Jesus was exposed/crucified only after the death

[Giuseppe]

A version of Ascension of Isaiah (I assume that the reader knows already what I am talking about) says that Jesus was hunged on a tree only after the his death.

So Revelation 11:9:

9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves

how did they "see their dead bodies three days"? Only in a possible way. Their corpses were exposed/crucified.

So also the extreme punition of Jesus was the cursing/crucifixion on the tree (per Gal 3:13) of the his corpse.

"Mark" placed the crucifixion before the three days, and not during these three days.

[Giuseppe]

So the "historical" crucifixion was the lapidation of Jesus.

[Giuseppe]

The Sacred Drama:

First day: Jesus descends on the earth, he was killed by demons, the his corpse was exposed on the cross. (MYTH)

Second day: before the night, he was buried as per prescriptions in Deut. (MYTH)

Third day: he was risen and he was “seen” by Peter, then by John, then by James, then by the 500 brothers and lastly by Paul. (HISTORICAL FACT)


An objection may be: if Jesus descends on the earth, then why was the crucifixion not a Roman crucifixion, given the fact that it was placed by Paul in the contemporary time (“First day”)?

Answer: Because Revelation 11:8-9 confirms that the Jewish crucifixion was applied only on the corpse of the victim. If that happened for the two witnesses of Rev 11:8-9, then probably this had to happen also for the witnessed (as confirmed also by Ascension of Isaiah).

8 Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified. 9 For three and a half days some from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial.

“Where also their Lord was crucified” means “where also their Lord was exposed”, i.e. on the cross (exposition post mortem).

Now, the two witnesses may be Bar Kokhba and Eleazar. Their killers were the Romans. But the killers of Jesus were directly the demons.

[Giuseppe]

If Jesus was buried before the night, then the role of a Joseph from Arimathea is part of the original myth.

Who could be the original "Joseph"?

Only the his enemies could be, since only they met him on the earth (to kill him). It is not a coincidence the fact that "Mark" is going to eclipse the original evil nature of who buried Jesus, by inventing a good Joseph.

[Charles Wilson]

Josephus, Ant..., 14, 7, 4:

"But some time afterward Cesar, when he had taken Rome, and after Pompey and the senate were fled beyond the Ionian Sea, freed Aristobulus from his bonds, and resolved to send him into Syria, and delivered two legions to him, that he might set matters right, as being a potent man in that country. But Aristobulus had no enjoyment of what he hoped for from the power that was given him by Cesar; for those of Pompey's party prevented it, and destroyed him by poison; and those of Caesar's party buried him. His dead body also lay, for a good while, embalmed in honey, till Antony afterward sent it to Judea, and caused him to be buried in the royal sepulcher. But Scipio, upon Pompey's sending to him to slay Alexander, the son of Aristobulus, because the young man was accused of what offenses he had been guilty of at first against the Romans, cut off his head; and thus did he die at Antioch..."

Giuseppe --

I've composed a long response, a short response and no response to your Post - erased them all. I finally have settled on this.

There is no need to appeal to Metaphysics here, especially as the ONLY solution to the Passage in Revelation. A straightforward solution exists and it involves Aristobulus and his son:

Revelation 10: 8 - 19 (RSV):

[8] Then the voice which I had heard from heaven spoke to me again, saying, "Go, take the scroll which is open in the hand of the angel who is standing on the sea and on the land."
[9] So I went to the angel and told him to give me the little scroll; and he said to me, "Take it and eat; it will be bitter to your stomach, but sweet as honey in your mouth."
[10] And I took the little scroll from the hand of the angel and ate it; it was sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it my stomach was made bitter.

There is another Story here and I have mapped it out. It involves the Poisoner Mithridates, Pompey and Rhododendron Honey but you don't have to believe it. It is perhaps enough to see the Historical Markers in this section of Revelation, starting with the half hour of silence in Heaven.

One may object that Aristobulus' son is not the "Second Lampstand". OK, give me another person besides Aristobulus' son here and I'll be happy to consider it. The identification of Aristobulus 2 as at least one of the "Lampstands" seems certain enough.

YMMV.

Thanx,

CW

[Giuseppe]

It makes a lot of sense, in my view, the idea that "Mark" euhemerized Jesus by simply "romanizing" the his crucifixion, one of the corpse alone of Jesus. So the confusion between the mythical Jesus (only the corpse crucified) ad the euhemerized ("historical") Jesus (crucified alive) happened very easily.

I should inquiry from the idea that only the Jesus's corpse was crucified, in the original myth.

[Charles Wilson]

Revelation 5: 6 (RSV, in part):

[6] And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain...

This verse, then, fits easily into your System, yes?

CW

[Giuseppe]

Revelation 5: 6 (RSV, in part):

[6] And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain...

This verse, then, fits easily into your System, yes?

CW

that Lamb was first killed with swords, and only after he was crucified.

But where was he killed? That the triduum represent three stages of a sacred drama is probable (if he was risen the third day, what probably did he did in the first day and in the second day? Respectively the death and burial). But was the sacred drama meant to represent here on the earth some events happened in the lower heavens? Or was that sacred drama done without knowing more where what it allegorized was happened?

[Giuseppe]

But was the sacred drama meant to represent here on the earth some events happened in the lower heavens? Or was that sacred drama done without knowing more where what it allegorized was happened?

this may be really a fallacy of the false difference. The ancient people didn't distinguish between a fact happened in the lower heavens and a fact allegorized by a sacred drama (and known only by the latter): both the facts were conceived to be happened in a world of myth.

Take the death of Dionysos, for example. He was eaten by the Titans on the earth. Even in a definite point of the earth. But if the sacred drama allegorized that death, then that death was mythical. I.e. considered mythically.

So Paul considered mythical the death of Jesus insofar he had to represent it in the form of a sacred drama.

Galatians 3
3 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

ADDENDA: the sacred drama seth forth before the Galatians was historical, for Paul. But the original drama was mythical, for Paul.

[Giuseppe]

But Paul says that the crucified Christ was a "scandal for the Jews". Now we know the why: the corpse of Jesus was crucified on the tree, so going to be scandalously cursed by God. The scandal was so embarrassing that even Paul had to claim that Jesus was buried the second day.