Why the original Resurrection happened BEFORE the Crucifixion

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7667
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Why the original Resurrection happened BEFORE the Crucifixion

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Apr 08, 2020 7:50 am

It is the only verse among all where there is the word: O Lord.

"My God, my God, why, O Lord, have you forsaken me?" (Mk 15:34). It was on the cross that he said these words, for he had departed from that place.

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gop.html

What is then the function of "O Lord" in the context of GPhilip ?

In whiletime, the idea of death as separation occurs also in the following passage:

When Eve was still with Adam, death did not exist. When she was separated from him, death came into being. If he enters again and attains his former self, death will be no more.

Clearly, only an evil demiurge could introduce the death by creating the woman.

the following verse allows a more correct recognition of the identity of the 'Lord':

He who has received something other than the Lord is still a Hebrew.

This passage seems the Gnostic equivalent of the Judaizing parody behind the affair Barabbas: now who is receiving a different savior is a Judaizer, not more a Gentilizer.

Therefore the Lord can only be the supreme god as distinct from the god of the Jews or demiurge.

Irenaeus writes about this Gnostic separation happened during a crucifixion. Only, the crucifixion in question is a celestial crucifixion in outer space:

The Father afterwards produces, in his own image, by means of Monogenes, the above-mentioned Horos, without conjunction, masculo-feminine. For they maintain that sometimes the Father acts in conjunction with Sige, but that at other times he shows himself independent both of male and female. They term this Horos both Stauros and Lytrotes, and Carpistes, and Horothetes, and Metagoges. And by this Horos they declare that Sophia was purified and established, while she was also restored to her proper conjunction. For her enthymesis (or inborn idea) having been taken away from her, along with its supervening passion, she herself certainly remained within the Pleroma; but her enthymesis, with its passion, was separated from her by Horos, crucified, and expelled from that circle. This enthymesis was, no doubt, a spiritual substance, possessing some of the natural tendencies of an Æon, but at the same time shapeless and without form, because it had received nothing. And on this account they say that it was an imbecile and feminine production.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103102.htm


A Superior element (Sophia) is divided from an Inferior element (enthymesis), by a crucifixion, too.

Hence the cry on the cross is addressed, in the "real History" ( :scratch: ), by the inferior enthmesis to the superior Sophia abandoning the former.


The same idea is shown in GPeter:

And the Lord screamed out, saying: 'My power, O power, you have forsaken me.' And having said this, he was taken up.


In both the cases, then, who abandons is not YHWH but the supreme god distinct from the creator.

This is the proof that the words:

It was on the cross that he said these words, for he had departed from that place.

…are addressed precisely to the only readers who knew the Valentinian myth of the celestial crucifixion of Sophia in outer space.

But there is even more to be learned about the enigmatic expression: the total DELIBERATE anonymity of the "he" who "said these words":

It was on the cross that he said these words, for he had departed from that place.

The author doesn't want deliberately to give a name to the miserable crucified.

He could be called Simon, or Jax. The identity of the crucified didn't matter at all. What was important, at contrary, was the identity of who abandoned him on the cross. Hence the possible interpolation: the LORD.

The supreme god is abandoning the man on the cross. That deserves to be known.


Same idea here:
And he died at the departure of the Spirit which had descended upon him in the Jordan, not that it became separate but was withdrawn in order that death might also operate on him, since how did the body die when life was present in him? For in that way death would have prevailed over the Saviour himself, which is absurd. But death was out-generalled by guile. For when the body died and death seized it, the Saviour sent forth the ray of power which had come upon him and destroyed death and raised up the mortal body which had put off passion. In this way, therefore, the psychic elements are raised and are saved, but the spiritual natures which believe receive a salvation superior to theirs, having received their souls as “wedding garments.”

http://gnosis.org/library/excr.htm


But the Valentinian Theodotus is still making a distinction between the celestial separation of the Spirit and the effective death of the man on the cross. The latter can die only after the Spirit abandons him, not in the same moment the Spirit abandons him. The distinction is subtle but found there.

The author of GPhilip, differently from Theodotus, makes the following point:

Those who say that the Lord died first and (then) rose up are in error, for he rose up first and (then) died. If one does not first attain the resurrection, he will not die.

It is a subtle way to say that the real Resurrection happened during the crucifixion, with the liberation of the Spiritual Christ from his earthly prison (=the crucified).

Remember that Barabbas ("Jesus Son of Father") was in prison, too, before his liberation by Pilate (the Archon Pylatis in the original myth).

