Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Laziness

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Lazi

Post by outhouse »

Stephan Huller wrote:, Marcion is associated with Paul before anyone else.
No, he is associated with his epistles and the pseudepigrapha that followed.
The only question is what was Marcionitism, this is up for debate.
We dont have a pretty good idea based on those who disliked his gnostic "eraser"?
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Lazi

Post by Stephan Huller »

I am sorry but you haven't read the evidence. You just like living within your inherited prejudices. Read the earliest Patristic works, then read a detailed commentary on the earliest mention of Paul and his writings and then get back to me.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Lazi

Post by outhouse »

Maybe I misstated what I meant by your definition of "associated"

What exactly are you claiming here? in case I am missing something.

"associated" please define this more clearly.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Lazi

Post by Stephan Huller »

No you got it right, Marcion is generally taken by informed scholars to be the first exegete of Pauline texts.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2835
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Lazi

Post by andrewcriddle »

Stephan Huller wrote:I am desperately trying to get one person to seriously consider that the most likely 'mythical' possibility to explain Jesus as a god is that he was the angel in the fire (אִשּׁ֣וֹ = Ishu). I am quite confident that Apelles speaks of 'the fiery angel' or Justin Martyr identifies Jesus as being in the fire at Sinai or in the wilderness we are referencing the same tradition. The fact that the other video was developed by white evangelicals doesn't concern me. If at least one person takes this seriously I will be quite happy. Now to continue our examination of אִשּׁ֣וֹ as a divine hypostasis like Jesus we turn to the anonymous text entitled Pesaq ha-Yira'ah veha-Emunah, “A Decision Concerning the Fear of God and Faith,” which is one of the earliest exoteric medieval statements in which the concept of the multilayered divine world is used for instruction. It was probably written in the 11th - 13th century. Note how close the figure of Ishu resembles Jesus, even as let as Irenaeus's explanation of the fourfold nature of the gospel:
But all the written (= biblical) metaphors like 'Let us make a man' etc., as I interpreted it. refer to his Greatness which is his Kingdom which is in the East, and also the measurement of the height of Rabbi Ishmael refers to that Greatness and Kingdom of His. And it is called the Special Cherub, which is emanated from His great fire, which is a fire which consumes fire. You know that, for He touched them with His little finger and the angels that were created of the fire were burned up when they said, “What is man that thou art mindful of him”; so there is a fire that consumes fire, that is Him and His holiness and His Glory. And from that great fire He emanated and created the Unique Cherub, and not from the same fire from which the angels and the Serafim and the celestial Beasts and the er'elim and the Cherubim and all the hosts of the supreme world were created. And also all the heavens and the heavens of heavens which are nine were created from that fire which He derived from the water, from the third part, as it said, 'and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure.'' And that Unique Cherub was created from His great fire which He emanated from His Holiness and not from the fire from which the celestial hosts were created, so that his station will not be comparable to theirs.

For him [= the unique cherub] He created an image and a form and a human form, and eyes, and hands and from his hips upward (Ezek. 1:27), and on his forehead it is engraved Yah Akhatriel, and phylacteries on his head, and it is written who like your people Israel one nation on earth (2 Sam. 7:23), and he has the shiur komah of Rabbi Ishamel, and in his image man was created, and he sits on the throne of glory, and he is above all the proud ones, which are the four kings of earth, eagle, lion, bull and Man on the four sides of the throne, to indicate that he is the king above all the kings. And also the Cherubs below, over the ark. and the [in the Temple] and the shekhinah with them, for the unique cherub is above on the throne of glory, his greatness is not from him but from His holiness, which is in the west, and this is why there are cherubs below who serve His holiness.

The unique cherub, sitting on his throne of glory, has a pargod of colored hashmal, whose name is Ishael, and its [color] is like light blue, and this is the pargod which surrounds the throne of glory on three sides, except the west, were His holiness in the west shines over His greatness in the east over the throne of glory. This is [the meaning of] blessed is the glory of God, the glory of God is His holiness, from his place (Ezek. 3:12), he goes and shines over His greatness and His kingdom. And to this glory we say the blessing: Blessed is the glory of God from his place.

And that kingdom of His, which is His holiness, is called in the Sefer Yezira the world of the modi, and it is one of the four worlds which are ten sefirot: The world of the Modi, the world of Ravrevanut, the world of Mada and the world of the Nefesh. And the meaning of Modi is from the word praise, for God has created that Special Cherub as a fixed place enabling all the celestial princes to praise and worship their Creator.

His greatness is elevated over all the peoples and is uplifted. 'Uplifted' includes the letters of the word 'he is not' irxp - X1Mi, in order to say that His Holiness does not have any form or image. This is why the triple blessing is concluded by 'the holy God' and not 'the great God', as has been explained, because it is wrong to say a blessing or to intend, in every ritual of the Creator, only to His holiness which is without form or image. "For thou art a great and holy king," "great" is His greatness and His kingdom and it is the unique cherub, and "holy" is His holiness in the west, and this is our faith. This is [the meaning] of what we say [in prayer] "and the holy beasts will sing," etc., the face of every beast and ophan and cherub, to the cherub, that is, to the unique cherub that is the world of modi, “they turn their faces and bow.”
Which mythical conception better explains the Jesus of the gospel who comes down from heaven to a Jewish house of worship says he can spread fire on the earth and is identified in all early literary sources after the gospel as existing in a similar context (heavenly throne etc.)? This is the most likely cultural context for the development of the 'Christian myth.' Nothing else even comes close.
This text is part of Unique Cherub mysticism, which may well have been Christian influenced. See for example Unique Cherub

Andrew Criddle
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Lazi

Post by Stephan Huller »

Thanks for the reference. But the argument works both ways. If the identification of a close parallel with Christianity holds up either it is an example of how:

a) Christianity 'influenced' Judaism
b) Judaism led to Christianity (by virtue of it preserving the 'ground' of its being)

If there were other examples of Jews 'adopting' Christian ideas in THIS PERIOD, then 1 might have possibilities. But I think Andrew has paid my theory the highest compliment. I personally think this is an example of the survival of a parallel literary tradition.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Lazi

Post by Stephan Huller »

And furthermore, with respect to my theory of Jesus origins specifically, the fact that BOTH Jewish and Christian traditions would derive their 'second god' from Deuteronomy 4:36 is deeply significant. It implies the text naturally could be read this way even if the traditions are independent of one another.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Lazi

Post by outhouse »

Stephan Huller wrote:No you got it right, Marcion is generally taken by informed scholars to be the first exegete of Pauline texts.
That I agree with.

He is the first one "known".
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Lazi

Post by Stephan Huller »

so? that's with their enemies controlling the information. That's like getting caught cheating when you control the judiciary
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8400
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Lazi

Post by Peter Kirby »

Stephan Huller wrote:No one here besides spin, Joe Wallack and DCH has even an idea about what Judaism is and - in at least one case - what is possible within Judaism. How is it that there is a collective agreement that Christianity is a Gentile phenomenon?
Stephan Huller wrote:No I've tried that and there is no response. My example of the people who've never visited a place and pass judgment on said place IMO sums up the difficulty. LEARN FUCKING JEWISH RELIGIOUS HISTORY. Don't rely on people like Carrier for instance who are professors of history but know little or nothing about Jewish religious history as the Jewish community still is in essence a failed theocracy.
Just for the record:

"Element 1: The earliest form of Christianity definitely known to us originated as a Jewish sect in the region of Syria-Palestine in the early first century CE." (Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, p. 65, emphasis added)
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply