Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9715
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by Giuseppe »

The god fish Oannes came twice to civilize humankind.

Just as Hermes.

https://books.google.it/books?id=spJyDw ... es&f=false
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9715
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by Giuseppe »


Two fragments preserved by Psellus mention Oannes/Ioannes, clothed in a fish-skin, descendant or son of Hermes and Apollo.

http://melammu-project.eu/pdf/talon2001.pdf
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9715
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by Giuseppe »

The fish god Oannes is explicitly connected with Hermes.

Two fragments ascribed to Chaeremon (mid 1st century AD) in Michael Psellus (Greek MS. no. 1182 Bibliothèque nationale du Paris, Sathas, Bulletin correspondance hellénique, t. I, 1877, p. 129, p. 201) record similarly of “Ioannes” or “Oanes,” who arrived in Egypt dressed in the skin of a fish. The original Oannes is said to have emerged out of the cosmic Egg, and is identified effectively, therefore, with the Logos (Hermes, Mercury). Chaeremon’s Oanes is described as the “son of Hermes,” so we may take it that the latter, the subject of this account, is Annedotos-Oannes, viz. Ha-an-duga (or U-an-duga), the second apkallu, and successor of the Egg-born Oannes (the Logos or Hermes), or one of the later Annedotoi who were identified with him. The Chaeremon fragments set Oanes in an Egyptian context, and ascribe him special expertise in celestial science, which is consistent with other ancient testimonies: for example (see §136, above, >>, §448, sub fin., above, >>), the descendants of Seth are said by Josephus to have been experts in astrology, erecting monuments inscribed with their wisdom in the Seiriadic land (= the Land of the Bee, Northern Egypt); Seth himself was equated with the Egyptian god Agathodaimon by the Sabians of Harran and was believed to have been buried in one of the pyramids of Giza; the Sethite patriarch Cainan (equated with Hermes) is said in Arabic sources to have instructed the Egyptians in the knowledge of the stars; and the Sethite patriarch Enoch (equated with Hermes) is said to have been learned in the same sciences, and was credited with the building of, and with being buried in, one of the pyramids of Giza. Oannes was classed in Classical antiquity as an Ichthyophagus, or “Fish-eater” of the Indian Ocean, and Ichthyophagi inhabited, amongst other coastal districts within that zone, the Egyptian shore of the Red Sea. The Egyptian context further implies Hermes, Oanes’ father in Charemon, is the Egyptian god of wisdom, the moon-god Thoth or Khensu, who was commonly identified with the Greek Hermes. Chaeremon refers to “Ioannes” or “Oanes” as the son of Hermes and the son of Hermes “and Apollo.”

http://www.christianhospitality.org/res ... ion27.html

Hermes ---> Oannes ---> John (=YHWH gives grace")

Hermes ---> Enoch ---> Idris (in Qu'ran)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9715
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by Giuseppe »


And so the Egyptians, who were unfortunate with regard to their own wisdom, again gained their end after having been deceived by the Chaldaeans. Their own wisdom was inaugurated by the very old Ninos. The fourteenth after him, Ioannes, came from the southern zone clothed in a fish-skin, and he traced his pedigree to Hermes and Apollo. He, in fact, was the one who first ruled as king over them; he cheated them by holding out as a threat that there would come an eclipse of the moon (which actually came of necessity) if they did not want to be ruled by a king.

(Fragment 2, Chaeremon, Egyptian Priest and Stoic Philosopher: The Fragments, Pieter Willem Van Der Horst)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9715
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by Giuseppe »

Now, the curious thing is that in Mark the spiritual Christ throws Jesus in the wilderness because he doesn't want that Jesus remains still only a minute before John the Baptist.

Always in Mark, John the Baptist ignores that the spiritual Christ is descended on Jesus at the baptism.

But according to the hermetic myth, Hermes knew that himself was giving the nous on the people baptized by him. If Hermes gives the faculty of knowing, then he has in advance that faculty.

Is Mark embarrassed by the fact that "John" knew ? Was he making John a guy who didn't know, as reaction against a previous "John" (or a previous giver of nous) who knew?

According to Celsus's Jew, John knew at least what was sufficient to make him an independent witness of the descent of the spiritual Christ on the earth.

Hence the basic idea connected with John is, velim nolim, the KNOWLEDGE. Who could better than "Mark" i.e. who better than the man who invented the Messianic Secret, could be so much embarrassed by the KNOWLEDGE held by John in primis?

In the gospel of Mark, John is the anti-Hermes insofar:
  • Hermes knows
  • John doesn't know
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9715
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by Giuseppe »

Now, it is curious that the temptations in the wilderness happen as direct collateral effect of the escape from John's ray of action and knowledge. Jesus is tempted by the devil insofar John can still know him. The temptations ended suddenly only when the reader is 100% secured that John can't more know Jesus from the moment of the his arrest.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9715
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by Giuseppe »

This explains why the devil in the wilderness is so too much similar to YHWH in the his fool claims of:

  • 1) transform stones in breads as YHWH in the wilderness with Moses
  • 2) want Jesus as glorious davidic conqueror
  • 3) be adored him alone as unique and only god.
The point of Mark was:

Insofar there was the risk that John was able still to know Jesus, then there was parallelely the risk that, in the wilderness, Jesus was able to know the real nature of YHWH: the his being the evil demiurge.

- When the devil promises to Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth, that he gives to whom he wants, in exchange for an act of worship that would be an acknowledgment of the his claim to be the only God, the author of the story gives himself the malicious pleasure of making oppose against him by Jesus a precept of the his own Law enacted in his favor: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'” (Mt 4:10, Lk 4: 8 = Deut 6:13)

(Jean Magne, La naissance de Jésus-Christ, p. 22, my free translation)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9715
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by Giuseppe »

This is conclusive evidence that the "Jesus known by John", whoever he was, was enemy of YHWH.

Hence John had to be made ignorant about Jesus. Otherwise the concrete risk, the real temptation in the wilderness, was to have a Jesus enemy of YHWH.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9715
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by Giuseppe »

In Matthew, Jesus replies to Satan by the fundamental profession of faith of the Jew: the deuteronomist memory of YHWH: Shema‘ Israel, the Jewish prayer for excellence.

This leads us to the conclusion that he interprets the temptation as an attack to the heart of Judaism.

But I have already proved (see above) that the wilderness is introduced (by Mark, inventor of the episode) to avoid the risk that John could know the spiritual Christ.

Therefore, for the transitive virtue:

If John the Baptist knew the spiritual Christ, then the Judaism is attacked.


Naturally, there is only a way by which the entire judaism is attacked: by denying that YHWH is the supreme god. By declassing him to Satan. This is why Matthew has Satan so similar to YHWH. Jesus is tempted insofar he sees YHWH as Satan. That is equivalent to a Jesus known by John.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9715
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by Giuseppe »

The message is clear: if you Readers believe that YHWH is the evil demiurge (or, that is equivalent, that John knew Jesus), then you can be compared to a Jesus tempted successfully by Satan (as seeing him wrongly as YHWH).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply