Why just the sinedrites are the mortal enemies of the Jesus of paper

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

Why just the sinedrites are the mortal enemies of the Jesus of paper

Post by Giuseppe »

A possibility is surely that the sinedrites were known to reject any image of YHWH.

If proto-Mark is so boldly separationist - as I argue here - and he was betraying Paul insofar he was making great again the distance between the deity (the divine Christ) and the victim (the man Jesus), then there is surely a particular irony behind the sinedrites's opposition to the man Jesus (remember that the sinedrites didn't recognize that the man Jesus was possessed by the divine Christ: only the sinedrite Joseph of Arimathea recognized the separationist nature of Jesus and Christ).

The man Jesus was not the Christ of YHWH, and even more so, he was not the Christ of a higher god than the creator.

Therefore the sinedrites are moved to kill the man Jesus because they think that this man Jesus was posing as their Christ, hence posing as an earthly mirror of the creator. In marcionite terms, they hated the idea itself of a hologram for the deity.

We know that the Son of Man is Israel, the only “Man” who is made in the image of God (YHWH).

Therefore who hates the Son of Man hates paradoxically the mere earthly image of the creator.

Hence the irony of proto-Mark is that the sinedrites, hating the mere hologram, the mere man Jesus, the mere Son of Man, are really killing the same Israel (as people, a fact realized in 70 CE).

But the point of proto-Mark is that it is the same divine Christ - the Christ of a higher god, not of YHWH - to move the sinedrites to kill the Son of Man, the mere man Jesus, the hologram, i.e. Israel himself. And with him the Torah himself.

Mark 8

27 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.

31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. 32 He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
33 But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”



The great sin of Peter in proto-Mark is surely to preach the strict identity between the man Jesus and the divine Christ.

As effect of this petrine sin, the same Israel (=the same man Jesus as distinct from the divine Christ) will suffer, etc. But in proto-Mark there is no prophecy of the resurrection of this Israel. Therefore the verse 31 is at least partially an interpolation.

Without that interpolated verse, Peter is rebuking Jesus because Jesus (better: his possessor, the Christ) is forbidding him to preach the strict identity between the man Jesus and the divine Christ. In this sense Peter is a Satan and therefore he doesn't realize that the Christ is the Messiah of an alien god.

The result is that the man Jesus, as Son of Man, will suffer in the place of the divine Christ.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why just the sinedrites are the mortal enemies of the Jesus of paper

Post by Giuseppe »

Curiously, also the great mythicist R.G.Price notes a deliberate will of destruction by Christ himself, a kind of cupio dissolvi addressed basically against the Son of Man (=Israel):


This [Jeremias 16:1-18] is the only passage in the “Old Testament” that talks about fishermen catching people. This is a passage that would have been seen as very relevant immediately after the war. More important, however, Mark 1:16-20 is also where we are introduced to Peter, James and John.
...
We see in this literary allusion that the author is identifying these three individuals as agents of destruction - as harbingers of the coming war.

(Deciphering the Gospels: Proves Jesus Never Existed, p. 11, my bold)

Note that surely it was not the intention of Peter to be a “harbinger of the coming war”, just as it was not the intention of a true believer in YHWH to invent the story where the divine Christ moves the sinedrites to kill the Son of Man (=Israel) by abandoning the man Jesus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why just the sinedrites are the mortal enemies of the Jesus of paper

Post by Giuseppe »

So recapitulating:

1) there is evidence that in Pagan mythology, a victim (an animal, an effigy, a criminal, a mere ghost) was killed in the role of the god himself, without being really the god.

2) there is evidence that for Paul the more direct image of God himself is killed in human form. The victim is really divine and is really man.

3) there is evidence that, after the 70 CE, the Judaizers were identifying the pauline Christ with this or that particular man lived in Judea (cfr Mark 13: “Christ is here, Christ is there!”).

4) there is evidence that, against these Judaizers, a Gnostic dualist author of proto-Mark, invented a story where the spiritual Christ of an alien god (not the god of the Jews) moved the sinedrites to kill the same presumed Jewish Messiah, the Son of Man (=Israel), and with him the Torah of the demiurge. He did so in reaction to the Judaizers of the point 3, by betraying partially the Pauline theology for the more common Pagan separationism. In this way the earthly image of the creator is killed [hence, the creator himself], and not the higher god in the his place.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply