Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 6597
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Nov 23, 2019 12:00 pm


And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself

(John 12:32)

This verse can be understood as well of the transfiguration of Jesus (as it appears in the synoptics, but absent from John) just as of the his crucifixion or the his ascension. These passages of John, as well as many others, could originate in passages from proto-Luke aka Mcn and they must have been inserted into proto-John (written by a disciple of Marcion of Sinope) while proto-Luke was judaized/catholicized as our Luke.

Therefore in this thread I argue for the following thesis: that in the Earliest Gospel (written by Satornilus or by Cerdon) the transfiguration coincided with the original crucifixion.

This would be enough to consider that Earliest Gospel as mythicist evidence per se, even if the Transfiguration episode has as actor an earthly Jesus. The his author couldn't be considered as a euhemerizer in equal measure as "Mark" (author) was, since a gospel where the crucifixion is a so magical event (the very transfiguration!!!) can only be pure 100% mythology.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6597
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Nov 23, 2019 12:08 pm


They spoke about his departure, which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem

(Luke 9:31)

Moses and Elijah talk with Jesus about his exodus to Jerusalem, that is from the his "deliverance" from the material world and about the his return to the heaven, Jerusalem being, in the esoteric sense of the Gnostics, the symbol of the celestial upper realm: his journey from Capernaum to Jerusalem was to be understood, in proto-Luke alias Mcn, the his passage from Sheol (= "Capernaum" per Heracleon) to heaven ("Jerusalem" for the Gnostics).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6597
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Nov 23, 2019 12:20 pm

Now, the shining of the garment of Jesus during the Transfiguration

His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them

(Mark 9:3)

...resembles the same shining of the exalted saints in the Ascension of Isaiah:

24. And I saw there many garments laid up, and many thrones and many crowns.

25. And I said to the angel: "Whose are these garments and thrones and crowns?"

26. And he said unto me: "These garments many from that world will receive, believing in the words of That One, who shall be named as I told thee, and they will observe those things, and believe in them, and believe in His cross: for them are these laid up."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... nsion.html

Note precisely what the Judaizers did with that same garment of light of Jesus during the Transfiguration:

Then Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him. Dressing him in an elegant robe, they sent him back to Pilate

(Luke 23:11)

They reduced the original celestial crucifixion/transfiguration in a more humble crucifixion of Jesus by human rulers (respectively Herod who put the elegant robe in the place of the original garment of light and the Romans of Pilate who put the crown of thorns in the place of the original crown of light rays).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6597
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Nov 23, 2019 12:33 pm

Differently from Mark:

35 Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. 36 “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”

(Mark 14:35-36)

...in proto-John the Father answers to the prayer of Jesus Son of Father (hated by the judaizer "Mark" as "Bar-Abbas") addressed to him:

27 “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name!”

Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.”

(John 12:27-28)

Originally in Mcn, the Father answers to the prayer of Jesus by the Transfiguration episode. In that precise way Jesus was glorified in the moment itself of the his crucifixion.

It is evident that the Judaizers wanted to eclipse that original Gospel episode. They didn't like at all the exaltation/crucifixion of a Son of Father who was not the Jewish Messiah.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6597
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:36 am


Then a cloud appeared and covered them, and a voice came from the cloud: “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!”
Suddenly, when they looked around, they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus.

(Mark 9:7-8)

According to Marcion, the cloud was sent from the demiurge to make the three idiotic Pillars still ignorant about the identity of Jesus who was going to be revealed precisely in that moment by the Father (not the demiurge). As result, the three idiots believed that Jesus was proclaimed the Jewish Messiah by the voice of the Father himself.

The Judaizer "Mark" used the eclipse episode during the crucifixion to make the centurion recognize the identity of Jesus as effect of the miracolous eclipse.

And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died, he said, “Surely this man was the Son of God!”

Hence the question: did the cloud serve to deceive the Pillars on who Jesus was, while Jesus was crucified by the Archons precisely in that moment?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6597
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Nov 26, 2019 1:23 am

The Tranfiguration episode is the moment when there is the elevation of Jesus in the air (=the heaven of the creator) where he is crucified by the Archons of the demiurge in the middle of Elijah and Moses (=the same angels of the Creator?). The original "resurrection" was the his reappearance, and only then Jesus preached his esoteric doctrine.

So Justin:

For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

This is the reason why the fourth gospel, again and again so faithful to the original Earliest Gospel (since proto-John was probably written by a disciple of Marcion), has the miracolous catch of fishes after the resurrection and not before:

21 Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Galilee. It happened this way: 2 Simon Peter, Thomas (also known as Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. 3 “I’m going out to fish,” Simon Peter told them, and they said, “We’ll go with you.” So they went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.
4 Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.
5 He called out to them, “Friends, haven’t you any fish?”
“No,” they answered.
6 He said, “Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some.” When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish.
7 Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, “It is the Lord,” he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. 8 The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards.[c] 9 When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread.
10 Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you have just caught.” 11 So Simon Peter climbed back into the boat and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. 12 Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish.

The Gospels of the Judaizers, Mark, Luke and Matthew, have trasposed this episode at the beginning of the holy fable. But in the Earliest Gospel Jesus descended to Sheol (=Capernaum), then he ascended to air (=demiurgical heaven) during the Transfiguration episode (where he was crucified by the demiurge) and then he appeared on earth as Risen Christ to start the his preaching until to his final ascension to the heaven of the Father (not the creator).

