Low Christology was a very late thing

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Low Christology was a very late thing

Post by Giuseppe »

the Jewish author Sa'adia [d. 942 CE], wrote:

These people [the Christians) (are divided) may God have pity upon you (into) four sects; three of them are more ancient [aqdam) (whereas) the fourth came out [kharajat) (only) recently [qaribam) ... The fourth gives him (i.e., Jesus, called a few lines above their Messiah) only the rank of a prophet, and interprets the Sonship which according to them is attributed to him just (p. 91) as we interpret (the verse): My son my first born Israel being only (an indication of his being honoured [tashrifl] and preferred [taft;fil] and just as others than we [i.e., the Moslems] interpret the expression "Abraham, the Friend of God" [kha/il al/iih].12·16

(source: Frank Zindler, The Jesus the Jews Never Knew)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Low Christology was a very late thing

Post by Secret Alias »

Another example of your bad interpretative skills. The author's point is clearly the same as Celsus's centuries earlier. Christianity is only a recent phenomenon compared to the more ancient traditions LIKE JUDAISM.
“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: Low Christology was a very late thing

Post by Giuseppe »

It seems that he is talking about ebionitism as recent, not about the Christians as an entire group.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Low Christology was a very late thing

Post by Bernard Muller »

Eusebius put the beginning of the Ebionite sect between 70 & 100 CE.

Irenaeus wrote (around 180 CE) in 'Against Heresies:
Book I, ch. XXVI, 2 "They [the Ebionites] ... repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God."
Book V, ch. I, 3 "Vain also are the Ebionites, who do not receive by faith into their soul the union of God and man, but who remain in the old leaven of [the natural] birth, and who do not choose to understand that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary, and the power of the Most High did overshadow her"

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Low Christology was a very late thing

Post by Giuseppe »

Where do you read that date (70-100)? The ebionites were against the Gnostics (and their Paul), so they came after them (110-150).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Low Christology was a very late thing

Post by Ulan »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:18 pm Where do you read that date (70-100)? The ebionites were against the Gnostics (and their Paul), so they came after them (110-150).
That's a non sequitur.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Low Christology was a very late thing

Post by Giuseppe »

Ulan wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:50 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:18 pm Where do you read that date (70-100)? The ebionites were against the Gnostics (and their Paul), so they came after them (110-150).
That's a non sequitur.
is it a non-sequitur to believe that someone cared to defame so much Paul after - and not at all before - that this Paul was made famous (someone would say even "fabricated") by Marcion and the Gnostics ?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Low Christology was a very late thing

Post by Ulan »

That's a different question (when was a specific statement made), plus your solution is built on yet more assumptions.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Low Christology was a very late thing

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Giuseppe,
Where do you read that date (70-100)? The ebionites were against the Gnostics (and their Paul), so they came after them (110-150).
Eusebius told about Ebionites in his historical sequence of events: 'History of the Church', Book 3, Chapter 27, between the Jewish war and the reign of Trajan.
How do you know the Ebionites were against Gnostics?
How do you know the Ebionites were against a Gnostic Paul?

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Low Christology was a very late thing

Post by Giuseppe »

Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:12 am to Giuseppe,
Where do you read that date (70-100)? The ebionites were against the Gnostics (and their Paul), so they came after them (110-150).
Eusebius told about Ebionites in his historical sequence of events: 'History of the Church', Book 3, Chapter 27, between the Jewish war and the reign of Trajan.
you are the same guy who doesn't believe to Pseudo-Hyppolitus about the his dating of Naassenes in the time before Christ. Now you believe to Eusebius.
How do you know the Ebionites were against Gnostics?
How do you know the Ebionites were against a Gnostic Paul?
because the kind of (sexual) defamation raised against Paul is similar to catholic (sexual) defamation against Marcion. That kind of defamation could be raised only against a famous Paul. And Paul became famous only thanks Marcion.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply