Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
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 12:21 pm

klewis wrote:
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.
Not that point. I ask a short resume of Nasruddin's view about John the Baptist in John.
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 1:02 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 12:21 pm
Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:18 am
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.
Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:18 am
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.
Your Statement

Your ad hominem attack.

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 1:03 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:18 am
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.
Your Statement

Your ad hominem attack.
[/quote]

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 3:51 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:18 am
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.
Seriously?? You are asking me to prove a point without quoting from the text that the point originates from?? How else do you expect me to do this? This is an utterly bizarre request.

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 4:52 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
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.
Also note that the beheading of John the Baptist is missing in the Gospel of John. We are informed that he later went to prison (although not why), but his death is not mentioned. He remained a testimony to Jesus throughout the Gospel.

I raise the query whether the Gospel of John was written by a 'John' or whether it really refers to the continuing testimony of John the Baptist.

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 10:01 pm

Klewis, read well the quote: I don't refer to you as "your stupid apologist".
Nasruddin wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:51 pm
Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:18 am
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.
Seriously?? You are asking me to prove a point without quoting from the text that the point originates from?? How else do you expect me to do this? This is an utterly bizarre request.
not so bizarre when I ask you simply what is, in four rows, your view about the Baptist in John. It seems that you talk as an oracle, releasing cryptic fragments of interpretations but without a general view of the all.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

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 10:20 pm

The beheading was absent in GJohn because in the first gospel John was already dead and he was in Sheol, where Jesus descended at the incipit of the first gospel.
John asked to Jesus: are you the Jewish Messiah? The original answer of Jesus was removed by the winners but he didn't quote Isaiah. Then Jesus ascended on earth from Sheol and found the disciples of John, who abandoned their father Zebedee (=Dositheus) and followed him, believing him was John redivivus. The original crucifixion was the Transfiguration episode, when the same gospel ended with the disciples having fear, just as the women in our Mark.

John can be compared therefore in the first gospel to the OT prophets who considered Jesus as a tempter sent by the demiurge and rejected him:

“In addition to his blasphemy against God Himself, he advanced this also, truly speaking as with the mouth of the devil, and saying all things in direct opposition to the truth—that Cain, and those like him, and the Sodomites, and the Egyptians, and others like them, and, in fine, all the nations who walked in all sorts of abomination, were saved by the Lord, on His descending into Hades, and on their running unto Him, and that they welcomed Him into their kingdom.”
But the serpent which was in Marcion declared that Abel, and Enoch, and Noah, and those other righteous men who sprang from the patriarch Abraham, with all the prophets, and those who were pleasing to God, did not partake in salvation. For since these men, he says, knew that their God was constantly tempting them, so now they suspected that He was tempting them, and did not run to Jesus, or believe His announcement: and for this reason he declared that their souls remained in Hades.

From Book I, chap. 27,Against Heresies)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

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 10:29 pm

The rejection of Jesus by John in Sheol allegorizes the hostility of the original author of Revelation against those "who say that they are Jews but they are not Jews".
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

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 10:34 pm

Note that the ambiguity about Jesus's identity in Mark (was he a tempter?) is reflected in the episode about the pharisees testing Jesus and the reference to Baptist in Jesus's answer.

Was John from heaven or from men?

Translated: was Jesus from demiurge or from an alien god?

That question was raised in Sheol, the first time.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

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 » Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:45 am

Hence the following episode happened originally in Sheol, with the OT prophets and John asking Jesus the same question, only about himself: was he from the demiurge or from an alien god?
27 They arrived again in Jerusalem, and while Jesus was walking in the temple courts, the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders came to him. 28 “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you authority to do this?”

29 Jesus replied, “I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 30 John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin? Tell me!”

31 They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 32 But if we say, ‘Of human origin’ …” (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.)

33 So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.”

Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”

(Mark 10:27-33)

Note that even if Jesus was considered as came from the demiurge, they would have not believed him, because they would have thought that Jesus was a tempter sent by the demiurge himself.

Again and again, this is evidence of Marcion's priority.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply