Was the Destruction of Jerusalem Proof of Jesus the God's Existence?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was the Destruction of Jerusalem Proof of Jesus the God's Existence?

Post by Secret Alias »

But Tertullian says that Moses was greater than his God because he could negotiate away his anger against the people so what you are saying in fact doesn't hold up. I think it is you - like many mythicists - who covertly blame the Jews for creating Christianity and so invent a wholly fabricated 'gnosticism' to become your mouthpiece. Surely you can't claim your beliefs are Marcion's when Tertullian quite clearly accuses Marcion of having Jewish doctrines and as illustrated above makes the Jewish god a paltry weak and feeble god. Blaming Moses isn't necessarily a sign the Marcionites were 'Jewish' but is an important sign that they weren't entirely hostile to the Jewish god.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was the Destruction of Jerusalem Proof of Jesus the God's Existence?

Post by Secret Alias »

So remember EVEN WITHIN THE EARLIEST JEWISH SOURCES AND TRADITIONS God gives the 10 utterances and Moses the other 603 and the Pentateuch narrative. The earliest Karaites put forward the very logical (at least from the point of hermeneutics) reading of Moses being 'the narrator' of the Pentateuch. It is a product of his hand rather than understanding God to have handed Moses an entire book. To this end while the Marcionites understanding Moses to be more powerful than his God isn't 'Jewish' specifically it seems to come from the oldest readings and understanding of the greatest of Moses.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was the Destruction of Jerusalem Proof of Jesus the God's Existence?

Post by Giuseppe »

But the problem "si deus est unde malum?" is very old and sound (even in the Book of Job his wife condemns God for his crimes against Job) and always will cause the rise of Gnostic expressions in any field of the human life and of religion too.

I cannot believe, for example, that a believer in the monotheist god could have written the parable of the fool servant where the evil figure is surely the master and not the servant.
I cannot think that Mark 4:11-12 was of the original Gospel when his intent is clearly to convert Jesus in an accomplice of the same conspiracy of silence (by Peter and co) about his true identity.
I cannot think that the answer addressed to Pilate "you say" was a simple confirmation of the his question and not rather the his implicit denial.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Nathan
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:30 pm

Re: Was the Destruction of Jerusalem Proof of Jesus the God's Existence?

Post by Nathan »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:58 am ... the circle of R Ishmael makes clear there are two gods.
That is untrue, Stephan. At least one book attributed to the school of R. Ishmael (the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael) explicitly repudiates that doctrine.

Mekhilta Bahodesh 5, for instance:
Scripture ... would not let the nations of the world have an excuse for saying that there are two powers, but declares: "I [alone] am the Lord your God." I am He who was in Egypt and I am He was at the [Reed] Sea. I am He who was at Sinai. I am He who was in the past and I am He who will be in the future. I am He who was in this world and I am He who will be in the world to come ...
It goes on:
Rabbi Nathan says: ... a refutation of the heretics who say: "There are two powers." For when the Holy One ... stood up and exclaimed: "I am the Lord your God," was there anyone who stood up to protest against Him? [Implied answer: No.]
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was the Destruction of Jerusalem Proof of Jesus the God's Existence?

Post by Secret Alias »

Ok so perhaps in my rush I should have written:
the circle of R Ishmael makes clear "there are two gods."
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was the Destruction of Jerusalem Proof of Jesus the God's Existence?

Post by Secret Alias »

But does the Mekhilta as it is now preserved actually reflect R Ishmael's POV? No I don't think so. The reasoning is rather straightforward - it is Akiva who is cited as denying the proper reading of Exodus. As with Patristic texts what survives has been corrected by later redactors and it is certain that they brought in Akiva's POV very much in the manner we see in later Patristic literature with respect to 'in Mark we read ...' and 'but Matthew says ...' or Irenaeus who clearly CANNOT agree with Justin becomes a spokesman for Justin or Irenaeus becomes the beloved disciple of Polycarp even though he is forced to admit in one of the fragments that Florinus was actually 'more intimate.'

I don't have time to reproduce the paper but I have been working on a paper with Benyamim Tsedaka making the case that the text of Exodus at the bottom of the Mekhilta agreed with the surviving Samaritan text (viz. that Deuteronomy was 'mixed' in parts into the Exodus narrative. The reason that the Jewish text excised these portions from Deuteronomy I suspect is that it makes plain that the vision on Sinai had the Israelites 'seeing' one god in one place and 'hearing' another god in heaven. By relegating the appropriate portions to Deuteronomy which make this explicit monarchianism is preserved.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was the Destruction of Jerusalem Proof of Jesus the God's Existence?

Post by Secret Alias »

On the frequency of citations of 'Ishmael' and 'Akiva' in the corpus - https://books.google.com/books?id=WGxcj ... ta&f=false
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was the Destruction of Jerusalem Proof of Jesus the God's Existence?

Post by Secret Alias »

And without getting technical the difficulty in believing that the original Mekhilta cited Akiva is because everything about Ishmael points against the direction of citing other scholarly opinions. Ishmael only cites scripture; he has no interest in what other people are thinking or writing or arguing. In the words of Yadin-Israel Ishmael "does not speak the 'language' of extra-scriptural tradition." As such the bringing in of Akiva to prove that Sinai should not be read as having two gods was done by someone other than Ishmael. https://books.google.com/books?id=AqXeB ... ta&f=false And perhaps most important of all, the plain reading of the Sinai theophany is clearly that one god on the mountain, another in heaven. Not surprisingly Akiva the master of abstractions needs to be brought in by the editors to rescue the monarchy with the plain reading speaking plainly. Hence the original position of the Mekhilta was the one criticized in the final redaction - viz. 'there are two powers!' The entire digression uses hermeneutic tricks that Ishmael never would have employed and in fact the observation that Daniel's god is old and Exodus's man of war young not surprisingly rings of Ishmaelite simplicity. The Samaritan Ex 15:3 has גִּבֹּור making this even more explicit (note the reading was not just Samaritan but Jewish as we see from 1QM 12.9).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was the Destruction of Jerusalem Proof of Jesus the God's Existence?

Post by Secret Alias »

And just an aside for those who care. Even though the Mekhilta cites Exodus 15:3 in the familiar form it is worth noting that the Samaritan reading is ever present. For instance in the commentary on Exodus 20:2 the appearance of God as a 'gibhor' is explicitly referenced https://books.google.com/books?id=eaymy ... ar&f=false and then followed by the 'correct' reading. In another section the terminology comes up with respect to the 'jealousy' of God - A certain philosopher asked R. Gamaliel: It is written in your Torah: "For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God." But is there any power in the idol that it should arouse jealousy? A hero is jealous of another hero, a wise man is jealous of another wise man a rich man is jealous of another rich man, but has the idol any power that one should be jealous of it?" Interestingly when the story gets to the Bavli the 'hero' bit disappears - The General Agrippa asked R. Gamaliel, "It is written in your Torah, 'For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.' Is a wise man jealous of anyone but a wise man, a warrior of anyone but a warrior, a rich man of anyone but a rich." But the context is clearly 'two powers' in heaven especially by Gamaliel's response.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Was the Destruction of Jerusalem Proof of Jesus the God's Existence?

Post by lsayre »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:59 pm..... But the context is clearly 'two powers' in heaven especially by Gamaliel's response.
I'm in. What was his response?
Post Reply