Did John repudiate the “lie” of a carnalized Jesus?

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

Re: Did John repudiate the “lie” of a carnalized Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe »

John the Baptist is compared to Herod ("reed") to deny the comparison immediately after the allusion, possibily why was there originally the idea that the "angelic" opponent against Jesus was just Herod? If John is not a herodian "reed" but even "more than a prophet", then he is an angel à la Gal 1:8 (more than a mere "messenger") and so he is dangerous just as Herod (in a previous source) as obstacle against the Jesus's Gospel.

Note that in the Book of Revelation the child Jesus flees in the wilderness to escape to a dragon. This dragon is easily euhemerized as Herod as new Pharao against Jesus/Moses (in the related stupid Gospel story). But in Mark Jesus goes to wilderness after the baptism by John. Was that really a fugue to escape the threat just of John the Baptist?

John the Baptist could be the persecutor who made Jesus flee into wilderness. Only after the arrest of John, Jesus can preach freely pace John.

This has sense insofar the baptism is already a death per se of Jesus, and so the killer during the baptism is just the Baptizer, John, who doesn't kill really Jesus insofar Jesus is saved by the Spirit and moved in the wilderness.

John could replace Herod as who wanted the death of Jesus in a first time. The Judaizer Mark allegorized this death/fugue by/from a Jewish king in the form of a baptism by a good Baptizer.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Did John repudiate the “lie” of a carnalized Jesus?

Post by DCHindley »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:20 am (No need, by you MrMacSon, of quoting all from the link given above)

The marcionite Jesus says that John is more than a prophet: he is an angel. Translated wrongly as "messenger".

The same angel alluded by Paul in Gal 1:8.
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed

Giuseppe,

But where has it been established that John was an angel?

IMHO, it is only your process of thinking, which links passages by vague commonalities, that gets results like this.

I don't give a rat's buttocks whether a 2nd century Gnostic writer portrayed him so. We don't have any evidence of this equation in canonical or "apostolic" literature produced in the late 1st or very early 2nd century.

Regardless of that, let me address Marcionite theology, and how that might relate to his attitude towards the Judean God and messengers of his will. My understanding is that Marcion was ambivalent to the God of creation. The Creator God's realm was over the the material world, and whatever he has willed to set as rules for matter to follow, or preordained to occur in it, would be fulfilled. He was just, but also a despot. Everything was black & white, with rewards & punishments being applied to the extremes.

Marcion thought that Jesus, although arising among the Judeans, was teaching something quite different from the POV decreed by the Creator God. Jesus must have been speaking about a different God, one who was just plain Good.

I think there had been some good discussions about Marcion's cosmology both here at BC&H or FRDB. :tombstone:

DCH
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Did John repudiate the “lie” of a carnalized Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe »

DCHindley wrote: Sat Dec 08, 2018 3:27 pm
Giuseppe,

But where has it been established that John was an angel?

IMHO, it is only your process of thinking, which links passages by vague commonalities, that gets results like this.
I am not claiming it with the same certainty by which you deny it.

I am assuming (since it is already in evidence, it seems) that John the Baptist, for Marcion, was an enemy of Christ and as such a Judaizer.

I am assuming that 'messenger' can be translated as 'angel' and so, if the passage was written by Marcion, then the allusion may be to the rival angel of Gal 1:8 - a Judaizer Angel, too - as interpreted midrashically by who invented the episode (I use a priori the term 'invention' since any my thread about the Gospels assumes the Mythicist paradigm as basic premise).

(note also that John is said to be 'more than a prophet' and who if not an angel is 'more than a prophet' in the function of revelation of a message? )

I remember that, insofar Marcionism has more links with the later Manicheism and Catharism than with the Judaism, then the idea that John the Baptist was an evil angel - even a demon! - (so diffuse in these later Dualist sects) is plausible.

In addition, I would inquiry in the next posts the relation between Herod and John the Baptist in reference to the wilderness.

:popcorn:
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: Did John repudiate the “lie” of a carnalized Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe »


Herod versus Jesus (incipit of Luke/Matthew) Dragon versus Jesus (Book of Apocalypse) John versus Jesus (incipit of Mark) a king versus the Son (Ascension of Isaiah)
Herod knows in advance that the Christ will be born the Dragon knows in advance that the child is Christ John knows in advance that the Christ will come
Herod kills a lot of children the Dragon wants to kill him John “kills” simbolically Jesus by baptism a 'king' kills the Son of God
Jesus escapes in Egypt the Woman flees with the child into wilderness but Jesus is baptized by the Spirit and he “escapes” into wilderness without knowing who he is
Jesus is in Egypt the child grows Jesus is in the wilderness the Son defeats the death
Herod dies the Christ will defeat the Dragon John is arrested the Son will defeat the Prince of this World
Jesus returns to Judea the Christ will ascend to heaven again Jesus returns in Galilee the Son will ascend to Father

Possible Inference:

I may infer from the table above the fact that the more diffuse myth is that the Christ is killed by a Dangerous enemy (beyond if euhemerized or not).

So what is 'surprising' relatively to the pattern is the presumed peace between John the Baptist and Jesus. Clues of implicit rivalry emerge from the Baptism episode, between John and Jesus.


Therefore I may raise simply the suspicion that in a previous story, the proto-proto-proto-Gospel, i.e. the more simple minimal Gospel story in absolute terms, assumed only the following steps (more or less, the same steps so well described in the Ascension of Isaiah + interpolations):


1) the Christ descends on the earth
2) An angel kills him or he is going to kill him
3) Jesus escapes or he is killed and he goes to hell
4) the hour comes for the killer's destruction
5) Jesus returns or he rises.

So, since the Revelation of the Jesus, his real Gospel, starts only after the his resurrection,

...and since ''Mark'' (author) wanted that this Gospel was proclaimed before the death and resurrection,

...then ''Mark'' replaced the negative angel who kills Jesus just when he descends on the earth by the positive figure of a John the Baptist who limits himself to “kill” symbolically Jesus in the waters of the Jordan river.
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: Did John repudiate the “lie” of a carnalized Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe »

In the table above, frankly, what surprises more is the similarity between the first column and the third column.


Herod persecutor of the child Jesus confirms the Jewishness of Jesus and contains in nuce the previous myth of a Son dying and rising.

John Baptizer of the adult Jesus confirms the Jewishness of Jesus and contains in nuce the previous myth of a Son dying and rising.

So it is no a coincidence the fact that both Herod's persecution and John's baptism are in the incipit respectively of Luke and of Mark.

Their function is clearly anti-marcionite:
the essence of the mission of Jesus was already found in nuce in the time before the public preaching.

In this way it is neutralized in advance the suspicion about the not-Jewishness of 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: Did John repudiate the “lie” of a carnalized Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:17 am
I am assuming that 'messenger' can be translated as 'angel' and so, if the passage was written by Marcion, then the allusion may be to the rival angel of Gal 1:8 - a Judaizer Angel, too - as interpreted midrashically by who invented the episode (I use a priori the term 'invention' since any my thread about the Gospels assumes the Mythicist paradigm as basic premise).
the point is slightly more subtle than above:

for Marcion John is a man born by woman, sure.

But also for Paul the rival Gospel of the Judaizers was preached by mere men.

But Paul indulges in hyperbolic discourse: even if behind these men there was an angel from heaven.... ...reject it as false.

So also Marcion indulges in hyperbolic discourse: even if John was the "angel" Elijiah predicted by the prophets as precursor of the Jewish Messiah... ...reject him as less great than the Christian marcionites.

Paul knows that there was not a real angel behind the Judaizers. And Marcion knows that John was not the Elijiah redivivus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply