic traces in NT.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Re: John 8:41: “We were not born of sexual immorality.”
He was a murderer from the beginning
Why "from the beginning"?
Because the devil moved Cain to kill Abel. It was the first murder. This implies that before Cain, the devil was not a murderer.
But for the Gnostics the demiurge was murderer "from the beginning" meaning "from the beginning" in absolute terms, i.e. from the creation of the world, itself being the act of corruption and death par excellence.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Re: John 8:41: “We were not born of sexual immorality.”
Now I realize why the mythicist Louis-Gordon Rylands insisted to call "Gnostic" a gospel - by him considered the first gospel post-70 CE - where only the Jews kill Jesus, without mention of Pilate.
Until now, I was not able to consider "gnostic" a such gospel, since the gospel of Peter (example of a gospel where only the Jews kill Jesus) was probably written by an adorer of YHWH.
Hence the question: was Pilate introduced by the Judaizers to remove from the Jews the Gnostic accusation (found in the first gospel post-70) that they killed Jesus because they were sons of the evil demiurge?
Until now, I was not able to consider "gnostic" a such gospel, since the gospel of Peter (example of a gospel where only the Jews kill Jesus) was probably written by an adorer of YHWH.
Hence the question: was Pilate introduced by the Judaizers to remove from the Jews the Gnostic accusation (found in the first gospel post-70) that they killed Jesus because they were sons of the evil demiurge?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
-
Joseph D. L.
- Posts: 1425
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am
Re: John 8:41: “We were not born of sexual immorality.”
Now you realize... something I told you a month ago.
Re: John 8:41: “We were not born of sexual immorality.”
Your "reasons" to conclude so were not the reasons exposed here. And I don't conclude still so (about Pilate), at any way. I should think still about the question more soundly.
Please don't dirty this my good thread with the your comments/rumors of the kind "I am better than you" et similia. I see that you are not very polite even with one better than myself as Frans, considered the post you write in the his thread.
It is a bit disturbing to start a thread and to receive insults by the first poster. My views change continually and it is not a crime.
Please don't dirty this my good thread with the your comments/rumors of the kind "I am better than you" et similia. I see that you are not very polite even with one better than myself as Frans, considered the post you write in the his thread.
It is a bit disturbing to start a thread and to receive insults by the first poster. My views change continually and it is not a crime.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
-
Joseph D. L.
- Posts: 1425
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am
Re: John 8:41: “We were not born of sexual immorality.”
My comment to Frans, although it's really none of your business, is to be taken sarcastically, hence why I wrote it like that and didn't outright say, because I wasn't trying to be serious.
Your views don't change, Giuseppe, they just become more obscure, bordering on the absurd.
Your logic is asinine, your arguments circular, and your constant appeal to authority makes you disingenuous.
And don't act as if you have some moral high ground to stand upon. You've been just as sarcastic and insultive with me. I'll admit, I more so, but because I have a very low tolerance for b.s. and sometimes it's just easier on my nerves to call the guy a moron.
Your views don't change, Giuseppe, they just become more obscure, bordering on the absurd.
Your logic is asinine, your arguments circular, and your constant appeal to authority makes you disingenuous.
And don't act as if you have some moral high ground to stand upon. You've been just as sarcastic and insultive with me. I'll admit, I more so, but because I have a very low tolerance for b.s. and sometimes it's just easier on my nerves to call the guy a moron.
Re: John 8:41: “We were not born of sexual immorality.”
The problem with the view that "only the Jews crucify Jesus in the first gospel" is simply that the Jews can't crucify. Only Rome has the copy-right on the crucifixion, on this earth. In heaven, only the Archons can crucify Jesus. The Jews could only stone Jesus, but there is some irony in the fourth Gospel about Jesus being escaped twice to the stoning by the Jews, while the hellenist Stephen in Acts is stoned. Hence, I definitely can't accept that the first gospel had only the Jews as killers.
Moreover, I think that a better reason to have only the Romans as killers of Jesus in the first gospel, is the fact that the basic text that is shared by all the four Gospels is the following:
John 18
Moreover, I think that a better reason to have only the Romans as killers of Jesus in the first gospel, is the fact that the basic text that is shared by all the four Gospels is the following:
John 18
12 Then the cohort and the chiliarch arrested Jesus. They bound him and brought him
28 to pretorium.
33 Pilate asked him: “Are you the king of the Jews?”
34 Jesus asked, “You say so”.
19:1 Then Pilate handed Jesus, having him flogged, to be crucified.
28 to pretorium.
33 Pilate asked him: “Are you the king of the Jews?”
34 Jesus asked, “You say so”.
19:1 Then Pilate handed Jesus, having him flogged, to be crucified.
Last edited by Giuseppe on Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Re: John 8:41: “We were not born of sexual immorality.”
Afterall, there is not reason about why Pilate would be interested to Jesus in line of principle, without that the Jews were interested before about Jesus. The hypothesis of a demiurge or of Satan moving Pilate to be interested about Jesus is not persuasive at all. Hence, the first move could only be made by the Jews. The second move (the act itself of the crucifixion) was left to Pilate. The irony in John is that the Jews alone can't kill Jesus, but they were able to kill him only by using finally Pilate. Hence the Jews served to kill Jesus, but also Pilate serves to kill Jesus. Both Jews and Pilate can't be disconnected.
Hence the Earliest Passion Story is something as the following:
Hence the Earliest Passion Story is something as the following:
They led Jesus to the high priest,
and the elders and the scribes gathered and,
the morning come, they took counsel and,
having bound him, they brought him to Pilate.
Pilate asked him: “Are you the king of the Jews?”
Jesus asked, “You say so”.
Then Pilate handed Jesus, having him flogged, to be crucified.
and the elders and the scribes gathered and,
the morning come, they took counsel and,
having bound him, they brought him to Pilate.
Pilate asked him: “Are you the king of the Jews?”
Jesus asked, “You say so”.
Then Pilate handed Jesus, having him flogged, to be crucified.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Re: John 8:41: “We were not born of sexual immorality.”
The entire abstraction of the scene above is so… ...severe and suggestive, that it could appear very well even at the end of a collections of sayings like, for example, Q or the Gospel of Thomas.
Afterall, it seems to be more a logion than a "gospel", given the absence of stupid embellishments betraying only midrash or more or less veiled apologies to overcome the embarrassment about the presence of Pilate.
Afterall, it seems to be more a logion than a "gospel", given the absence of stupid embellishments betraying only midrash or more or less veiled apologies to overcome the embarrassment about the presence of Pilate.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.