COROLLARY

This is evidence that the author of the Earliest Gospel (Saturnilus or Cerdon, not even Marcion) considered the his fable as real History, since he was only giving an order to the events: before Sheol, then air, then earth, finally upper heaven.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6597
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Nov 26, 2019 2:22 am

I have posted this comment on Vridar:

Neil writes in a past comment:
Litwa does say that authors writing biographical works believed their subjects to have been historical, though I hope to show that is not necessarily wholly true.
I fear that Neil is introducing a false dichotomy, here: if the authors believed their subjects to have been historical, then this is more expected on historicity, vice versa, the mythicism would be more expected “only if” the original author deceived or was not understood.

But I think that there could be a case where the first euhemerizer (I am assuming the paradigm of mythicism here) was reporting what he believed a real History in a story, without double reading (=with deceive) and without misunderstanding.
Think what could happen if the original story ended with the Transfiguration episode as the original crucifixion, with Moses and Elijah the two original “thieves” who insult a Jesus crucified… …in the “air” before the three Pillars seeing (hallucinating) him in that precise moment.

In this case the original euhemerizer was reporting what was for him a precise historical fact: the Pillars who hallucinated the crucifixion of Jesus in outer space.

If then the Transfiguration was separated from the crucifixicion, by reducing the latter to what the our gospels say about it, the reason of this “reduction” was: the Transfiguration event remembered too closely the crucifixion/exaltation of Jesus the Son of Father (“Bar-Abbas”) who had prayed his Father (‘Abba’) in Mark 14:35-36, being heard in the original story (as he is again in proto-John) by a crucifixion of glory (=the original Transfiguration).

In short, the Transfiguration (=Crucifixion of glory) was reducted to a mere Roman crucifixion in virtue of the same process by which Jesus Son of Father (not the creator) was reduced to a robber named Jesus Barabbas.

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6597
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:53 am

Independently from all this, I see that someone had seen before me the euhemerization as denigration of a deity:

There’s a comment thread in your initial “Questioning the Historicity of Jesus” post that might be worthy of reply – the commenter “Peter Piper” suggests (by means of quoting an unfavorable review of your UNCG lecture) euhemerization was a way to denigrate a deity, rather than simply creating an earthly backstory. Euhemerization would therefore not be in the interest of early Christians (unless they were employing it against other deities). This position appears to be an assertion (ie, presented without evidence), that even if true, doesn’t disprove the claim that “histories are created for deities”, but rather proves the claim (motives not withstanding).

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archive ... ment-10302 (my bold)

Partially he is correct. The original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel was a crucifixion of glory, as the only way the Father had to answer to the prayer by the Son:

35 Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. 36Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”

(Mark 14:35-36)

Note the great difference that only the my hypothesis is able to explain, after 2000 years: :wtf:
  • In the Earliest Gospel the alien Father answered to his Son;
  • In our Judaizing Gospels, the Father (identified with the Jewish god) didn't answer to his Son.
The Judaizers couldn't accept absolutely that the Son of Father of Saturnilos, Cerdon and Marcion was exalted (as answer to his prayer) by a crucifixion of glory (=the original Transfiguration), so they denigrated the marcionite Son of Father by reducing him to Jesus Barabbas (a strange sarcastic irony for who had prayed the Father as "Abba"!). But so also the same original Crucifixion of Glory (=the Transfiguration) had to be denigrated by reducing it to a mere Roman crucifixion of a presumed robber and thief. In this way the Son of Father was considered the real robber and omicide, while the Jesus "called Christ" (=the Jewish Christ) was now the false robber, the false criminal.

So yes: the euhemerization was partially a denigration of the deity Jesus insofar who had to be denigrated (by the Judaizers) was the rival "Christ" of an alien god (not the god of the Jews).

A Roman crucifixion (with the collateral denigration of who escaped that crucifixion: Bar-Abbas) was the first effect of that denigration/euhemerization.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

davidmartin
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by davidmartin » Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:21 am

Guiseppe how do you explain this..

Jesus taught eternal life, right?
So how can he die?
It's obvious he didn't 'die' because while his body is on the cross he's off doing other stuff, like rendering sheol or appearing to people (gnostic version)
So one thing that baffles me is why scripture say he died at all, when the same scriptures say he didn't and couldn't!

One answer is the idea of him as a literal sacrifice was a later addition, whereas before it was seen more in terms of a gift or wonderful act
I mean if you sum up the whole death and resurrection it just looks like a symbol of spiritual rebirth

Giuseppe
Posts: 6597
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:26 am

Davidmartin, you are not addressing the topic of the thread that is about the Transfiguration as the original crucifixion of glory.

Basically, the Earliest Gospel ended something as:

Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”
...
After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them.

The demons of the air crucified him without knowing him.

His cross became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could make it. And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were insulting Jesus.

5 Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” 6 (He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.)

7 Then a cloud appeared and covered them, and a voice came from the cloud: “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!”

8 Suddenly, when they looked around, they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus.

This is highly speculative, ok, but I insist that ONLY something as this can explain at once:
  • Why Jesus was not answered by God when he prayed him.
  • Why "Mark" specifies that Jesus prayed God by calling him "Abbas".
  • Why the presence of two thieves crucified with Jesus and insulting him.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply