He came to his own (=the Galatians), but his own did not receive him (=Paul)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 6624
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

He came to his own (=the Galatians), but his own did not receive him (=Paul)

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:25 am


He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.

(John 1:11)

The greatest conspiracy of the Judaizers is to make me idiot believe that the verse above reiterates merely the essential Jewishness of Jesus:

He (=Jesus) came to that which was his own (=the Jews), but his own did not receive him.

(John 1:11)

But in proto-John the meaning of the verse is that Jesus (=the Light) came to the sons of the Light (=the Gnostics), but they were corrupted by the Judaizers and/or Jews (=the sons of the evil demiurge) and as outcome "they (=the Gnostics, not the Jews) didn't receive him".

Now, this interpretation would be limited to proto-John, if proto-John alone was a gnostic gospel.

But it remembers me the point made by Tom Dykstra and Adamczweski in their commentary on Mark, especially about the first meeting with the Pillars:

16 As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. 17 “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.” 18 At once they left their nets and followed him.

19 When he had gone a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John in a boat, preparing their nets. 20 Without delay he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him.

In the real history, according to Dykstra and Adamczewski, it was Paul who met the Pillars, to find opposition by them. "Mark" replaced Paul with "Jesus" in his fiction.

Hence the interpretation of John 1:11 in proto-John (a marcionite gospel) is strongly indebted to a proto-Mark interpreted as an allegory of Paul as opposed to a real Jesus from Galilee.

In both the cases the hero "came to that which was his own" (=already pauline Christians), ...

...but his own did not receive him:
  • The Galatians rejected Paul (real History)
  • The Pillars rejected the Markan Jesus who is allegory of Paul (fiction).
But John 1:11 adds new knowledge: who was corrupted by the Judaizers were not only the Galatians in Paul, not only the Pillars in Mark, but even "who was his own" (i.e., of the Light), in proto-John. The same Gnostics.

This is definitive evidence that Dykstra and Adamczewski are fully right to claim that proto-Mark is 100% midrash from Paul.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

klewis
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:39 am

Re: He came to his own (=the Galatians), but his own did not receive him (=Paul)

Post by klewis » Fri Nov 22, 2019 7:41 am

John 1:11 is actually the theme of the entire Gospel of John.

We see it in the following three stories in which acceptance of Jesus grows as he from Jew to Gentile. This is just a subset of the entire Gospel:
  • Nicodemus comes to Jesus because of miracles (John 3:1-36). Nicodemus would represent the highest of Jewishness in the area.
  • Jesus' comes to the the Samaritan woman with a miracle (John 4:1 - 42). The women is the lowest of society and would be considered both Jew & Gentile. Yes, I know it is not technically correct, but good enough.
  • The Official comes to Jesus in hopes of a miracle (John 4:43-54). The official is the highest of the food chain in the area.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6624
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: He came to his own (=the Galatians), but his own did not receive him (=Paul)

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Nov 22, 2019 8:01 am

klewis wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 7:41 am
Nicodemus would represent the highest of Jewishness in the area.
More than a Jew, he's a Judaizer:

The "Kingdom of God" is the heaven where the Good God resides, the one who in 17: 3 is called "the only true God" as opposed to the Creator who is the "the Evil One", 1 John 3:12; 5: 18-19. This "heaven" of the "only true God" is situated above the heaven of the "Evil one", which is part of the world (1 John 4: 4, 5:19). The birth from above is the blessing by which the man becomes the son of God (1 John 3: 1). In becoming the child of God the man passes from death to life (5:24, 1 Jo 3:14), so that the birth from above is also a resurrection, a spiritual resurrection whose the carnal resurrection imagined by the Jews is only a gross caricature.

(Delafosse alias Turmel, Le quatrième Evangile, p. 74, my free translation)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

klewis
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:39 am

Re: He came to his own (=the Galatians), but his own did not receive him (=Paul)

Post by klewis » Fri Nov 22, 2019 8:25 am

In a way, the whole point of the Gospel of John is "don't be like the Jews." So I suppose anti-Judaizer would be an appropriate to the Gospel of John. However, I feel that it is the backdrop to a story of dealing with calming Christian vs Christian theological fighting.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6624
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: He came to his own (=the Galatians), but his own did not receive him (=Paul)

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Nov 22, 2019 8:57 am

klewis wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 8:25 am
In a way, the whole point of the Gospel of John is "don't be like the Jews."
Ok, but this is not the point of the thread. The point of the thread is that the original meaning of John 1:11 is that his Jesus didn't came among the "his" people - "his people" meaning: the Jews - but that he came among people who were already true Christians, only, Christians with the only error of being corrupted by Judaizers.

And therefore in need of a Paraclete.

The Jews couldn't be in advance the his people, since they had the Evil one as father from the beginning.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

klewis
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:39 am

Re: He came to his own (=the Galatians), but his own did not receive him (=Paul)

Post by klewis » Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:12 am

Perhaps the title should be changed. The title suggests that the Gospel of John is a story derived from Paul and Galatians. Where Paul is Jesus and Galatians are the Jews. However, the struggle of a Christian against the Jews and later against the Gentiles would have been told many times and many different ways. Galatians and the Gospel of John are just two of them with a few points in common.

I think you are making way too many connections. The Gospel of John could be just a way of saying this is how the Gospel went from the Jew to the Christian. Learn from it, so that it does not go from you to something else.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6624
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: He came to his own (=the Galatians), but his own did not receive him (=Paul)

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:20 am

I am sorry klevis but you seem to be a Christian apologist, here. I would like not use this forum to polemize with Christian apologists (idem with modern judaizers).

I continue my own analysis, therefore.

There is a precise pattern in action here, in both Mark and proto-John, even if they came from two different universes.

And that pattern is: "Jesus" came to save/correct/inform who was already in the field of the saved people (=the Gentilizers), not who was already damned (in virtue of their being Judaizers).
  • This pattern finds an instance in Mark with Paul replacing Jesus and with the enemies of Paul replacing the enemies of "Jesus"/Paul.
  • This pattern finds an instance in Proto-John with the gnostic Light (=the alien Son of Father) replacing Jesus and with the enemies of the Gnostics replacing the enemies of "Jesus"/the Light.
Only in Luke and in Matthew "Jesus" is Jesus, i.e. he is for "Luke" and "Matthew" (authors) what he seems to be in the eyes of Jews (in the fiction) and in the eyes of the Judaizers (in the real past).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6624
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: He came to his own (=the Galatians), but his own did not receive him (=Paul)

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:30 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:20 am
There is a precise pattern in action here, in both Mark and proto-John, even if they came from two different universes.

And that pattern is: "Jesus" came to save/correct/inform who was already in the field of the saved people (=the Gentilizers), not who was already damned (in virtue of their being Judaizers).
  • This pattern finds an instance in Mark with Paul replacing Jesus and with the enemies of Paul replacing the enemies of "Jesus"/Paul.
  • This pattern finds an instance in Proto-John with the gnostic Light (=the alien Son of Father) replacing Jesus and with the enemies of the Gnostics replacing the enemies of "Jesus"/the Light.
Hence a possible rational question is, given that pattern:

Was "Mark" (author) the first to introduce that pattern as the DNA of any gospel Mark-based?

An alien who met who had already met him but didn't understand more him and even rejected him.

The reader who knows Dysktra knows what I am talking about: the alien is Paul for "Mark".

Or was "Mark" (author) merely deriving that pattern from a previous gnostic author?

An alien who met who had already met him but didn't understand more him and even rejected him.

The suspicion is, as usual, that the forma mentis of exegetes of the level of Dykstra and Adamczewski is gnostic/marcionite without them knowing it.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

klewis
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:39 am

Re: He came to his own (=the Galatians), but his own did not receive him (=Paul)

Post by klewis » Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:37 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:20 am
I am sorry klevis but you seem to be a Christian apologist, here. I would like not use this forum to polemize with Christian apologists (idem with modern judaizers).

I continue my own analysis, therefore.
How did you come up with that. What is the basis of your conclusion. Is it based upon that I disagree with you?

Giuseppe
Posts: 6624
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: He came to his own (=the Galatians), but his own did not receive him (=Paul)

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:45 am

klewis wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:37 am
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:20 am
I am sorry klevis but you seem to be a Christian apologist, here. I would like not use this forum to polemize with Christian apologists (idem with modern judaizers).

I continue my own analysis, therefore.
How did you come up with that. What is the basis of your conclusion. Is it based upon that I disagree with you?
The expression "Learn from it, so that it does not go from you to something else" seems to be both a warning and a threat against my exegesis. My effort here is simply to represent by simple (possibly rational) words (in a foreign language) what I feel that I am finding...
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply