“Who do you say I am?” “I am not the Messiah.”

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 7205
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

“Who do you say I am?” “I am not the Messiah.”

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:42 am

Both Jesus and John are asked about their identity:


John 1:19-23 :
19 Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders[a] in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. 20 He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, “I am not the Messiah.”

21 They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?”

He said, “I am not.”

“Are you the Prophet?”

He answered, “No.”

22 Finally they said, “Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”

23 John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, “I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’”



Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?”

28 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”

29 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.”

30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

(Mark 8:27-33)

But the difference is that John denies that he is the Messiah (=Jesus), while Jesus denies that he is John (without claim explicitly a Messianic identity).

Was the Markan episode based on a previous episode where John claimed that he was not the Jewish Messiah, when some asked about his true identity?

Was John the original person addressed by the question: who are you?

I am not sure, but the two episodes are so similar...
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7205
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: “Who do you say I am?” “I am not the Messiah.”

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Jan 18, 2020 9:44 am

In the original story, the question was to know the identity of John, not of Jesus.

Hence this thread deserves to be added to this thread and/or vice versa:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5965

A mere item in the greater pattern of disiepta membra revealing that the prototype of the (Judaizing) Gospel story was a (Judaizing) Gospel story with John as the hero of the story.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Nasruddin
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: “Who do you say I am?” “I am not the Messiah.”

Post by Nasruddin » Sat Jan 18, 2020 5:47 pm

Without John there would be no Jesus.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7205
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: “Who do you say I am?” “I am not the Messiah.”

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Feb 02, 2020 1:10 am

A curious thing is that when Jesus will have the first life on earth (by the pen of the first evangelist), and when he will receive the name "Jesus" on earth, he is not called "Christ" in the same moment of the his baptism as "Jesus".


Hence two hypothesis:
  • 1) the reader already knows that Jesus was "called Christ", hence no need of an official onction.
  • 2) the baptism by John the Baptist was the official onction.
Really, it is Matthew and not Mark to assume that Jesus was "called Christ" without specify that the onction was the baptism by John, but even before the baptism (he was called Christ).

But if in Mark the baptism by John can be seen effectively as an onction de facto, it is also true that Mark has Jesus called "king of Jews" but without specify when he was consacred such by an official onction in that sense.

Hence the first hypothesis is more probable: it is strongly expected if the Jesus was always considered the Christ, as his second nature, written in the his DNA, since the only possible onction was given by him in heaven.

Something of the kind:

a thing so much obvious (Jesus == Christ), that there was not even need of euhemerize it!

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7205
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: “Who do you say I am?” “I am not the Messiah.”

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Feb 02, 2020 1:17 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 1:10 am
A curious thing is that when Jesus will have the first life on earth (by the pen of the first evangelist), and when he will receive the name "Jesus" on earth, he is not called "Christ" in the same moment of the his baptism as "Jesus".


Hence two hypothesis:
  • 1) the reader already knows that Jesus was "called Christ", hence no need of an official onction.
  • 2) the baptism by John the Baptist was the official onction.
Really, it is Matthew and not Mark to assume that Jesus was "called Christ" without specify that the onction was the baptism by John, but even before the baptism (he was called Christ).

But if in Mark the baptism by John can be seen effectively as an onction de facto, it is also true that Mark has Jesus called "king of Jews" but without specify when he was consacred such by an official onction in that sense.

Hence the first hypothesis is more probable: it is strongly expected if the Jesus was always considered the Christ, as his second nature, written in the his DNA, since the only possible onction was given by him in heaven.

Something of the kind:

a thing so much obvious (Jesus == Christ), that there was not even need of euhemerize it!

How can we interpret this fact in the light of the real meaning of the Barabbas episode (= evidence of an early resistance to the reduction of Jesus to Christ/king of Jews) ?

Best answer (for the moment): it was a conspiracy by "Mark", to assume that Jesus was already diffusely known as "king of Jews" by mere hearsay (even Pilate confirms it, addressing the sinedrites) and without an official onction (unless it was done implicitly by Pilate himself!!!), to defeat the marcionites denying that title for Jesus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7205
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: “Who do you say I am?” “I am not the Messiah.”

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Feb 02, 2020 1:21 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 1:17 am
Best answer (for the moment): it was a conspiracy by "Mark", to assume that Jesus was already diffusely known as "king of Jews" by mere hearsay (even Pilate confirms it, addressing the sinedrites) and without an official onction (unless it was done implicitly by Pilate himself!!!), to defeat the marcionites denying that title for Jesus.
If the Christians were called "CHRISTIANI", that name was given them by Pagans as evidence of their strong insistence that Jesus was the Christ…

...against some (Jews and marcionites) who denied that Jesus was the Christ.

Hence the conclusion is inferred: we should call "Christians" only the Jewish-Christians, not the anti-Christ-ians, i.e. the marcionites.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7205
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: “Who do you say I am?” “I am not the Messiah.”

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:11 am

Hakeem is basically wrong, here:
hakeem wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:04 am
gMark is not history but propaganda against the Jews to explain the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

The story of gMark is that God sent his Son to the Jews but he was rejected and killed by them and abandoned by his handpicked disciples and Peter who denied even knowing Jesus.
The story of the Earliest Gospel is that an Unknown God (not YHWH) sent his Son to the Jews but he was rejected and killed by them and abandoned by his handpicked disciples and Peter who denied even knowing Jesus, by saying ironically the truth.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

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

Re: “Who do you say I am?” “I am not the Messiah.”

Post by davidmartin » Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:40 am

Giuseppe you've overlooked why the unknown God would decide of all the people on earth to pick Jews to announce himself, against their own God
There's no logic to this, why not the Celts or Egyptians?
Since the Jesus movement emerged in a Jewish context, it's hard to see how this is not "Jewish Spirituality" of some kind or another and in no way "alien"
So am I saying he was the opposite? No I am not
The folks on here who claim Jesus as a fervent Torah observant rabbi choose to ignore his changes and radicalism and brush off the evidence just to suit their own pet theories, as I do myself, and you too. We all do. Who does it the best, wins

What you are seeing when you see the narrative of Jews rejecting Jesus, etc is the later church getting it's anti-Semitic swerve on and proclaiming itself as the new Jerusalem. Is it not to be expected the gospels produced by that church would reflect that?

What i'm saying is, originally it is hard to tell exactly what was going on from all the conflicting evidence

What is YHWH? No-one knows, how is that different from the Unknown God?

Giuseppe
Posts: 7205
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: “Who do you say I am?” “I am not the Messiah.”

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Feb 04, 2020 3:10 am

davidmartin wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:40 am
Giuseppe you've overlooked why the unknown God would decide of all the people on earth to pick Jews to announce himself, against their own God
There's no logic to this, why not the Celts or Egyptians?
The best answer is found here, on a thread that didn't to deserve the contamination by the continue insults of the modern Judaizer Joseph D.L. :
Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Dec 29, 2019 8:32 am

29. And some of them with jests upon their lips departed [from me], abandoning themselves unto the Way of Death; others entreated to be taught, casting themselves before my feet.

But I made them arise, and I became a leader of the Race towards home, teaching the words (logoi), how and in what way they shall be saved. I sowed in them the words (logoi) of wisdom; of Deathless Water were they given to drink.

And when even was come and all sun's beams began to set, I bade them all give thanks to God. And when they had brought to an end the giving of their thanks, each man returned to his own resting place.

http://gnosis.org/library/hermes1.html

The last word will be not, for all the Gnostics, the total condemnation of the Judaism and his god. The apostolic spirit of the disciples of Hermes, always eager to "sow the words of wisdom" (C.H. 1:29), will have as goal to draw the Jews from the hold of the evil creator and his Law...

(J. Magne, L'Exaltation de Sabaôth dans Hypostase des archontes, NH, II, 4, 95, 1-31 et l'exaltation de Jésus dans Philippiens 2, 6-II : ou la Naissance de Jésus-Christ, p. 20)
Basically, all the my best Mythicist authors (Couchoud, Stahl, Magne, Fau, Ory, Stephane)
agree explicitly (I mean: I can quote them) with Hyam Maccoby about where to find the real origin of the anti-demiurgism I am talking about. Not among Jews, not among Pagans, but among ex Noahides:


We may now return to our question about the identity of the biblical Gnostics and put the question rather differently. What kind of people were attracted to the Gnostic viewpoint, but felt that they had to express it, partly at least, in terms derived from the Jewish Bible? What kind of people wished to reduce the pretensions of Judaism, but could do so only by engaging fully in the Jewish sacred writings which they found it imperative to reintrepret, rather than to ignore?
The most likely place to find our quarry is in the penumbra surrounding Judaism, consisting of people on their way in or on their way out. These are basically Gentiles who are attracted by Judaism enough to study it or to seek acquaintance eith knowledgeable Jews. Some pursue their study far enough to become actually converted to Judaism, but find Jewish observance too strenuous or too alien, and lapse. Others only reach the status of 'God-fearers', attend the synagogues in this capacity, but eventually become resentful of the inferior status accorded them. Others never actually declare or renounce allegiance to Judaism, but, having become the targets of Jewish missionary activity, acquire a considerable smattering of Jewish knowledge, and feel constrained to formulate some attitude towards Judaism. Such marginal people develop ambivalent feelings towards Judaism. On the other hand, they feel it to be a force to be reckoned with; on the other hand, they feel a certain resentment at the impudence of this barbarian faith in professing to be superior to the spiritual claims of Hellenistic culture; or, if they have gone so far as to succumb to Judaism for a while, they feel a corresponding need, after lapsing from Judaism, to justify their reversal of attitude and to reassert the superiority of the Hellenism from which they had temporarily defected. The most likely place to find such people in numbers sufficient to give rise to a distinctive religious grouping is Alexandria, where Jewish missionary activity was confident and even sometimes aggressive. The unease at such activity and the need to fight suscettibility to it, or to justify withdrawal from it after initial acceptance, could lead to a religious movement that contrasted the superior spiritual quality of Hellenism with the materiality and this-worldly stance of Judaism, while at the same time Accounting for Judaism and explaining its proper place in the scheme of things

(Hyam Maccoby, Paul and Hellenism, p. 31-32, SCM Press, London, my bold)

Note that April de Conick agrees very much with Maccoby about the existence of these Biblical Gnostics. Somewhere in this forum Andrew Criddle did me the favour to quote from Philo a direct polemic against these people.

I think that it is a very realistic description of what moves someone to hate YHWH without be for this a modern anti-Semite or a Catholic anti-anti-deicide.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

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

Re: “Who do you say I am?” “I am not the Messiah.”

Post by davidmartin » Tue Feb 04, 2020 1:36 pm

Interesting, and i really should study the Hermetic literature more

Can the Gnostic movement in your view define itself without having to hate YHWH?
i like to see a philosophy that hangs together without having to depend on some external opponent for it's reason to exist
If so what is that reason that is true whether the demiurge exists or not?
I recon some Gnostics focused more on that and didn't get into the opposition of us vs them. To me that's more appealing!

Post Reply