Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 7:09 am
Evidently you don't have read the previous post. I publish it again:
So Prof R. M.Price:
All these features occur also in The Hypostasis of the Archons and On the Origin of the World, but it is the "passion narrative" of Eve in which they occur. In these texts she, too, is seized by an evil multitude who mean to treat her shamefully. She, too, is somehow identified with a tree in her concealment. She, too, laughs in derision of her blind and witless enemies. It is hard not to conclude that the Gnostic exegete is docetizing the shameful fate of Eve just as Gnostics had docetized the shameful fate of Jesus Christ. Such a fate for their heroine Eve would be just as offensive to Gnostics as the fate of Christ was, so, like the latter, the former might be explained away and in precisely the same manner. All this implies the Gnostic interpreters were retelling a preexistent version of the Eden story in which Eve was raped by the lustful angels, just as the docetic crucifixion scenes presuppose passion narratives in which Jesus truly died.
Do we have evidence for such a variant of the Eve story? We do not, of course, have any actual telling of this tale. But we do have highly suggestive circumstantial evidence. There are at least two striking parallels. .... If the story of Eve's near-violation as we read it in The Hypostasis of the Archons preserves an original tale in which she was never actual raped, why does it not read more like the story of Istahar--a simple escape? The doubling motif tells the tale: originally Eve was raped.
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_amorous1.htm
I didn't respond because I see no reason to. Stick to the subject at present.
I think that the more essential idea is the more older. The proposition ''the Jews crucified Jesus'' is more simple and therefore more old than the idea ''Pilate was moved by the leaders of the Jews to kill Jesus''
.
Having a "Pontus Pilate" issue the death warrant for Jesus is as crucial to the Jews demanding his execution. Pontus Pilate represented Marcion, man of Pontus, in his role of decreeing the Jews be the one's to kill Jesus, while later having a revelation that Jesus was who he said he was.
Jews killing Jesus is entirely in line with how the
Old Testament presents Jews as easily misled and at times foolish.
And, once again, the
Talmud presents ben Stada as a messianic figure, being crucified by Jews, without a hint of irony to the tale. Why would Jews feel the need to insert Pilate as a scapegoat in their Gospel, and not in their oral history?
I dont' think that there was a proto-gentile Christianity. I think that the Christianity (even if jewish in origin) was rapidly gentilizing itself already before the 70 CE, but towards the 70 already Paul was losing the Galatians once that community was invaded by the Judaizers, who had to come more and more to disturb gentile Christians after the destruction of Jerusalem.
Paul is second century. So anything about 70 ad is meaningless. What's more, you seem to take Paul at his word about the
men from James, while ignoring his insistance that he was predominantly Jewish. You don't make any sense.
I am not arguing a gentile first sect. You are giving a false description of the my view.
I'll be honest, Giuseppe, half the time I can't make out what you're even on about, and the other half you're just reiterating someone else's idea, peddling their books as if this gives you more credibilty to your argument. I've tried giving you the benefit of the doubt in the past, but that time is over. You just say the same thing over and over again.
But one thing that I have noticed is you're inability to properly give a consistant overall point, and yes, you have implied in the past that Christianity started out as a gentile oriented religion, later taken over by Jews.
Or if you want to say, first it was Jewish, then gentile, then Jews reacting to gentiles, then gentiles rereacting to Jews, then Jews reacting to other Jews, and so on and so forth, all I can say is, you're wrong about everything.
I am arguing that a Jewish movement was rapidly gentilizing itself already before the 70, but was re-judaized strongly because of the destruction of Jerusalem. Moreover, I think that the only strong argument supporting a Paul of the 2° century CE is made by dr. Detering. And you, dear Joseph D. L., are not him.
Which I don't care if I'm Detering (whom I've never read proper, save for a few blogs of his), and I really don't care what you think, to be blunt. Paul clearly represnts an idea not present until Hadrain, is associate with texts that didn't come about until Kitos and bar Kochba, and the earliest evidence of Paul and Marcion come late in the second century.
I say so because between two Pauls who are both Jews, I can at any rate put them before the 70 in virtue simply of their Jewishness, while a gentile Paul (aka Marcion from Sinope) is very a strong evidence of the his being from 2° CE. As you see, I presume that before the 70 the movement was formed by Jews, even if already then the Gentiles were joining the movement.
You're a fool. There is no issue for Paul, even in his Jewishness, to be post-70 ad, or even post-Kitos, especially if he represented a sectarian form of Judaism which existed in the second century, i.e. the Naassenes. It seems you think Judaism can only be one thing and one thing only. Never mind that even the
Talmud, Philo, Josephus, and the early church fathers, describe a whole array of Jewish sects and ideas.
If Jerusalem was not destroyed, the Jewish Christians would have not invaded the Gentile Christian communities of the Diaspora.
... which they didn't...
There would be no need by the Gentile side of a Gospel accusing them ('the Jews'') of having killed the Christ. And no need of a counter-reaction.
... even though Jews killing Jesus was present in Jewish Gospels, and Pilate in Gentile Gospels...
Only so I can reply to Ehrman's argument that no Jew could have invented a Christ crucified by the Jews.
And both you and Ehrman are fools.