Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Nasruddin
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Nasruddin » Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:52 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:23 am
Does not your view assume that the theology of the evangelist was going to be constructed in progress by himself, while he writes? I don't believe. The text is so much theological from first to last verse, that it can only explain a theology already formed.

The readers knew in advance that their Fourth-Gospel Jesus was one with the Father. In addition, the presence of the original Incipit where the Light was mentioned, and not the Word, makes it clear that the theology was there even before the rest of the gospel. The Light was God.
The author was telling a story. He established the theology in the prologue, then laid out his narrative.

If, as you imply, he should have dispensed with any mystery from the viewpoint of the characters he wrote about, then why did John the Baptist express ignorance? The reader already knew Jesus was the Son of God, so why have John express his lack of knowledge, especially since from the reader's perspective (which you hold paramount) the reader already knew that John the Baptist would reveal it?

The reader also knew that the Pharisees would want to kill Jesus (a big part of the story!), so why not just put that into this scene too? In fact, why write a narrative at all? Why not just a list of dogmas, or just leave it at the prologue?

A narrative, by its nature, builds on itself to create a story-line and plot. The Pharisees not knowing/questioning the father of Jesus was laying down the story-line. The Gospel is a narrative. It is telling a story. By its nature, a narrative leaves things to reveal later on.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7455
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:12 am

Nasruddin wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:52 am
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:23 am
Does not your view assume that the theology of the evangelist was going to be constructed in progress by himself, while he writes? I don't believe. The text is so much theological from first to last verse, that it can only explain a theology already formed.

The readers knew in advance that their Fourth-Gospel Jesus was one with the Father. In addition, the presence of the original Incipit where the Light was mentioned, and not the Word, makes it clear that the theology was there even before the rest of the gospel. The Light was God.
The author was telling a story. He established the theology in the prologue, then laid out his narrative. If, as you imply, he should have dispensed with any mystery from the viewpoint of the characters he wrote about, then why did John the Baptist express ignorance? The reader already knew Jesus was the Son of God, so why have John express his lack of knowledge, especially since from the same perspective (which you hold paramount) the reader already knew that John the Baptist would reveal it? In fact, why write a narrative at all? Why not just a list of dogmas? A narrative, by its nature, builds on itself a story-line and plot. The Gospel is a narrative. It is telling a story.
I think that, to understand the role of John in John, we should understand before who was the god adored by John. Was he the same god who is the father of Jesus ?

From the answer to that question, we can infer if John is a positive or a negative character, in proto-John.

My problem is that, while I am certain beyond any doubt that the Father of Jesus in proto-John is not YHWH but an enemy of YHWH, I don't know precisely who is the god adored by John, if YHWH or the same Father of Jesus.

A lot of past Gnostic sects hated John. But paradoxically the only survived Gnostic sect - the Mandeans - loves John.

Hence I am confused about John in proto-John.

In a more general view, I think that "John" was the name given to the figure of the divine Revealer. This divine Revealer was made before the John original author of Revelation (a Jewish and not Christian text), then he was christianized as John the Baptist.

Since the early Christians needed a Reedemer and not a Revealer, they reduced the Revealer John (already judaized as the author of Revelation) to John the Baptist, making him the mere Revealer of the real Redeemer, Jesus.

Hence the origin of the name "Jesus", "YHWH gives salvation" for the Reedemer: to eclipse the original Revealer ("John" meaning "YHWH gives grace").

But hence also the origin of the name "John" for the Revealer: "YHWH gives grace". To eclipse the gnostic Revealer, evidently one sent by an Unknown God, different from YHWH. And one who gives not "grace", but gnosis.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Nasruddin
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Nasruddin » Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:03 am

Completely irrelevant to addressing the discussion in the preceding few posts. You exhibit a gross lack of ability to process another view-point, and so you ignore it to safe guard your own. If all you want to do is discuss with yourself your own contemplations, placing your thoughts on a public discussion forum is not where you ought to be.

However, it is amusing that you are following the behaviour of John and Jesus that I have discussed - deflecting attention away from an embaressing question poised to you by drawing attention to something else.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:23 am

Nasruddin wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:03 am
Completely irrelevant to addressing the discussion in the preceding few posts. You exhibit a gross lack of ability to process another view-point, and so you ignore it to safe guard your own. If all you want to do is discuss with yourself your own contemplations, placing your thoughts on a public discussion forum is not where you ought to be.

However, it is amusing that you are following the behaviour of John and Jesus that I have discussed - deflecting attention away from an embaressing question poised to you by drawing attention to something else.
This is his modus operandi. He uses it to prevent himself from admitting that he is wrong and a fraud and that his entire life is a lie. He's like the King Lear of this forum ( or, probably the Oedipus).

This is why Giuseppe needs to go. He is not here to engage with others in a mutual discussion. He is here to preach his Gospel to us and expects us to follow blindly without question, and if we do, you see how he reacts. He has the makings of a cult leader, and I wouldn't be surprised of he has led one before.

Ben and Klewis are pretty much sick of him. Perseusomega9 as well. Everyone on here, safe for a few of his sycophants like Martin Klatt and robert j., is tired of him, his posts, his insane theories, and his refusal to acknowledge his own fallibilities.

Nasruddin
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Nasruddin » Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:52 am

It is of note that the prologue to the Gospel of John contains;
There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe....John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. Now this was John’s testimony...

Usually speech marks are placed in the text to limit the words of John's testimony to "This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me’", but there would have been no such marks in the original, and thus we could take the whole of the passage between 'He cried out, saying' and 'Now this was John’s testimony' as the testimony (truthfully reported or not) of John.

If we take it as such, note that he testifies -
Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

The narrator is using a pun, telling us that the grace John has already received (that which is in his name) is to be replaced by grace from Jesus. Jesus will replace John, which enforces John's repeated cry of "He who comes after me has surpassed me".

John is also made to say -
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

Since John later on calls Jesus the Son of God, the narrator is trying to make out that John knew that Jesus was God (as the light was God). This looks like editing, since John's later portrayal does not indicate that he had such a clear idea.

But as to his testimony -it should be of note that the words "testify" and "testimony" appear in the Gospel of John 32 times - and in the three Synoptic Gospels only 18 times. In the Synoptic Gospels it is a generic term, usually used negatively. In John it is used as positive proof and specifically to individual witnesses, most notably when referring to John the Baptist and to the author of the Gospel of John. Maybe the Gospel of John was meant to be the Gospel of John the Baptist?

Nasruddin
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Nasruddin » Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:00 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:12 am
Hence I am confused about John in proto-John.
This is the key, but I will clarify the issue for you - you are confused about proto-John.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7455
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:18 am

Nasruddin wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:00 am
Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:12 am
Hence I am confused about John in proto-John.
This is the key, but I will clarify the issue for you - you are confused about proto-John.
sorry, I am open to new interpretations about John the Baptist in proto-John, but only starting from the thesis proved by Joseph Turmel:

http://sgwau2cbeginnings.blogspot.com/p ... 2.html?m=0

That proto-John is marcionite in nature.

Nasruddin, you have not proved that Jesus has a personality in John. Are you able to describe your point without too much quotes? It seems that you are unable even to do so. I am sure that even your stupid apologist here doesn't realize your point because you have not explained it well.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:11 am

Yeah, Nasruddin, you haven't proved that Jesus had emotions even when the text writes him as having emotions such as love and grief for Lazarus. After all, love and grief are not true emotions becoming of a true personality. And by the way, could you prove that he did have emotions and a personality without using any quotes, references, or the Gospel of John in its entirety? Oh wait, don't even bother, because I have a priori determined everything everyone needs to know about everything about Christianity, the Gospels, and Jesus.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7455
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:01 am

Nasruddin wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:52 am
But as to his testimony -it should be of note that the words "testify" and "testimony" appear in the Gospel of John 32 times - and in the three Synoptic Gospels only 18 times. In the Synoptic Gospels it is a generic term, usually used negatively. In John it is used as positive proof and specifically to individual witnesses, most notably when referring to John the Baptist and to the author of the Gospel of John. Maybe the Gospel of John was meant to be the Gospel of John the Baptist?
Nasruddin, you are enough intelligent to ignore the grotesque Joseph D.L. Can you say your view about this " Gospel of John the Baptist" without too much NT quotes, step by step? Thank you.

Otherwise it seems that you are going to construct in progress your view, with the ridicolous collateral effect that I seem one who knows all in advance, while you seems a rational skeptic.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

klewis
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:39 am

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by klewis » Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:50 am

Perhaps Giuseppe needs to articulate:
  • What words or phrases that should be ascribe to Jesus that would constitute as human emotions?
  • What words ascribe to human emotions that are falsely attributed to human only?
I do know that his response will be in the form of an ad hominem attack.

Post Reply