Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by John2 »

Secret Alias wrote: Sat May 16, 2020 5:35 pm I don't think you understand the concept here. Your citation of Deuteronomy was not from heaven (according to the sectarians). From Moses not God.

But like his citation of Ex. 21:17/Lev. 20:9 in Mk. 7:10, it shows that Jesus taught about observing more than just the Ten Commandments.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18755
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

Why does it make more sense to you that Jesus had an asterisk beside his judgment on divorce? It is because of your presuppositions about Jewish Christianity. Did he have an asterisk beside his opinions on sacrifices? Lending at interest? Lust? Pointless asking you to think rationally. You have an idea about what you want Jewish Christianity to be for entirely personal reasons. I on the other hand couldn't care less if Jesus turned out to be a white rabbit. I enjoy the abstract thinking excercise and only the abstract thinking excercise.
“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
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1341
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Ken Olson »

Secret Alias wrote: Sat May 16, 2020 2:54 pm And if you really think about it. What are the consequences of ACTUALLY BELIEVING that the Father's image was impressed upon your person? Absolute equality. That's what. One individual would be understood - perhaps secretly - to be the EXACT SAME as another. The Father manifests himself in that individuals very person. And what effect would the presence of the Father was understood to have on those who had yet to be initiated into the Christian mystery among these Alexandrian Christians? Could Clement have understood 'the presence of the Father' not having an erotic effect on those who beheld it's glory?

The question again has to be - IF Platonic Christians REALLY BELIEVED that the image or likeness of the Father had been impressed on to their mortal flesh at baptism and thus transformed their person, how could being in the presence of that divinity NOT BE conceived in someway as an erotic experience?
Stephan,

It seems like you have nearly erased the distinction between your hypothesis of a homoerotic reading of Secret Mark and the hypothesis of those scholars who think the text is baptismal - now all Christian baptism is "in someway homoerotic". Could you be more specific about what sense that is? Earlier I noted that you had insisted on a not very clearly defined distinction between homosexual and similar terms like homoerotic and same-sex. I am less and less clear on what you mean by homoerotic. Could you define your terms homoerotic and erotic? Would any love or worship by men toward a divine figure conceived of as male be homoerotic in the sense you are using it?

Best,

Ken
Secret Alias
Posts: 18755
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

I am just dealing with the question of whether or not it would be surprising that a Platonist Christian culture like that at Alexandria would employ homoerotic language to explain or describe the experience at the heart of their mystery religion - being in the presence of the heavenly Father. I would argue that anyone who extolled Plato and the Phaedrus as divine or near divine would necessarily view gospel passages like "you have seen your brother, you have seen your God" (Stromata 1.19 and elsewhere) in such a way. We can't imagine this is just empty rhetoric. What does it mean to literally stand in the presence of one's "brother" AS IF you were standing in the presence of the Father? We have to think about this deeply. I think it means having Plato's experience described in the Phaedrus. It doesn't mean having sex with your buddy. No. But it necessarily assumes a well known Platonic description of what amounts to a theophany. I am attacking the claim that homoerotic language would be foreign to Alexandrian Christianity's experience of the divinity. In plain terms it would be expected.
“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: 18755
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

It's worth noting that the specific phrase "naked with naked" appears in the writings of the Platonist Maximus of Tyre.
“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
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1341
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Ken Olson »

Secret Alas wrote:
I am just dealing with the question of whether or not it would be surprising that a Platonist Christian culture like that at Alexandria would employ homoerotic language to explain or describe the experience at the heart of their mystery religion - being in the presence of the heavenly Father. I would argue that anyone who extolled Plato and the Phaedrus as divine or near divine would necessarily view gospel passages like "you have seen your brother, you have seen your God" (Stromata 1.19 and elsewhere) in such a way.
Was the author of the Gospel According to Mark part of this Platonist Christian culture?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18755
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

Clement, Gregory Thaumaturgus (Theodore) and.Origen cerrainly were. Hard to see how they reconciled Plato with the canonical gospels. Doesn't mean there necessarily was a "Platonic gospel." But the idea that a version of the gospel of Mark existed with added mystical bits from Greek philosophy is attested by the Philosuphumena.
“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: 18755
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

Also Irenaeus's description of Mark in AH 3:
It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds,(4) while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground"(5) of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit. As also David says, when entreating His manifestation, "Thou that sittest between the cherubim, shine forth."(6) For the cherubim, too, were four-faced, and their faces were images of the dispensation of the Son of God. For, [as the Scripture] says, "The first living creature was like a lion,"(7) symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power; the second [living creature] was like a calf, signifying [His] sacrificial and sacerdotal order; but "the third had, as it were, the face as of a man,"--an evident description of His advent as a human being; "the fourth was like a flying eagle," pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church. And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated. For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."(8) Also, "all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of all confidence, for such is His person.(9) But that according to Luke, taking up [His] priestly character, commenced with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God. For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for(10) the finding again of the younger son. Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham;"(11) and also, "The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity;(12) for which reason it is, too, that [the character of] a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel. Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,"--pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character. And the Word of God Himself used to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with His divinity and glory; but for those under the law he instituted a sacerdotal and liturgical service.(1) Afterwards, being made man for us, He sent the gift of the celestial Spirit over all the earth, protecting us with His wings. Such, then, as was the course followed by the Son of God, so was also the form of the living creatures; and such as was the form of the living creatures, so was also the character of the Gospel.(2) For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord. For this reason were four principal (kaqolikai) covenants given to the human race:(3) one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing men upon its wings into the heavenly kingdom.
This is reminiscent of the aforementioned passage in the Phaedrus:
As souls are immortal, those lacking bodies patrol all of heaven so long as their wings are in perfect condition. When a soul sheds its wings, it comes to earth and takes on an earthly body that then seems to move itself. These wings lift up heavy things to where the gods dwell and are nourished and grow in the presence of the wisdom, goodness, and beauty of the divine. However, foulness and ugliness make the wings shrink and disappear ... Souls then begin cycles of reincarnation. It generally takes 10,000 years for a soul to grow its wings and return to where it came, but philosophers, after having chosen such a life three times in a row, grow their wings and return after only 3,000 years. This is because they have seen the most and always keep its memory as close as possible, and philosophers maintain the highest level of initiation. They ignore human concerns and are drawn towards the divine. While ordinary people rebuke them for this, they are unaware that the lover of wisdom is possessed by a god. This is the fourth sort of madness, that of love.

One comes to manifest this sort of love after seeing beauty here on earth and being reminded of true beauty as it was seen beyond heaven. When reminded, the wings begin to grow back, but as they are not yet able to rise, the afflicted gaze aloft and pay no attention to what goes on below, bringing on the charge of madness. This is the best form that possession by a god can take, for all those connected to it.

When one is reminded of true beauty by the sight of a beautiful boy, he is called a lover. While all have seen reality, as they must have to be human, not all are so easily reminded of it. Those that can remember are startled when they see a reminder, and are overcome with the memory of beauty.

Beauty, he states, was among the most radiant things to see beyond heaven, and on earth it sparkles through vision, the clearest of our senses. Some have not been recently initiated, and mistake this reminder for beauty itself and only pursue desires of the flesh. This pursuit of pleasure, then, even when manifested in the love of beautiful bodies, is not "divine" madness, but rather just having lost one's head. The recent initiates, on the other hand, are overcome when they see a bodily form that has captured true beauty well, and their wings begin to grow. When this soul looks upon the beautiful boy it experiences the utmost joy; when separated from the boy, intense pain and longing occur, and the wings begin to harden.
Could also be mere coincidence.
“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
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1341
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Ken Olson »

Secret Alias:
Clement, Gregory Thaumaturgus (Theodore) and.Origen cerrainly were. Hard to see how they reconciled Plato with the canonical gospels. Doesn't mean there necessarily was a "Platonic gospel."
Right - Clement, Origen, and Gregory were trained in Greek philosophy (which necessarily includes Plato), and they use it to interpret the gospel. But that's about interpretation or reception history of the gospels. I'm asking about the creation of Secret Mark. According to the story given in the Letter to Theodore, it was written by Mark, who had been a companion of Peter, after he came to Alexandria. Was that person trained in Platonism and deliberately including Platonism it in his gospel(s)? Or do you not accept the account the letter gives, and are just saying that there was a Secret Gospel in Alexandria before the Letter was written, and some people, including Clement, attributed it to Mark?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18755
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

But do you really think that they believed that all of their "Platonizing" was completely foreign to the gospel? They really believed the gospel was "primitive" and their "injection" of Platonism was complete bullshit? Even Celsus says the gospel stole from Plato.
“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
Post Reply