YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 7221
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Mar 26, 2020 9:38 am

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 8:14 am
To begin with, we don't have Celsus's own words. They're all filtered through Origen.
which is totally and gratuitously false, since the following words are sic et simpliciter of Celsus, not of Origen and not even filtered by Origen:

Let no one suppose that I am ignorant that some of them will concede that their God is the same as that of the Jews, while others will maintain that he is a different one, to whom the latter is in opposition, and that it was from the former that the Son came.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04165.htm

I am sorry, but according to your same incipit, "to begin with", you have failed to persuade me that we don't have Celsus's direct words. Hence my claim continues to be correct: Celsus claims independent knowledge of Marcionites, and Celsus reports that their supreme god is "in opposition" to YHWH.

I see that you are totally unaware of Greek language, too.

"In opposition" translates the Greek ἐναντίον. This is its precise meaning:

Definition
over against, opposite
of place, opposite, contrary (of the wind)
metaph.
opposed as an adversary, hostile, antagonistic in feeling or act
an opponent

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicon ... ntion.html

Hence all your vain apologies can't escape/avoid the clear truth: the Marcion's supreme god was "opposed as an adversary, hostile, antagonistic" against YHWH, who is therefore only a bastard demiurge.
Joseph D. L. wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 8:14 am
The difference between us Giuseppe is I go with what the evidence shows, while you go with whatever your interpretation and beliefs are. Evidence comes first. Not your beliefs.
said by one who ignores deliberately the meaning of ἐναντίον, I take your words as a compliment and a recognition of my superiority.

-------------------

About criterion of embarrassment, it is evident that a god abandoning Jesus on the cross without make him risen is a cruel god. Which is embarrassing. Therefore, by applying the criterion of embarrassment, I infer that the older belief was that a bastard god conspired against Jesus and that god was the creator, the god of the Jews.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 965
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Joseph D. L. » Fri Mar 27, 2020 3:36 am

https://biblehub.com/str/greek/1726.htm

ἐναντίον, before, in the presence of, before, in the presence of, in the eyes of.

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Ἀπαλείψω τὸν ἄνθρωπον ὃν ἐποίησα ἀπὸ προσώπου τῆς γῆς, ἀπὸ ἀνθρώπου ἕως κτήνους καὶ ἀπὸ ἑρπετῶν ἕως τῶν πετεινῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ· ὅτι ἐθυμώθην ὅτι ἐποίησα αὐτούς. Νῶε δὲ εὗρεν χάριν ἐναντίον Κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ.

So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.


ἦσαν δὲ δίκαιοι ἀμφότεροι ἐναντίον τοῦ Θεοῦ, πορευόμενοι ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐντολαῖς καὶ δικαιώμασιν τοῦ Κυρίου ἄμεμπτοι.

And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.


Καὶ οἱ πατριάρχαι ζηλώσαντες τὸν Ἰωσὴφ ἀπέδοντο εἰς Αἴγυπτον· καὶ ἦν ὁ Θεὸς μετ’ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐξείλατο αὐτὸν ἐκ πασῶν τῶν θλίψεων αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ χάριν καὶ σοφίαν ἐναντίον Φαραὼ βασιλέως Αἰγύπτου, καὶ κατέστησεν αὐτὸν ἡγούμενον ἐπ’ Αἴγυπτον καὶ [ἐφ’] ὅλον τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ.

And the patriarchs, jealous of Joseph, sold him into Egypt; but God was with him and rescued him out of all his afflictions and gave him favor and wisdom before Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who made him ruler over Egypt and over all his household.

Read the context of Celsus again, Giuseppe.

Let no one suppose that I am ignorant that some of them will concede that their God is the same as that of the Jews, while others will maintain that he is a different one, to whom the latter is in opposition, and that it was from the former that the Son came.

Not only are you ignoring the fact that Celsus is acknowledging that Marcionites are related to Judaism, Celsus's wording implies that it is the supreme God of the Marcionites that is opposed to the god of the Jews, YHWH, when according to you it should be the other way around.

Your English is worse than your Greek. Celsus is not saying what you're saying he is saying. What Celsus is saying is that the Marcionite's god is in opposition, contrary, to the god of the Jews, and not adversarial, antagonistic or hostile to him.

I'm not trying to argue with man. But you zealotry is not becoming of an honest scholar.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7221
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Mar 27, 2020 3:50 am

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 3:36 am
Read the context of Celsus again, Giuseppe.

Let no one suppose that I am ignorant that some of them will concede that their God is the same as that of the Jews, while others will maintain that he is a different one, to whom the latter is in opposition, and that it was from the former that the Son came.

well, I have it again and there is no hope at all for your reading of ἐναντίον in the literal sense, as "in presence of", etc. Sorry, I have nailed you on your ignorance of ἐναντίον as clearly required by the context.

Even in English there is written "opposition", not 'in presence of".

In addition, you are vainly misinterpreting me when say:
Celsus's wording implies that it is the supreme God of the Marcionites that is opposed to the god of the Jews, YHWH, when according to you it should be the other way around.
really, it doesn't any difference at all. It is always an opposition, a conflict, a contrast. The Marcion's Good God is Absolute Enemy of YHWH, the bastard demiurge. I call it dualism, pace your fool apologies.

It is ἐναντίον in the metaphoric sense, as I have explained you patiently in my previous post:

metaph.
opposed as an adversary, hostile, antagonistic in feeling or act
an opponent

You should recognize honestly when you are clearly a loser in arguments.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 965
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Joseph D. L. » Fri Mar 27, 2020 4:28 am

Even in English there is written "opposition", not 'in presence of".
Because that's not the context of ἐναντίον in Celsus. He is using it as of place, opposite, contrary (of the wind), not the metaphorical opposed as an adversary, hostile, antagonistic in feeling or act. Celsus IS being literal. You're only reading in what you want it to mean and not what Celsus is saying.
The Marcion's Good God is Absolute Enemy of YHWH, the bastard demiurge.
That doesn't even make sense from a Marcionite perspective, when the Marcionite god is the Good God. The enemy should be YHWH, not the Good God.

But this just circles back to your absolute ignorance of Marcion. Again, if Marcion was so vindictive against Jews and YHWH, why does he have Moses and Elijah appear at the transfiguration? Why does he have Jesus appear among the Jews?

Because Marcion was a derivative of Judaism, man. It's that easy to see.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7221
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Mar 27, 2020 4:46 am

1) sorry, the immediate context requires the metaphoric meaning, not literal. Even a blind can see it.

2) the Good God is enemy of YHWH just as YHWH is enemy of the Good God. Beyond the more or less "passion" they introduce in the conflict (being notoriously more impassible the Good God).

3) it is called antithesis: do use of Jewish scriptures to veihcle the exact contrary of their point. Prof Vinzent will teach me more on that point. And it is not even sure if Jesus talked with Moses and Elijah. I remember vaguely that prof Judith Lieu references a source where it is said that Jesus fought with Moses and Elijah, disputing on the souls to be saved.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 965
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Joseph D. L. » Fri Mar 27, 2020 4:53 am

To say Celsus was using ἐναντίον metaphorically is to say that Celsus is giving credibility to these beliefs, when he is not. He is only comparing and contrasting them against one another.

But he does infer that YHWH and the Marcionite's Good god co-exist together in the same theological space. After all, why would the Marcionites bother with Judaism to begin with? Why would they care if there are differences between the Torah/Old Testament, and the Gospel? Because they saw their theology as the fulfillment of Judaism. It's the same reason why Justin argued that Christians were true Israelites. That is why the Samaritans argue that they are the true heirs of Judaism--and they are, but that's not here nor there. It's all about establishing supremacy. Marcion was just as indebted to Judaism as Justin.
Last edited by Joseph D. L. on Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:01 am, edited 1 time in total.


Giuseppe
Posts: 7221
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Mar 27, 2020 4:59 am

1) Celsus is simply exposing their belief. Which doesn't make him a follower of these beliefs. Because otherwise all we in this forum would be "Christians" and myself a Catholic priest :D

2) because they wanted that all Christians ceased completely to be indebted to Judaism.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 965
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Joseph D. L. » Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:07 am

Celsus is simply exposing their belief. Which doesn't make him a follower of these beliefs.
But the point remains that his use of ἐναντίον is the literal definition. He doesn't care about the finer details. As far as he's concerned, their all ridiculous. That's why Origen is criticizing him, because he's not making the proper distinction between them.
because they wanted that all Christians ceased completely to be indebted to Judaism.
But why would they care about Judaism at all? Clearly they saw Judaism as a foundation for their theology, and adopted their religious texts.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7221
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:27 am

1) sorry but ἐναντίον is used to make the point that an opposition is in action, not a mere presence before someone. The context requires only the metaphorical meaning of ἐναντίον. There is no reason at all to describe a god as "in presence of" another god. At least: not in that context.

2) it is called co-optation. For the same reason Simon Magus posed as Jesus. They used the texts of the enemies they wanted co-opt. For the same reason they made John a mere precursor.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply