Finding Jesus (= אישו) at the Beginning of Genesis

[Secret Alias]

Secret Alias wrote:
maybe not a white man, but a man nonetheless.

Ad hominem.

It's a joke. I like you, Peter. I've always said that. I just fight with people for the agonal rush not because I dislike them.

[Secret Alias]

Some more clues in Justin of the original 'myth' of Christianity, man being created by 'God's will' (a gnostic concept I think) and his redemption of man by giving them his image or likeness (I forget which):

or not only among the Greeks did Logos prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Logos Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ

that Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will, He taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race

and again - And He is called Angel and Apostle; for He declares whatever we ought to know, and is sent forth to declare whatever is revealed; as our Lord Himself says, He that hears Me, hears Him that sent Me. Luke 10:16 From the writings of Moses also this will be manifest; for thus it is written in them, And the Angel of God spoke to Moses, in a flame of fire out of the bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of your fathers; go down into Egypt, and bring forth My people. Exodus 3:6 And if you wish to learn what follows, you can do so from the same writings; for it is impossible to relate the whole here. But so much is written for the sake of proving that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God and His Apostle, being of old the Word, and appearing sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in the likeness of angels; but now, by the will of God, having become man for the human race, He endured all the sufferings which the devils instigated the senseless Jews to inflict upon Him; who, though they have it expressly affirmed in the writings of Moses, And the angel of God spoke to Moses in a flame of fire in a bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, yet maintain that He who said this was the Father and Creator of the universe. (1 Ap 63)

[Secret Alias]

The whole business of a birth or creation "according to his will" (τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ) seems Pauline to me.

[Secret Alias]

To gain a proper perspective on the Eastern view of salvation, we have to be aware of its distinctive anthropological outlook and its implications. In the main, Eastern anthropology looks forward to the renewing of the image of God. The underlying anthropology" is not necessarily more positive but, instead of operating mainly in guilt-concepts, it looks upward, so to speak, to the image of God to be fulfilled in mortal human beings. This sets the tone for the soteriology and theology in general.

The view of the human being in the Christian East is based upon the notion of "participation" in God. This "natural" participation, however, is not a static givenness; rather, it is a challenge, and the human being is called to grow in divine life. Divine life is a gift, but also a task which is to be accomplished by a free human effort.

A person becomes the perfect image of God by discovering his or her likeness to God, which is the perfection of the nature common to all human beings. The Greek term homoiousios, which corresponds to likeness in Genesis 1:26, means precisely that dynamic progress and growth in divine life and implies human freedom. In Greek patristic thought there is no opposition between freedom (likeness) and grace (God's image in human beings): the presence in man of divine qualities, of a "grace" (God's image) which makes him fully man, "neither destroys his freedom, nor limits the necessity for him to become fully himself by his own effort; rather, it secures that cooperation, or synergy, between the divine will and human choice which makes possible the progress 'from glory to glory' and the assimilation of man to the divine dignity for which he was created." (Constantine N. Tsirpanlis, Introduction to Eastern Patristic Thought and Orthodox Theology, Theology and Life Series 30 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991) p 46)

Unlike much of classical Western theology, the Eastern fathers never viewed the creation of human beings as perfect even before the Fall. Humans were created imperfect and they had to be tested as free rational beings in order to become perfect through the stages of growth and maturity. According to Irenaeus, in Paradise "'they were both naked and were not ashamed,' having been created a short time previously; they had not understanding of the procreation of children, for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward." (Irenaeus Against Heresies 4.38.1 - 3) The first human beings then fell during the growth period while they were still immature.

In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nyssa was asked a difficult question about children who die young. The ascetic who asked this question was wondering what could really be achieved by his spiritual labors, when he knew for sure that he was going to commit sins that would hinder his entrance into the kingdom. So it seemed like the child who died young was better off. Gregory's answer reveals the basic orientation of Eastern theology. The human condition in the next life is not primarily a matter of justice, reward, and punishment. God's aim is rather to fulfill the purpose for which he created human beings, namely to participate in God's life.

The earthly life is for growth and development for this eternal communion.1" From this perspective it becomes understandable that according to Irenaeus, God originally intended that humans would enter into theosis through a natural process of growth. Unfortunately, sin deflected humanity from this path and disrupted God's purposes.

What then is the effect of the Fall in Eastern theology? Rather than thinking in terms of Augustinian transmittal of corrupt nature from generation to generation, Eastern thought focuses on two interrelated effects of the Fall: physical death and the obscuring or distortion of the image of God. Adam's sin was a personal choice and act, not a collective sin nor a "sin of nature." Hence, inherited guilt is impossible. The consensus of the Greek fathers, especially John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Maximos Confessor, emphasizes this critical point quite often.

According to Constantine N. Tsirpanlis, this view in the East differs from the Western counterpart in several crucial respects. In opposition to the Western anthropology, influenced by Augustine's sharp polemics against Pelagius, the Eastern view of human beings and the Fall is critical of the understanding of original sin and its influences: "1) as inherited guilt; 2) as total destruction of God's image in the human being; 3) as a 'sin of nature' and not a 'personal sin of Adam and Eve' and 4) as legalistic relations of human beings with God and salvation based on Christ's death as satisfaction of divine justice.

In the East, the cross of Christ is envisaged not so much as the punishment of the just one, which "satisfies" transcendent Justice requiring a retribution for human beings' sin. Rather, "the death of the Cross was effective, not as the death of an Innocent One, but as the death of the Incarnate Lord." The point was not to satisfy a legal requirement, but to vanquish death. God alone is able to vanquish death because he alone has immortality (1 Tim 6:16). It is noteworthy that Eastern theology never produced any significant elaboration of the Pauline doctrine of justification. Even the commentaries on Romans and Galatians by the Fathers generally interpreted passages such as Galatians 3:13 as victory over death and sanctification of life. Understandably, the Eastern fathers also never developed the theory of "satisfaction" along the lines of Anselm's theory. As Meyendorff puts it, "The voluntary assumption of human mortality by the Logos was an act of God's condescension by which he united himself to the whole of humanity."

According to Meyendorff, this is what Gregory of Nazianzus taught when he said, "What is not assumed is not healed, and what is united to God is saved"; therefore, "we needed a God made flesh and put to death in order that we could live again." One of the preferred images of the effects of Christ's death in the Christian East has been "medical": the cross is an antidote to the poison of corruptibility and sin. A clear example of the orientation of Eastern anthropology and Christology is offered by a quote from Athanasius in which he reflects on the meaning of the cross in light of the mortality of human beings:

Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men. This He did that He might turn again to incorruption men who had turned back to corruption, and make them alive through death by the appropriation of His body and by .the grace of His resurrection. Thus He would make death to disappear from them as utterly as straw from fire.

Eastern anthropology accepts punishment, death, and mortality, not as God's retribution or revenge for sin as much as pedagogy. The human being's finitude would make repentance well up within her, the possibility of free love to God, the Creator and the source of all life. And, "God's plan has not changed; He always desires that man should be united with Him and transfigure the whole earth. The whole history of humanity will thus be that of salvation." As microcosm the human being represents and assimilates in herself the whole macrocosm, the creation. What happens to human beings, happens to creation. God is the Savior of all. The above-mentioned two major results of the Fall, namely physical death and the distortion of the image of God, call for the regaining of immortality and the restoration of the image. Salvation, then, is not primarily viewed as liberation from sin even though that is not a matter of indifference, but rather as a return to life immortal and the reshaping of the human being into the image of her creator.

These two elements constitute the two greatest reasons for the incarnation of the Son of God. Consequently, Eastern theology takes the New Testament term soteria (salvation) in its biblical sense, which goes beyond terms such as "redemption," "reconciliation," "justification" and the like to encompass the wholeness of new life under God. God did not "fail" in the creation of human beings. If, like Athanasius and others argued, God is the embodiment of truthfulness and goodness, then incarnation means the restoration of human beings and the creation:

It was unworthy of the goodness of God that creatures made by Him should be brought to nothing through the deceit wrought upon man by the devil; and it was supremely unfitting that the work of God in mankind should disappear, either through their own negligence or through the deceit of evil spirits ... uch indifference to the ruin of His own work before His very eyes would argue not goodness in God but limitation ... Yet, true though this is, it is' not the whole matter ... t was unthinkable that God, the Father of Truth, should go back upon His word regarding death in order to ensure our continued existence. He could not falsify Himself ...

The perfect God-man was the only qualified person to sum up in his own life the corruptibility and distortion of the image and bring about a "recapitulation" of the whole human race and creation.

We have seen that to change the corruptible to incorruption was proper to none other than the Saviour Himself, Who in the beginning made all things out of nothing; that only the Image of the Father could re-create the likeness of the Image in men, that none save our Lord Jesus Christ could give to mortals immortality, and that only the Word Who orders all things and is alone the Father's true and sole-begotten Son could teach men about Him and abolish the worship of idols ... In the same act also He showed Himself mightier than death, displaying His own body incorruptible as the first-fruits of the resurrection. [Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, One With God p. 23 - 25]

[Secret Alias]

The point then is that the original Christian myth (not the deliberate sabotage of modern day white mythicists posing as a faux 'search for the mythicial origins of Christianity) baptism saves humanity because:

1. there were two beings called 'man' at the beginning (Genesis 1 and 2 represent two different accounts of two different men)
2. Adam the second man never achieved perfection
3. the first man (Eesh) - or perhaps 'God's man' (Eeshu) or the man created by God's will - came down to earth to unite his person to provide what was missing in the original creation of Adam

The whole idea that IC = man preserves the original integrity of that myth; the identification of IC as a first initial, last initial of 'Jesus' has no place in this myth.

I want to also emphasize that there are no examples of first letter last letter acronyms in antiquity. It is unnatural to see IC in special letters as anything other than a word (I am not even sure it was an acronym). As I see it, IC was a transliteration of the Hebrew being IC UNIVERSALLY REGARDED by Jews and Samaritans alike to a 'secret angel' in the Pentateuch who engaged with the Patriarchs. ALL THE EESH passages are identified as IC passages (i.e. places where 'Jesus' according to our rendering of IC engaged the Patriarchs).

[Secret Alias]

Consider also the ancient tradition (from the Gospel according to the Hebrews?) that 'fire' (eesh) was in the water when John was baptizing. Is this the original 'crossover' where the entirely separate (unknown to the Marcionite gospel) tradition that John baptized Jesus. The Marcionites had something else. Not sure what.

[Secret Alias]

The question has to be asked - if baptism is the central 'mystery' (sacramentum) of Christianity, how 'sons of God' are 'made' etc and that rite assumes a baptism into a being called 'Man' - viz. to get what was lacking in Adam because he didn't have the likeness (homoiousios) of God only being made in the image etc. the whole 'Jesus' thing is utterly superfluous. That there were some who believed there was this 'Jesus' and he had an unknown original (because Mark has no 'back history' is nice but irrelevant to 'Christianity' as such). Christianity is grounded in the idea that:

1. Adam only had the image not the likeness
2. Eesh (= IC) was the likeness of God
3. baptism was established as the means of restoring Adam by means of Eesh.

In other words, the myth that Christianity was founded on has everything to do with IC = Man not IC = Jesus. The identification of Iesous with IC seems rather forced especially given there is this other early tradition (which ultimately dies out) which wrote manuscripts with the first two letters of Iesous (so a short form rather than the first letter last letter bullshit).

[Secret Alias]

Getting back to the original point of our discussion Peter, the passage in Justin Martyr, I found this summary:

Justin goes on to speak of the Son of God, the Word who was with God, begotten of God, before all were made. He has the name of Christ and of Jesus. Christ is a name in the way 'God' is not a name.31 It has a discoverable meaning as well as unknown significance. Jesus means man and saviour. He came by the Father's will for the sake of believers and for the destruction of demons. Everywhere this name is effective against demons. Those who exorcise in this name have cured and are curing those possessed of demons. The demons are made ineffective and driven out. The same confident strain continues as Justin goes on to say that God delays the destruction of the cosmos simply because of the existence of Christians. They are the reason for the continuance of the natural order. When this order is brought to an end it will not be in a general or indiscriminate way as the Stoics supposed. It will exhibit the justice of God. Here again negative theology leads to Justin's anthropology, an optimism of grace and judgment. A puzzling account of baptism confirms the mystery of the divine name.32 Yet here again the effect of the name is drastically positive. Those who lived under necessity and in ignorance become free men and gain knowledge. These good effects point to the mystery of the ineffable.

What is the gospel passage which Justin has in mind? Clearly it is the 'rescue' of the demoniacs where they already know his name - in the synagogue Tertullian notes in the Marcionite gospel or his own:

In the same passage, "the spirit of an unclean devil" exclaims: "What have we to do with Thee, Thou IC? Art Thou come to destroy us? I know Thee who Thou art, the Holy One of God."

Who is the Holy One of God? A god named Jesus or Eesh the anthropomorphic image which the gnostics said the demons saw reflected on the waters when they created Adam?

Tertullian continues:

it was not possible for Him to be attested as "the Holy One," as unknown even to his own Creator. What similar event could he then have published of a new deity, whereby he might betoken for "the holy one" of the rival god? Simply that he went into the synagogue, and did nothing even in word against the Creator? As therefore he could not by any means acknowledge him, whom he was ignorant of, to be Jesus and the Holy One of God; so did he acknowledge Him whom he knew.

and again:

In order to show that IC was neither acknowledged by the evil spirit, nor affirmed by Himself, to be any other than the Creator's. Well, but IC rebuked him, you say. To be sure he did, as being an envious (spirit), and in his very confession only petulant, and evil in adulation----just as if it had been Christ's highest glory to have come for the destruction of demons, and not for the salvation of mankind; whereas His wish really was that His disciples should not glory in the subjection of evil spirits but in the fair beauty of salvation. Why else did He rebuke him? If it was because he was entirely wrong (in his invocation), then He was neither Jesus nor the Holy One of God; if it was because he was partially wrong----for having supposed him to be, rightly enough, IC and the Holy One of God, but also as belonging to the Creator----most unjustly would He have rebuked him for thinking what he knew he ought to think (about Him), and for not supposing that of Him which he knew not that he ought to suppose----that he was another Jesus, and the holy one of the other god. If, however, the rebuke has not a more probable meaning than that which we ascribe to it, follows that the evil spirit made no mistake, and was not rebuked for lying; for it was IC Himself, besides whom it was impossible for the evil spirit to have acknowledged any other, whilst IC affirmed that He was He whom the evil spirit had acknowledged, by not rebuking him for uttering a lie. (I have reconstructed the material here according to the often repeating evidence that there is a Greek text beneath the Latin)

This is lurking in all of this that the demons - beings who had been around since the creation of man and the world - saw IC and immediately recognized him. Is anyone seriously claiming that there was a Jewish tradition or even a proto-Christian tradition of any kind that a being called 'Jesus' was seen by the demons? Come on.

[Secret Alias]

This sentence is also curious:

... to show that IC was neither acknowledged by the demon, nor affirmed by Himself, to be any other than the Creator's.

Ut Iesum et a daemone non alium doceamus agnitum et a semetipso non alium confirmatum quam creatoris

There is no direct reference to the qualifying noun that was 'of the Creator.' Could the original text have already assumed that IC = man i.e. that the debate was whether the man (= 'Jesus') belonged to the Creator or not?

[Secret Alias]

Indeed the greater context seems to support that contention:

Sed et habebat utique sensum aliquem dominicae dispositionis (licet daemon tamen), magis quam alienae et nondum satis cognitae. Nam et praemisit, Quid nobis et tibi, Iesu?5 non quasi in extraneum, sed5 ad quem pertinent spiritus creatoris. Nec enim dixit, Quid tibi et nobis? sed, Quid nobis et tibi? se deplorans et sorti suae exprobrans; quam iam videns adicit, Venisti perdere nos.Adeo iudicis et ultoris et, ut ita dixerim, saevi dei filium agnoverat Iesum, non optimi illius, et perdere et punire nescientis. Quorsum hunc locum praemisimus ? Ut Iesum et a daemone non alium doceamus agnitum et a semetipso non alium confirmatum quam creatoris. Atquin, inquis, increpuit illum Iesus. Plane, ut invidiosum, et in ipsa confessione petulantem et male adulantem; quasi haec esset summa gloria Christi, si ad perditionem daemonum venisset et non potius ad hominum salutem, qui nec discipulos de suactione spirituum sed de candida salutis gloriari volebat. Aut cur eum increpuit? Si quasi mentitum in totum, ergo non fuit Iesus, nec dei sanctus omnino: si quasi ex parte mentitum, quod eum Iesum quidem et sanctum dei, sed creatoris, existimasset, iniustissime increpuit hoc sentientem quod sciebat sentiendum, et hoc non existimantem quod ignorabat existimandum, alium Iesum et alterius dei sanctum. [15] Quodsi verisimiliorem statum non habet increpatio nisi quem nos interpretamur, iam ergo et daemon nihil mentitus est, non ob mendacium increpitus; ipse enim erat Iesus, praeter quem alium daemon agnovisse non poterat, et Iesus eum confirmavit6 quem agnoverat daemon, dum non ob mendacium increpat daemonem.

Evans translation - With what purpose have I begun with this episode? To show you that Jesus was acknowledged by the demon, and affirmed by himself, to belong to none other than the Creator. But still, you object, Jesus rebuked him. Of course he did: he was an embarrassment: even in that acknowledgement he was impertinent, and submissive in the wrong way, giving the impression that it would be the sum total of Christ's glory to have come for the destruction of demons and not rather for the salvation of men: for it was he who would have his disciples rejoice not because the spirits were subject to them but because of their election to salvation. Else why did he rebuke him? If because he was wholly a liar, then he himself was neither Jesus nor in any sense holy: if because he was partly a liar, in having rightly thought him to be Jesus and the Holy One of God, but to belong to the Creator, it was most unjust of him to rebuke one who took the view which he knew he must take, and did not entertain the idea which he did not know he needed to entertain, that he was a different Jesus, and the holy one of a different god. But if his rebuke has no more likely ground than the interpretation we put upon it, in that case the demon told no lie, and was not rebuked for lying: for Jesus was Jesus himself, and the demon had no means of affording recognition to any besides him: and Jesus gave assurance of being that one whom the devil had recognized, seeing that his rebuke to the demon was not on account of a lie.

Holmes - Thus he actually had (although only an evil spirit) some idea of the Lord's dispensation, rather than of any strange and heretofore imperfectly understood one. Because he also premised this question: "What have we to do with Thee? "----not as if referring to a strange Jesus, to whom pertain the evil spirits of the Creator. Nor did he say, What hast Thou to do with us? but, "What have we to do with Thee? "as if deploring himself, and deprecating his own calamity; at the prospect of which he adds: "Art Thou come to destroy us?" So completely did he acknowledge in Jesus the Son of that God who was judicial and avenging, and (so to speak) severe,190 and not of him who was simply good, and knew not how to destroy or how to punish! Now for what purpose have we adduced his passage first?192 In order to show that Jesus was neither acknowledged by the evil spirit, nor affirmed by Himself, to be any other than the Creator's. Well, but Jesus rebuked him, you say. To be sure he did, as being an envious (spirit), and in his very confession only petulant, and evil in adulation----just as if it had been Christ's highest glory to have come for the destruction of demons, and not for the salvation of mankind; whereas His wish really was that His disciples should not glory in the subjection of evil spirits but in the fair beauty of salvation.193 [14] Why else194 did He rebuke him? If it was because he was entirely wrong (in his invocation), then He was neither Jesus nor the Holy One of God; if it was because he was partially wrong----for having supposed him to be, rightly enough,195 Jesus and the Holy One of God, but also as belonging to the Creator----most unjustly would He have rebuked him for thinking what he knew he ought to think (about Him), and for not supposing that of Him which he knew not that he ought to suppose----that he was another Jesus, and the holy one of the other god. [15] If, however, the rebuke has not a more probable meaning than that which we ascribe to it, follows that the evil spirit made no mistake, and was not rebuked for lying; for it was Jesus Himself, besides whom it was impossible for the evil spirit to have acknowledged any other, whilst Jesus affirmed that He was He whom the evil spirit had acknowledged, by not rebuking him for uttering a lie.

The passage makes little sense if 'Jesus' is supposed to be = IC. For notice (going back to the original Greek):

In order to show that IC was neither acknowledged by the evil spirit, nor affirmed by Himself, to be any other than the Creator's.

This should read:

In order to show that Man was neither acknowledged by the evil spirit, nor affirmed by Himself, to be any other than the Creator's.

and then the Marcionites said "Man (= IC) rebuked him." The author then hints at the Marcionite interpretation of 'rebuke' (= destruction of the demons). In other words that rebuke means to destroy or repulse the demon quite literally. The author argues that he only rebuked the demon because he disagreed with the identification of his mission to destroy them. But at least we know how the Marcionites interpreted the passage.

Then he goes on to preserve what I consider to be the clearest proof that IC = Man for the original author (and hence Criddle is right, the author is probably Justin):

Why else did He rebuke him? If it was because he was entirely wrong, then He was neither Man nor the Holy One of God; if it was because he was partially wrong----for having supposed him to be, rightly enough, Man and the Holy One of God, but also as belonging to the Creator----most unjustly would He have rebuked him for thinking what he knew he ought to think (about Him), and for not supposing that of Him which he knew not that he ought to suppose----that he was another man, and the holy one of the other god. If, however, the rebuke has not a more probable meaning than that which we ascribe to it, follows that the evil spirit made no mistake, and was not rebuked for lying; for it was Man Himself, besides whom it was impossible for the evil spirit to have acknowledged any other, whilst Man affirmed that He was He whom the evil spirit had acknowledged, by not rebuking him for uttering a lie.

The passage simply does not make sense if read as 'Jesus' - not merely because the idea has to be accepted that the demons knew there was a god named 'Jesus' in heaven from the beginning but because of the strange idea that the Marcionites could have suggested there was 'another Jesus' from the beginning in heaven. Having one god named Jesus from the beginning is kooky enough but now to suggest that that the Marcionites acknowledged that 'everyone agreed' about this 'primal Jesus' and that there was another is simply ridiculous.

Clearly the meaning of the passage is that both the author and the Marcionites acknowledged a primal Man (like the Jews) who existed before time but that they apparently disagreed as to whether or not he was known to the Creator.