The man on the cross didn't exist just as a Roman prison where Barabbas was held prisoner didn't exist at all.

I can well claim that the crucified and the prison have the same ontological consistence: zero, nicht, nada, nihil.


In conclusion, the enigmatic words:


It was on the cross that he said these words, for he had departed from that place.

…are designed to make it clear, for who has eyes to see, that the true, original Gnostic resurrection that had to appen before the death, happened precisely in that fatidic moment.


In other terms, crucifixion == ascension == resurrection.


References:

Journal Article
Le Christ vainqueur de la mort dans "l'Évangile selon Philippe" Une exégèse valentinienne de Matt. 27:46
Louis Painchaud

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1560897?re ... b_contents
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7667
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why the original Resurrection happened BEFORE the Crucifixion

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Apr 11, 2020 10:20 pm

JoeWallack wrote:
Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:20 am
The problem with Hurtado's supposed point that the Gospels show a trajectory from HJ to MJ (supernatural) is that, as CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) is wont to do, it ignores the Separationism of GMark. GMark is clearly Separationist (right KK?) so it shows that Jesus was (literally) not worth mentioning before he received God's Spirit. Likewise GMark shows that Jesus was not worth mentioning after God's spirit left. So, the original Gospel narrative really only describes MJ. Sounds to me like the original Gospel Jesus was all MJ. Then, all subsequent Gospels, which very much want HJ, use as a base, a Gospel which only has MJ, which is evidence that they had no other source for HJ.
The real threat for historicism represented by a Separationist Earliest Gospel, is that the Separationist Crucifixion alludes, polemically or favorably, to the Separationist Crucifixion in Outer Space.

What people must to realize is that the link between the forsaken cry and the Separationist Crucifixion in Outer Space is witnessed by GPhilip 72.

An academic article has been written about this link (see above). His fatal implications for historicity can be neutralized only if you deny that the Earliest Gospel is Separationist.

I.e., only if you deny that the forsaken cry was written having in mind not only Psalm 22 but also the idea of the Outer Space Separationist Crucifixion.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7667
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why the original Resurrection happened BEFORE the Crucifixion

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Apr 12, 2020 5:23 am

I think that Ireneus says the pure and simple truth, here, about why the Gospel of Mark was written:

Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified.

(Against Heresies 3:11)

Mark was written "to rectify" the errors of the Gnostics who believed in a Separationist Crucificion in Outer Space. The author wanted deliberately to allude subtly to a Separation between God and the victim, but only to claim that:
  • Jesus was quoting really the forsaken cry from Psalm 22 because he was the Servant of YHWH;
  • Jesus was invoking YHWH, hence, if Separation there was, it was on the earth between YHWH and Jesus Christ, not in Outer Space between superior Sophia and inferior Sophia.
In this way, "reading Mark with a love of truth", the Separationists were moved gradually to give up to their belief in a celestial Crucifixion.

The Gnostic Separationists returned the favour by preferring the Gospel of Mark, but at the end, if they were co-opted by the Great Church, it was due precisely in virtue of their reading of Mark "with a love of truth".
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Why the original Resurrection happened BEFORE the Crucifixion

Post by Jax » Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:07 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Wed Apr 08, 2020 7:50 am
It is the only verse among all where there is the word: O Lord.

"My God, my God, why, O Lord, have you forsaken me?" (Mk 15:34). It was on the cross that he said these words, for he had departed from that place.

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gop.html

What is then the function of "O Lord" in the context of GPhilip ?

In whiletime, the idea of death as separation occurs also in the following passage:

When Eve was still with Adam, death did not exist. When she was separated from him, death came into being. If he enters again and attains his former self, death will be no more.

Clearly, only an evil demiurge could introduce the death by creating the woman.

the following verse allows a more correct recognition of the identity of the 'Lord':

He who has received something other than the Lord is still a Hebrew.

This passage seems the Gnostic equivalent of the Judaizing parody behind the affair Barabbas: now who is receiving a different savior is a Judaizer, not more a Gentilizer.

Therefore the Lord can only be the supreme god as distinct from the god of the Jews or demiurge.

Irenaeus writes about this Gnostic separation happened during a crucifixion. Only, the crucifixion in question is a celestial crucifixion in outer space:

The Father afterwards produces, in his own image, by means of Monogenes, the above-mentioned Horos, without conjunction, masculo-feminine. For they maintain that sometimes the Father acts in conjunction with Sige, but that at other times he shows himself independent both of male and female. They term this Horos both Stauros and Lytrotes, and Carpistes, and Horothetes, and Metagoges. And by this Horos they declare that Sophia was purified and established, while she was also restored to her proper conjunction. For her enthymesis (or inborn idea) having been taken away from her, along with its supervening passion, she herself certainly remained within the Pleroma; but her enthymesis, with its passion, was separated from her by Horos, crucified, and expelled from that circle. This enthymesis was, no doubt, a spiritual substance, possessing some of the natural tendencies of an Æon, but at the same time shapeless and without form, because it had received nothing. And on this account they say that it was an imbecile and feminine production.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103102.htm


A Superior element (Sophia) is divided from an Inferior element (enthymesis), by a crucifixion, too.

Hence the cry on the cross is addressed, in the "real History" ( :scratch: ), by the inferior enthmesis to the superior Sophia abandoning the former.


The same idea is shown in GPeter:

And the Lord screamed out, saying: 'My power, O power, you have forsaken me.' And having said this, he was taken up.


In both the cases, then, who abandons is not YHWH but the supreme god distinct from the creator.

This is the proof that the words:

It was on the cross that he said these words, for he had departed from that place.

…are addressed precisely to the only readers who knew the Valentinian myth of the celestial crucifixion of Sophia in outer space.

But there is even more to be learned about the enigmatic expression: the total DELIBERATE anonymity of the "he" who "said these words":

It was on the cross that he said these words, for he had departed from that place.

The author doesn't want deliberately to give a name to the miserable crucified.

He could be called Simon, or Jax. The identity of the crucified didn't matter at all. What was important, at contrary, was the identity of who abandoned him on the cross. Hence the possible interpolation: the LORD.

The supreme god is abandoning the man on the cross. That deserves to be known.


Same idea here:
And he died at the departure of the Spirit which had descended upon him in the Jordan, not that it became separate but was withdrawn in order that death might also operate on him, since how did the body die when life was present in him? For in that way death would have prevailed over the Saviour himself, which is absurd. But death was out-generalled by guile. For when the body died and death seized it, the Saviour sent forth the ray of power which had come upon him and destroyed death and raised up the mortal body which had put off passion. In this way, therefore, the psychic elements are raised and are saved, but the spiritual natures which believe receive a salvation superior to theirs, having received their souls as “wedding garments.”

http://gnosis.org/library/excr.htm


But the Valentinian Theodotus is still making a distinction between the celestial separation of the Spirit and the effective death of the man on the cross. The latter can die only after the Spirit abandons him, not in the same moment the Spirit abandons him. The distinction is subtle but found there.

The author of GPhilip, differently from Theodotus, makes the following point:

Those who say that the Lord died first and (then) rose up are in error, for he rose up first and (then) died. If one does not first attain the resurrection, he will not die.

It is a subtle way to say that the real Resurrection happened during the crucifixion, with the liberation of the Spiritual Christ from his earthly prison (=the crucified).

Remember that Barabbas ("Jesus Son of Father") was in prison, too, before his liberation by Pilate (the Archon Pylatis in the original myth).

The man on the cross didn't exist just as a Roman prison where Barabbas was held prisoner didn't exist at all.

I can well claim that the crucified and the prison have the same ontological consistence: zero, nicht, nada, nihil.


In conclusion, the enigmatic words:


It was on the cross that he said these words, for he had departed from that place.

…are designed to make it clear, for who has eyes to see, that the true, original Gnostic resurrection that had to appen before the death, happened precisely in that fatidic moment.


In other terms, crucifixion == ascension == resurrection.


References:

Journal Article
Le Christ vainqueur de la mort dans "l'Évangile selon Philippe" Une exégèse valentinienne de Matt. 27:46
Louis Painchaud

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1560897?re ... b_contents
Nope. Wasn't me.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7667
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why the original Resurrection happened BEFORE the Crucifixion

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:27 am

Jax wrote:
Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:07 am
But there is even more to be learned about the enigmatic expression: the total DELIBERATE anonymity of the "he" who "said these words":

It was on the cross that he said these words, for he had departed from that place.

The author doesn't want deliberately to give a name to the miserable crucified.

He could be called Simon, or Jax. The identity of the crucified didn't matter at all. What was important, at contrary, was the identity of who abandoned him on the cross. Hence the possible interpolation: the LORD.
Nope. Wasn't me.
As I have written, the identity of the crucified didn't matter at all.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply