The Fourth Gospel is separationist : the EVIDENCE

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 6525
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

The Fourth Gospel is separationist : the EVIDENCE

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:04 am

John 19:25-27:

Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby , he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

Read carefully the passage: near the cross of Jesus John (the best disciple) is not mentioned among the women found there.

Where is then John in this scene?

He is not under the cross. He is on the cross. The his body is possessed by the Spirit Jesus. This is the reason the spiritual Jesus "saw" the mother and the Beloved Disciple "standing nearbly": he has just abandoned the body of John (on the cross), and he therefore is going to see from above (from heaven) the mother of the Beloved Disciple (under the cross) and the Beloved Disciple (on the cross).

Then, by saying “Woman, here is your son,”, the spiritual Jesus is saying that the mother of the crucified victim will have again the body of the her son, after that that same body is abandoned now by the spiritual Jesus.

By saying, “Here is your mother.”, Jesus is saying to the crucified (=the Beloved Disciple) that he will become again mere property of the mother of him (=John): a carnal mother. The demiurgical mother, matter.

THe mother is the same NEGATIVE figure of the presumed "mother" of Jesus in Mark.

Therefore she is not the real mother of Jesus. This is the reason she is rejected by Jesus in Cana ("what between me and you, woman?").
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6525
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Fourth Gospel is separationist : the EVIDENCE

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:16 am

The key passage here is in that:

Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

without that passage, I couldn't raise the question: why is not the Beloved Disciple mentioned there with them, if he was really found under the cross?

This may have collateral effects in the interpretation of the equivalent Markan verse:

Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome. In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there.

(Mark 15:40-41)

Some suggestive questions:
  • what if the Mary mentioned there was not the mother of James etc, but the mother "of Jesus"? Assume for sake of discussion that it was the case. Should these words persuade us that that Mary was just the mother of Jesus? Surely. Only, the mother of the victim, of the crucified, but not of the spiritual Christ possessing him.
  • the doubt is raised: were these women really come up "with him" to Jerusalem? Sure. Only, they followed the mere human recipient (Jesus), not the spiritual Christ possessing him.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6525
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Fourth Gospel is separationist : the EVIDENCE

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:21 am

What I am saying is that an anti-separationist interpolator replaced

Mary the mother of Jesus

with:

Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph

...because he realized that the explicit mention of the mother "of Jesus" was read by the Separationists as deliberately opposed to her being ALSO the mother of the spiritual Christ possessing (and abandoning) the victim on the cross.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6525
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Fourth Gospel is separationist : the EVIDENCE

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:09 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:21 am
What I am saying is that an anti-separationist interpolator replaced

Mary the mother of Jesus

with:

Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph

...because he realized that the explicit mention of the mother "of Jesus" was read by the Separationists as deliberately opposed to her being ALSO the mother of the spiritual Christ possessing (and abandoning) the victim on the cross.
This point goes to confirm the view about Mary Magdalene being invented by Judaizers as a whore since she had to receive all the ignominy that in the previous gospels was reserved only to the presumed mother of Jesus (=docetism) and/or to the mother of the mere man Jesus but not of the his possessor Christ (=separationism)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6525
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Fourth Gospel is separationist : the EVIDENCE

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:07 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:04 am
John 19:25-27:

Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby , he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

Read carefully the passage: near the cross of Jesus John (the best disciple) is not mentioned among the women found there.

Where is then John in this scene?

He is not under the cross. He is on the cross. The his body is possessed by the Spirit Jesus. This is the reason the spiritual Jesus "saw" the mother and the Beloved Disciple "standing nearbly": he has just abandoned the body of John (on the cross), and he therefore is going to see from above (from heaven) the mother of the Beloved Disciple (under the cross) and the Beloved Disciple (on the cross).

Then, by saying “Woman, here is your son,”, the spiritual Jesus is saying that the mother of the crucified victim will have again the body of the her son, after that that same body is abandoned now by the spiritual Jesus.

By saying, “Here is your mother.”, Jesus is saying to the crucified (=the Beloved Disciple) that he will become again mere property of the mother of him (=John): a carnal mother. The demiurgical mother, matter.

THe mother is the same NEGATIVE figure of the presumed "mother" of Jesus in Mark.

Therefore she is not the real mother of Jesus. This is the reason she is rejected by Jesus in Cana ("what between me and you, woman?").
It is also curious what the Christ on the cross says but only after the same presumed "Christ" is given back to his mother:

Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.”

The man Jesus (really, the Beloved Disciple) is thirsty only after he becomes again a mere man son of an earthly mother: the spiritual Christ had abandoned him only some minutes before.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6525
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Fourth Gospel is separationist : the EVIDENCE

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:16 am

Ἴδε ἡ μήτηρ σου is wrongly translated as: "here is your mother".

The correct traduction is : See (Imperative) your mother.

Hence the spiritual Christ, having just abandoned the Beloved Disciple on the cross, commands him to see the his earthly mother.

this is a separationism à la Basilides: the Christ is impassible, laughing about the victim and the people around, while the man on the cross is suffering.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6525
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Fourth Gospel is separationist : the EVIDENCE

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:20 am

Tis explains the legend about Cerinthus the true author of the fourth gospel (proto-John).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7062
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Fourth Gospel is separationist : the EVIDENCE

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:04 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:16 am
Ἴδε ἡ μήτηρ σου is wrongly translated as: "here is your mother".

The correct traduction is : See (Imperative) your mother.
Neither of the above translations is literal; the advantage of the first, however, is that it retains the intended force of the main clause (including the actual case of the main noun), whereas yours indulges in a grammatical fallacy. The more literal translations (NAS, ESV, RSV) get it right: "Behold, your mother." Your translation is impossible, Giuseppe, because ἡ μήτηρ is in the nominative and therefore cannot be the the object of any verb. Ἴδε, on the other hand, is a colloquialism; it is not meant to take a direct object in these cases; it is more like an interjection. The English "behold" + a comma is an attempt to capture what is intended.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 6525
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Fourth Gospel is separationist : the EVIDENCE

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:29 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:04 am
Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:16 am
Ἴδε ἡ μήτηρ σου is wrongly translated as: "here is your mother".

The correct traduction is : See (Imperative) your mother.
Neither of the above translations is literal; the advantage of the first, however, is that it retains the intended force of the main clause (including the actual case of the main noun), whereas yours indulges in a grammatical fallacy. The more literal translations (NAS, ESV, RSV) get it right: "Behold, your mother." Your translation is impossible, Giuseppe, because ἡ μήτηρ is in the nominative and therefore cannot be the the object of any verb. Ἴδε, on the other hand, is a colloquialism; it is not meant to take a direct object in these cases; it is more like an interjection. The English "behold" + a comma is an attempt to capture what is intended.
You are correct but what escapes you is the immediate context:

Ἰησοῦς οὖν ἰδὼν τὴν μητέρα καὶ τὸν μαθητὴν παρεστῶτα ὃν ἠγάπα, λέγει τῇ μητρί Γύναι, ἴδε ὁ υἱός σου


Even if you are right, the sense is not modified: Jesus is commanding the Beloved Disciple to realize what is now the his human too human nature. By pointing the his (of the Beloved Disciple) earthly mother.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7062
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Fourth Gospel is separationist : the EVIDENCE

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:34 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:29 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:04 am
Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:16 am
Ἴδε ἡ μήτηρ σου is wrongly translated as: "here is your mother".

The correct traduction is : See (Imperative) your mother.
Neither of the above translations is literal; the advantage of the first, however, is that it retains the intended force of the main clause (including the actual case of the main noun), whereas yours indulges in a grammatical fallacy. The more literal translations (NAS, ESV, RSV) get it right: "Behold, your mother." Your translation is impossible, Giuseppe, because ἡ μήτηρ is in the nominative and therefore cannot be the the object of any verb. Ἴδε, on the other hand, is a colloquialism; it is not meant to take a direct object in these cases; it is more like an interjection. The English "behold" + a comma is an attempt to capture what is intended.
You are correct but what escapes you is the immediate context:

Ἰησοῦς οὖν ἰδὼν τὴν μητέρα καὶ τὸν μαθητὴν παρεστῶτα ὃν ἠγάπα, λέγει τῇ μητρί Γύναι, ἴδε ὁ υἱός σου


Even if you are right, the sense is not modified: Jesus is commanding the Beloved Disciple to realize what is now the his human too human nature. By pointing the his (of the Beloved Disciple) earthly mother.
Nothing has escaped me. I am commenting only on the grammar.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply