On the strict link between separationism and crucifixion

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

On the strict link between separationism and crucifixion

Post by Giuseppe »

Philo, in On the Posterity of Cain and His Exile 17.61, compares souls being attached to bodies to men being attached to crosses via crucifixion.

According to Irenaeus, "heretics" saw separationism in Mark.

I also see evidence of separationism in Mark in virtue of the fact that Mark remembers implicitly that Jesus is the suffering Son of Joseph only during his trial and death.

This says me that in the original proto-Mark, its separationism required that the carnal Jesus didn't rise. He would be risen only at the end of the world, as any human being. In whiletime, only the spiritual Christ would have worked in Paul and the other apostles.

The crucifixion in Mark is therefore the moment when the spiritual Christ abandons the carnal Jesus.

The people around the cross confused Elijah with Eloi, but the original reader would have realized that Jesus was invoking really Elijah. The confusion was made by Jesus himself, not by the people around the cross: by effect of a misunderstanding, the carnal Jesus had called Elijah the spiritual Christ who was going to abandon him.

We know that John the Baptist was said to be possessed by the spirit of Elijah.

Hence Mark is denying that Jesus was John, by attributing to the people around (and not more to Jesus) the confusion between Eloi and Elijah.

Ethymologically: "John" == "Theudas" == "Dositheus" the Samaritan (placed by Origen, in answer to Celsus, in the time of Pilate).

Hence: another clue in the story pointing towards the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate.
Post Reply