Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 7215
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:22 am

Mark 4:21-23

21 He said to them, “Do you bring in a lamp to put it under a bowl or a bed? Instead, don’t you put it on its stand? 22 For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open. 23 If anyone has ears to hear, let them hear.”

if the crucifixion of glory is the lamp concealed by the Pillars, then Peter was deliberately stupid when he asked Jesus to build three tents. He wanted to eclipse their light.

Which means that the original crucifixion of glory was one and the same with the Transfiguration episode.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7215
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Dec 11, 2019 12:32 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:22 am
Mark 4:21-23

21 He said to them, “Do you bring in a lamp to put it under a bowl or a bed? Instead, don’t you put it on its stand? 22 For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open. 23 If anyone has ears to hear, let them hear.”

if the crucifixion of glory is the lamp concealed by the Pillars, then Peter was deliberately stupid when he asked Jesus to build three tents. He wanted to eclipse their light.

Which means that the original crucifixion of glory was one and the same with the Transfiguration episode.
The three tents meant, in the folly of Peter, to hide Jesus Moses and Elijah, were designed, in the fool mind of Peter, to make the Transfiguration episode the mere repetition of what Moses did on Sinai, when he had hidden the his face by a veil, or the mere repetition of the tent that covered the Ark of Alliance.

But the fact that Peter was wrong about that point
, can have only a precise anti-nomian meaning: the Judaizers want to eclipse, cover and hide the real cruxifixion of glory, the one happened during the Transfiguration episode.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

davidmartin
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by davidmartin » Fri Dec 13, 2019 6:36 pm

Transfiguration simplified -It was only Elijah who was there + Jesus and disciples. Moses is surely not required for the narrative to work, but Elijah is
Why?
Because John the Baptist 'Elijah' has been killed and now they meet him again on the mountain
When it is over only Jesus remains - he is now the successor to John

The transfiguration is about a passing on of roles that would have had meaning originally
Today, in Christianity is has zero meaning or no-one knows what it means because John is assumed to merely have been a simple Baptist with no comparable role to Jesus.. but if that is so then why does everyone in Mark think Jesus is John raised from the dead?

Giuseppe
Posts: 7215
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:41 pm

davidmartin wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 6:36 pm
Transfiguration simplified -It was only Elijah who was there + Jesus and disciples. Moses is surely not required for the narrative to work,
error. Moses and Elijah are required both because the editor will add the two thieves in their place, when the crucifixion will become an earthly one.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7215
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:53 pm

According to Michael Lockwood, the following episode from Buddhist myth is the source of the Transfiguration episode:


1Then Bhagavä, at the end of those seven days, arose from the state of samädhi, and went from the foot of the Ajapälo banyan tree to the (root of the tree of) Mucalindo. And when he had reached it he sat cross-legged at the foot of the Mucalindo tree uninterruptedly during seven days, enjoying the bliss of emancipation (vimutti-sukha-patisaµvede).
2 At that time a great cloud appeared out of season, rainy weather which was to last seven days, cold weather, storms and darkness. And the Serpent king Mucalindo came out of his abode, and seven times encircled the body of Bhagavä with his coils, and kept extending his large hood (phanam) over the head of Bhagavä, thinking to himself: “May no cold (touch) Bhagavä! May no heat (touch) Bhagavä! May no vexation by gadflies and gnats, by storms or the sun’s heat or
reptiles (touch) Bhagavä!”
3And at the end of those seven days, when the Näga King Mucalindo saw the open, cloudless sky, he loosened his coil(s) from the body of Bhagavä, made his own appearance (as a serpent) disappear, created the appearance of a young man, and stationed himself in the front of Bhagavä, raising his clasped hands while paying reverence to Bhagavä.
4 And Bhagavä, perceiving that, on this occasion, pronounced this solemn utterance: “Happy is the solitude of him who is full of joy, who has learnt the Dhammo, who apprehends (the Dhammo). Happy is the freedom from malice in this world, the (self-)restraint towards all beings that have life. Happy is the freedom from lust in this world, getting beyond all desires; the abandonment of that pride which comes from the thought ‘I am!’ This truly is the highest happiness.”

(my bold)

What strikes me is the fact that here a threat is made visible, differently from the gospel episode.

At that time a great cloud appeared out of season, rainy weather which was to last seven days, cold weather, storms and darkness

Is the cloud in the Gospel episode equally a threat?

Then a cloud appeared and covered them, and a voice came from the cloud...

Lockwood has an interesting explanation, but I don't buy it. I would like to follow again and again the my point, that a celestial crucifixion is happening during the Transfiguration episode.

So in Matthew 17 there are two anomalies in comparison to Mark:

While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”

6 When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. 7 But Jesus came and touched them. “Get up,” he said. “Don’t be afraid.” 8 When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.


It is evident that "Matthew" is judaizing here, and much: the cloud is made a positive item, by becoming "bright" differently from the same cloud in Mark, that is strongly dark.

In addition, in Matthew Jesus "touched" them. The touch is the evidence par excellence that Jesus is carnal: he is not the spiritual Christ of Marcion.

If the cloud is a negative item in Mark, and the his negativity is implicitly recognized by a Matthew who makes it "bright" to remove any possible suspicion about it, then the cloud may be (interpreted as) coming from the demiurge. Or, as preventing the same demiurge, Moses and Elijah themselves, from knowing Jesus.

In other terms, Matthew made it "bright" to avoid that the cloud was connected with the notion of ignorance, with the idea that Moses and Elijah, in virtue of that dark cloud, couldn't realize who was really Jesus. The voice itself from cloud raises some doubt about the his origin. Was it the voice from the demiurge? Or was it the voice from the Good God?

If it was from the demiurge, then even the demiurge was confused by that cloud: he was moved to believe that Jesus was the his messiah.

If it was from the Good God, then the cloud served to confuse the Moses and Elijah about the identity of the father of Jesus.

The cloud increases strongly the incertainty, the same fear of the OT prophets in the Sheol when they feared that the demiurge was tempting them by showing them Jesus as son of an alien god.

The voice from the cloud is possibly the voice of the Alien God.

Moses and Elijah disappear suddenly because they feared that the demiurge was tempting them, by commanding worship only and only for Jesus alone.

There also a deliberate contrast between Peter who wants to cover, without success, the light of Jesus, Moses and Elijah and the cloud that is able to cover really all them.

Did the cloud come from the demiurge, to make him cover successfully Jesus when even Peter failed to cover him?

The answer is in Luke 10:22:

No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him

Compare that with John 6:46:

not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father.

Note the great difference:
  • The idea that the Father takes the disturb to reveal the identity of Jesus is pure judaism. The Father is YHWH.
  • The idea that the Son takes the disturb to reveal the true identity of the his Father (an unknown god) is pure marcionism. The Father is the Alien God of Marcion.
Therefore the voice from the cloud is probably from YHWH. The episode can't be originally marcionite.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7215
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:06 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:53 pm
Note the great difference:
  • The idea that the Father takes the disturb to reveal the identity of Jesus is pure judaism. The Father is YHWH.
  • The idea that the Son takes the disturb to reveal the true identity of the his Father (an unknown god) is pure marcionism. The Father is the Alien God of Marcion.
Therefore the voice from the cloud is probably from YHWH. The episode can't be originally marcionite.
This judaizing disturb from above to proclaim who Jesus is, when for Marcion the disturb is all of Jesus to proclaim who his Father was, resembles strongly the similar function of the titulus crucis. There also, the interested emphasis is all on Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, against Marcion. And there also, the will behind the titulus crucis comes from above: it is Pilate, and therefore the god who is above Pilate, to want the titulus crucis for Jesus, against the opposition of the sinedrites (quod scripsi scripsit).

Therefore also in the Transfiguration episode, if YHWH himself takes the disturb to reveal who is Jesus, the reason is that the identity of Jesus as son of YHWH was precisely denied just in the original (marcionite) Transfiguration (evidently one where there was no voice from the cloud).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7215
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:37 pm

Removing the voice from the cloud as interpolation (just as the titulum crucis), we obtain:

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. 3 His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. 4 And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with 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.

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

The analogies with the crucifixion are more evident, now:

TRANSFIGURATION
CRUCIFIXION

After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone.
They brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means “the place of the skull”).

There he was transfigured before them.
And they crucified him.

His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them.
Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.
And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus.
They crucified two rebels with him, one on his right and one on his left. ...

Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

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.)
When some of those standing near heard this, they said, “Listen, he’s calling Elijah.”

36 Someone ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,” he said.


7 Then a cloud appeared and covered them.

At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon.

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


With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

In both the cases the final output is the carnal Jesus, the his corpse on the cross. The voice from the cloud served to make the cloud a positive cloud, to reveal Jesus as son of YHWH, to reveal Jesus as carnal Jesus (cfr the Matthean "touched them").

Therefore the exact contrary had to be true:
  • The cloud was originally a negative evil cloud;
  • Jesus was crucified by the demiurge, behind that cloud;
  • The result was that what remained, was the spiritual Jesus, the only risen.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7215
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:06 pm

The evidence that the cloud comes from the demiurge in the Transfiguration episode is the following:

And indeed, after the Son was crucified, he descended into Hell and freed the captive souls and took them to heaven with His Father, the God of Love. Thereupon, the Lord of Creation grew angry and darkened the skies and dressed the world in black

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/scann ... tation.htm

Therefore the Marcion's Jesus was talking with Moses and Elijah about the redemption of the captive souls from the Sheol of the demiurge. When Peter says:

Rabbi, it is good for us to be here.

"Here" is the lower heavens, the earth and the Sheol of the creator. Peter is showing explicitly the thought of the OT prophets: they wanted to remain in the Sheol of the creator. They don't follow Jesus to heaven. As effect, the cloud of the demiurge covered "them", i.e. the disciples themselves who wanted to adore the demiurge by remaining in his evil creation.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7215
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:20 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:06 pm
"Here" is the lower heavens, the earth and the Sheol of the creator. Peter is showing explicitly the thought of the OT prophets: they wanted to remain in the Sheol of the creator. They don't follow Jesus to heaven. As effect, the cloud of the demiurge covered "them", i.e. the disciples themselves who wanted to adore the demiurge by remaining in his evil creation.
paradox of "Mark": the his Messianic Secret works just as the cloud coming from the demiurge. Both have to cover the true identity of Jesus. Couchoud was basically correct:


The god of the Jews said, Aure audietis et non audietis (Is. vi. 9). Jesus, on the other hand, wishes all ears to be opened (T. iv. 19). All should listen, since there is no longer anything hidden; everything is made clear.

(Creation of Christ, p. 399)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 857
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by arnoldo » Sun Dec 15, 2019 4:41 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:53 pm
According to Michael Lockwood, the following episode from Buddhist myth is the source of the Transfiguration episode:
Phillip Jenkins explores the interaction of Christianity and Buddhism in his book The Lost History of Christianity.

Post Reply