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: 125
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Nasruddin » Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:38 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:05 pm
Nasruddin wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:08 pm
John is talking to those sent by the Pharisees, saying that Jesus is among them, but that they are unaware of who he is.
You can't use that passage to infer that Jesus was a Jew in proto-John, since it is evidence that Jesus was totally alien for the Jews despite of the his being in that moment already among them. I had written in my previous post:
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:03 pm
Nasruddin wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:06 pm
John replied, “but among you stands one you do not know."
John the Baptist = Elijah. The priests and Levites = Moses. They talk together and Jesus is hidden.
that verse means that Jesus is not a Jew but an alien Son of Father ("Bar-Abbas"). You are interpreting tendentiously it to mean that Jesus was a Jew and even a Pharisee!!
Therefore I ignore the rest of the your Christian commentary of John.
Highly unlikely that the Pharisees of Jerusalem would have ordered a non-Jew to go along with the Levites and priests to investigate John the Baptist.

I do not mind if you can stick your fingers in your ears and sing "la la la" to yourself. You might decide to ignore my commentary, but you can't ignore the passage I comment upon.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6993
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy, or wherever Joseph D.L. is not there

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:05 am

Nasruddin wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:38 am
Highly unlikely that the Pharisees of Jerusalem would have ordered a non-Jew to go along with the Levites and priests to investigate John the Baptist.
of grace, when you interprets DELIBERATELY the my use of "alien" as if I was saying "not Jew", meaning so a human being who is alien only as not Jew, how can you accuse me of not hearing your comment?
you can't ignore the passage I comment upon.
I use "alien" to mean: not of this world, i.e. not of the god of this world. I mean alien as meaning: son of an unknown god who is not YHWH.

So John the Baptist is saying that among the Jews,in that precise moment, there is the Son of an unknown Father (just descended from heaven already adult), the same divine person who will be parodied (polemically) by the Judaizers as "Jesus Bar-Abbas".

Is it clear now?

If you are really interested to discuss with me, please read Turmel:

http://sgwau2cbeginnings.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_25.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Nasruddin
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Nasruddin » Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:45 pm

John replied, “but among you stands one you do not know."

John did not say “but among you stands one you know, but who is the son of one you do not know."

It is Jesus that John is referring directly to. Not to an absent third party.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6993
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy, or wherever Joseph D.L. is not there

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:58 pm

Nasruddin wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:45 pm
John replied, “but among you stands one you do not know."

John did not say “but among you stands one you know, but who is the son of one you do not know."
no need of a such distinction, especially when Jesus himself, in proto-John, says somewhere: I and the Father are one".

The your latter answer is sufficient, for me, to confirm my absolute distance from your way of thinking.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Nasruddin
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Nasruddin » Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:39 am

So you agree with John 1:1-2, 14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God...And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.


However John 1:29-33 has John saying;
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks ahead of me because he was before me.’ I myself did not know him; but I came baptizing with water for this reason, that he might be revealed to Israel.” And John testified, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I myself have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God.”

Now John is clearly conversant with the God who sent him to baptise and reveal who Jesus was. But he admits that he did not know Jesus, just like the Jews from Jerusalem did not know Jesus. Whether or not those Jews shared the same 'God' that John claimed had sent him to testify is not the focus in this context. Jesus is the focus, and his identity as the Son/Lamb of God. The father at this point is not being discussed.

Later Jesus claims that he and his father are one, and that the Pharisees do not know him or his father. But that is a different context with a different focus. Clearly at this point Jesus has already been identified, so to say they didn't know who he was in the Temple is the same as they didn't know who he was at the river Jordan, is a contradiction (otherwise why the reveal by John), and is a matter for deeper discussion elsewhere.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6993
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy, or wherever Joseph D.L. is not there

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:17 am

Nasruddin wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:39 am
So you agree with John 1:1-2, 14
In the beginning was the Word,
no, originally there was the Light in the place of the Word.
Read here, ignoring Charles Wilson.
However John 1:29-33 has John saying;
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks ahead of me because he was before me.’ I myself did not know him; but I came baptizing with water for this reason, that he might be revealed to Israel.” And John testified, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I myself have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God.”

Now John is clearly conversant with the God who sent him to baptise and reveal who Jesus was. But he admits that he did not know Jesus, just like the Jews from Jerusalem did not know Jesus. Whether or not those Jews shared the same 'God' that John claimed had sent him to testify is not the focus in this context. Jesus is the focus, and his identity as the Son/Lamb of God.
I and Turmel disagree. "The Lamb" is an interpolation replacing the original "son of God". It is an interpolation meant to make proto-John more similar to Revelation to put catholically the two books under the paternity of the same author (John son of Zebedee). That is also the reason why the gospel of John was preserved (because otherwise, without sharing that paternity, it would have been lost).
Later Jesus claims that he and his father are one, and that the Pharisees do not know him or his father. But that is a different context with a different focus.
no, the theme of Jesus being totally alien to Jews is everywhere in proto-John. There are a lot of passages where Jesus claims the his being alien in opposition to all the OT prophets and even Moses. The evidence is there and Turmel has fixed the point. No need of further analysis, for me.

John knows that he is an alien. This is only a partial revelation. Too few to conclude: John "knows" him.

And it is even doubt that John was a positive character in proto-John. You know what I have written in the thread on the Cathar tradition about John as a kind of instigator sent by the demiurge. In that case, John knows that Jesus is alien but his true mission is to point out falsely him as "Lamb of God" to move the Jews to kill him. As sacrifice for the demiurge.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Nasruddin
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Nasruddin » Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:48 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:17 am

I and Turmel disagree. "The Lamb" is an interpolation replacing the original "son of God". It is an interpolation meant to make proto-John more similar to Revelation to put catholically the two books under the paternity of the same author (John son of Zebedee). That is also the reason why the gospel of John was preserved (because otherwise, without sharing that paternity, it would have been lost).


And it is even doubt that John was a positive character in proto-John. You know what I have written in the thread on the Cathar tradition about John as a kind of instigator sent by the demiurge. In that case, John knows that Jesus is alien but his true mission is to point out falsely him as "Lamb of God" to move the Jews to kill him. As sacrifice for the demiurge.
You seem to be arguing that John saying the Lamb of God was not originally in Proto-John, and also that John was a negative character in Proto-John because he used the term Lamb of God.

You can't have it both ways.

Nasruddin
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Nasruddin » Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:54 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:17 am
John knows that he is an alien. This is only a partial revelation. Too few to conclude: John "knows" him.
Yes. A partial revelation at this point. John and the Jerusalem Jews did not know Jesus, but his identity was revealed to them. It was only later that the full revelation came about who Jesus' father was. So we can see again, the identity of the father was not part of the revelation focus in this scene.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6993
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy, or wherever Joseph D.L. is not there

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:22 pm

Nasruddin wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:54 pm
Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:17 am
John knows that he is an alien. This is only a partial revelation. Too few to conclude: John "knows" him.
Yes. A partial revelation at this point. John and the Jerusalem Jews did not know Jesus, but his identity was revealed to them. It was only later that the full revelation came about who Jesus' father was. So we can see again, the identity of the father was not part of the revelation focus in this scene.
but this is a distinction without a real difference. Jesus is an alien because his Father is not YHWH (who is the father of the Jews, the prince of this world). It is so simple.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Nasruddin
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Transfiguration == original crucifixion in the Earliest Gospel

Post by Nasruddin » Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:36 am

It only has no distinction from our third party viewpoint, knowing what we already think we can interprete from the later passages in the Gospel. But at the scene at the Jordan these later revelations had not yet been given, so there is a clear distinction for the audience at this point between who Jesus was and who his father was. John the Baptist does not indicate that he is trying to reveal any new information about the God/Spirit that he claims directs his actions. It is the identity of an as yet unknown person (Jesus) that is the focus of John's mission.

Post Reply