Re: Is the Good Thief a coverage for the marcionite Jesus?
Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:53 am
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
I would like Phantom Blot.
Unfortunately, no, as is already implied by the form of the condition even in English ("even if it had been related"). Here is the Greek:Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 12:17 pm Apparently Celsus would give evidence of a Gospel where Jesus disappeared entirely just on the cross:
But even if it had been related in the Gospels, according to the view of Celsus, that Jesus had immediately disappeared from the cross, he and other unbelievers would have found fault with the narrative, and would have brought against it some such objection as this: "Why, pray, did he disappear after he had been put upon the cross, and not disappear before he suffered?" If, then, after learning from the Gospels that He did not at once disappear from the cross, they imagine that they can find fault with the narrative, because it did not invent, as they consider it ought to have done, any such instantaneous disappearance, but gave a true account of the matter, is it not reasonable that they should accord their faith also to His resurrection, and should believe that He, according to His pleasure, on one occasion, when the doors were shut, stood in the midst of His disciples, and on another, after distributing bread to two of His acquaintances, immediately disappeared from view, after He had spoken to them certain words?
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... en162.html
My point is that the Passion episodes seem to be so much designed to insist that the victim was left on the cross and died on the cross, that the opposed reality is betrayed (and therefore shows itself), the reality of a Jesus disappearing on the cross itself.
Mark 15 | On what the author insists |
| Jesus will be the crucified one, not Simon, who only bears the cross. |
| There are no doubts that an execution is going to happen. |
| Mere fulfillment of prophecy. Obviously the Jewish scripture is always witness about the Jewish Christ. |
| There are no doubts about when or who was crucified: the Jewish Christ. |
| You have two witnesses even among the crucified people: how can you doubt that Jesus was crucified? |
| How can you doubt that Jesus didn't disappear from the cross in that precise moment? All the people around were witnessing the his not disappearance! |
| Even Jesus himself confirms that he is left on the cross, so how can you argue the contrary? |
| The people around were still (!) witnessing that Jesus is left there, he is not disappeared. Even (!!!) when they hope that he is going to disappear, they realize rather the Jesus is died and is left there. |
| Now what is disappeared is the Sekinah from the Temple, and not Jesus from the cross. |
| These women were witnessing the not-disappearance of Jesus from the cross. |
| How can you doubt now that the Jesus disappeared from the empty tomb, and not from the cross? |
irony of the consensus exegesis:Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:41 pm Note the particular of the sequence of acts:
1) Jesus receives a purple robe.
2) Jesus is beaten, etc.
3) Jesus gives back the purple robe.
The purple robe is allegory of the fleshly appearance.
So Jesus is suffering only during the time he receives an appearance of flesh. Immediately after he gives up this appearance of flesh: not coincidentially, he is not more beaten.