James Barlow's point about AoI explains the Jesus's silence before Pilate

[Giuseppe]

Today I have learned a new thing:

“What could Jesus have done to cause himself to be hated and killed if he remained unrecognized in the lower heaven?”
Enter the ontological domain of demonic control, the realm of their domain, without providing the ‘signum’–passport, as expressly given in L2 Asc. Is.



He remained unrecognized….

https://vridar.org/2020/05/30/ascension ... ent-105110

This explains perfectly why Pilate receives silence and only silence by Jesus.

That was the real reason of the Pilate's decision to crucify Jesus, in the Earliest post-70 Gospel, then.

The fact that Jesus didn't want to reveal who he was.

Hence this confirms again and again the Couchoud's point, that when the Judaizer breaks the silence of Jesus, by putting on his mouth the answer:

“Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate.
“You have said so,” Jesus replied.

…then the theological interest is evident: Jesus "is" the Jewish Christ because even he claims so, by his own words.

Hence the original story had Pilate kill Jesus because the latter's guilt is: not providing the ‘signum’–passport.

Something as:

“Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate.
But Jesus made no reply, and Pilate was amazed. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

This gives also a good explanation for Pilate being 'amazed': Jesus was totally unknown to him because he didn't give no sign of recognition.

But then the Pilate's surprise, more than any other possible accusation, was what moved him to crucify Jesus. He was an intruder.

[Giuseppe]

This proves beyond any reasonable doubt that, in virtue of his ignorance about Jesus's identity, each Gnostic reading of the passage had Pilate as the best candidate for the ignorant Demiurge.

each Gnostic reading, none excluded.

[Giuseppe]

Mark 14:65:

Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him

This passage is really polemical in nature, not ironical.

In the original myth, the demons crucified Jesus in outer space because he didn't give the magical password, now "Mark" is reversing the roles: the guards are not giving deliberately their true identity (Jesus beind blindfolded), so that now it is Jesus to play the role of who didn't know and he is waiting vainly a way of recognition of his true interlocutor.

This denial is polemical.

For the same reason, the demons recognize Jesus in Mark: because in the original myth the demons didn't recognize Jesus.

Why this polemical reversal? It is rather easy to detect these differences with the original myth. The author knew that the readers would have realized too much easily the differences.

"Mark" was clearly a heretic in relation to the original myth, if he was able to modify so boldly the original myth just in these so clear features.

Probably "Mark" worked so because he feared that too much insistence on the total not-recognizability of Jesus on earth would have supported partially the case of who was going to distance, by the time of "Mark", Jesus from the god of the Jews.