Did marcionites accept a ''YHWH saves'' as their angel?

[Clive]

Fourth: There's also an awful lot of talk in the Pope's new book about Augustus Caesar, bringer of universal peace, divus filius divi, "God and son of God," being called soter ("savior") -- a "theological figure" who arranged that history be started from his reign, the true origin of the term anno domini. Is there indeed a hitherto unadmitted "link between Jesus and Augustus"? After all, one of Augustus' many epithets is Jasius -- after a Trojan founding father of Rome.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ken-atchi ... 29292.html

[Giuseppe]

I read this:

Yᵊho•shuꞋa; י--ה [is] national-salvation or military-salvation; contracted to the cognomen יְשוּעַ (YᵊshuꞋa), from the unused root verb יַשַׁע (to deliver nationally or militarily, to save nationally or militarily). This term is never used of the Hellenist (idolatrous) concept of "personal salvation" in the Bible or in Judaism. The verb is used in the hiph•ilꞋ: הוֹשִׁיעַ (ho•shiꞋa; he saved nationally or militarily, delivered nationally or militarily or came to the rescue nationally or militarily). The verb is used in the same sense as its English counterpart was used in the old west: "The calvary will save us"—except for Jews ha-Sheim will save us (nationally and militarily from our enemies). There is no support for the idolatrous "personal salvation" doctrine of Christianity. At the personal level there is, instead, ki•purꞋ—restricted to those who do their utmost to keep Tor•âhꞋ.

source: http://www.netzarim.co.il/Shared/Glossary/Glos_U-Z.htm

my (only speculative) view:

1) Yeshua as a generic messianic/military (=zealot?) title.

2) the proto-marcionite leterary creation of angel Jesus Christ as II CE reaction against Jewish messianism in particular and against Judaism in general.

3) nascent Catholicism as a rather artificial solution of compromise.

[Giuseppe]

Marcion was even considered an ally with Jews by Tertullian. According to Tertullian, Marcion’s claim that Christ was not the Messiah the Jews expected according to their prophecies made them allies. This is curious, because in Toledoth Jeschu we see that Paul is described not as in a famous talmudic story – like a hater of Judaism because scorned & enamored of the daughter of the high priest, etc – but as even an agent of Rabbis, seeking to secretely sabotage Christianity:

The wise men agreed on a man whose name was Elijahu, and he was learned in the Scripture, and they said to him: ... We have agreed, that we will pray for thee, that thou shalt be counted as a good Israelite in the other wold. Go, and do good for Israel, and remove the apostates from us, that they may go to destruction!
...
Thus he spoke and taught, until he separated them from Israel. But Elijahu who gave them these laws, the non-good ones, did it for the welfare of Israel, and the Christians call him Paul. After he had introduced these laws ans commandments, the erring ones separated themsvelses from Israel, and the strife ceased.
(Toledoth Yeschu, 10).

If the original ”Paul” was only a pure, marcionite propaganda, then we would have by necessity the nascent rabbinism in political alliance with the nascent marcionism against their common political enemy (of which both are two different reactions): the Jewish messianism of Zealots.

Therefore, after Bar-Kochba or earlier, the Zealots had as enemies the Pagans, the Marcionites and the Rabbis and against them any mean was necessary, even leterary conspiracy and propaganda (if this could serve in order to give up fervent messianism).

Why not find in zealotism the original GENERIC use of messianic title of ''Yeshua'' as described by prof Kraft ?

Why not see in ''Paul'' and our ''Jesus'' two ANTI-messianic figures invented by proto-marcionites and later converted by Catholics in two ''messianic'' figures (with all the contradictions that this implies)?

[DCHindley]

and persons when suddenly frightened used to pronounce the names of the Dactyls as words of magic power. (Plut. de Fac. in Orb. Lun. 30.)

Name above all names?

Wouldn't that be names above all other names? Kind of changes things, IMO.

DCH

[Giuseppe]

I think it was surely possible to persuade a Jew that a messiah has come realizing all the Scriptures in invisible manner. While I think that it is IMPOSSIBLE to persuade a Jew in accepting a messiah that has come to disprove one by one all the Jewish Scriptures.

If a historical Jesus existed and simply failed to realize the prophecies (i.e. the most plausible historicist paradigm), it is more likely that the Earliest Written Gospel was written as an allegorical apology for his failure, inventing something like the invisible realization of his prophecies (and here I have in mind Mark), while it would be highly unlikely (=surprising, =impossible) that the first written gospel boasted exactly the failure of ALL the Jewish prophecies (and here I have in mind Mcn).

[DCHindley]

I think it was surely possible to persuade a Jew that a messiah has come realizing all the Scriptures in invisible manner. While I think that it is IMPOSSIBLE to persuade a Jew in accepting a messiah that has come to disprove one by one all the Jewish Scriptures.

If a historical Jesus existed and simply failed to realize the prophecies (i.e. the most plausible historicist paradigm), it is more likely that the Earliest Written Gospel was written as an allegorical apology for his failure, inventing something like the invisible realization of his prophecies (and here I have in mind Mark), while it would be highly unlikely (=surprising, =impossible) that the first written gospel boasted exactly the failure of ALL the Jewish prophecies (and here I have in mind Mcn).

As you well know, G, Marcion expected the plans of the creator god (the god of the Judeans) to happen exactly as predicted in Judean scriptures, because these are the special communications of the god of the created realm, to his pet people, and he can stack the odds any way he wants. Marcion simply made known to mankind that there was a back door out of the creator god's mechanizations.

Mcn probably did not think Jesus was the Judean messiah, but he could see how Judeans might mistake him for their messiah.

Pinnochio

[Giuseppe]

As you well know, G, Marcion expected the plans of the creator god (the god of the Judeans) to happen exactly as predicted in Judean scriptures

ok (I'm not denying that), but the plans of the creator god will be realized in a indefinite future (according to Marcion), NOT at the same time of the presence of the Son of Verus Deus on earth (and this Marcion could confirm given the evidence under the eyes of all: the end of the world had not come in the first century.).

(for me in any case Marcion not created but used Mcn, a gospel written earlier by anonymous proto-marcionites)

What I am saying is that Mcn is the story of an apparent Jewish Messiah (which really is NOT the Jewish Messiah) who enjoys deliberately to contradict one after another every Jewish prophecy and every point of the Hebrew Scriptures (raising antithesis everywhere between OT & NT),AT LEAST for the period when he came down to the earth.

Therefore, if Mcn is the Earliest Written Gospel, then it would be IMPOSSIBLE to see it as a reaction, an effect of the historical existence in I CE of a failed apocalyptic prophet, because in Mcn is absent any minimal apology for the failure of the prophecies of that particular individual, rather no apology and embarrassment of any failed prophecy.

While if Mark is the oldest Written Gospel, one can still see where Mark would be doing precisely apologia: casting in an INVISIBLE triumph the apparent VISIBLE failure of the prophecies of a hypothetical failed apocalyptic prophet.

Conclusion: The proof of the non-existence of Jesus should be reduced to the proof of Mcn's priority.

[MrMacSon]

I read this:

Yᵊho•shuꞋa; י--ה [is] national-salvation or military-salvation; contracted to the cognomen יְשוּעַ (YᵊshuꞋa), from the unused root verb יַשַׁע (to deliver nationally or militarily, to save nationally or militarily). This term is never used of the Hellenist (idolatrous) concept of "personal salvation" in the Bible or in Judaism. The verb is used in the hiph•ilꞋ: הוֹשִׁיעַ (ho•shiꞋa; he saved nationally or militarily, delivered nationally or militarily or came to the rescue nationally or militarily). The verb is used in the same sense as its English counterpart was used in the old west: "The calvary will save us"—except for Jews ha-Sheim will save us (nationally and militarily from our enemies). There is no support for the idolatrous "personal salvation" doctrine of Christianity. At the personal level there is, instead, ki•purꞋ—restricted to those who do their utmost to keep Tor•âhꞋ.

source: http://www.netzarim.co.il/Shared/Glossary/Glos_U-Z.htm

my (only speculative) view:

1) Yeshua as a generic messianic/military (=zealot?) title.

2) the proto-Marcionite leterary [literary] creation of angel Jesus Christ as II-CE reaction against Jewish messianism, in particular, and against Judaism in general.

3) nascent Catholicism as a rather artificial solution of compromise.

That's interesting. There were various other notions of personal salvation in the 2nd C. eg. by Aristides.

[Giuseppe]

The logic would be this:

1) if Jesus existed and was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, the Earliest Written Gospel was an allegorical apology in order to cast in INVISIBLE triumph ON THIS HEART the apparent VISIBLE failure of Jesus (i.e. Mark).

2) But Mcn was the Earliest Written Gospel (that means: no apology of any kind but rather the deliberate highlighting the failure of all the Jewish prophecies during the time when Jesus came, with need, from then on, of apology by who didn't accept that Jesus was not the Jewish messiah).

3) Therefore: Jesus never existed beyond any reasonable doubt.

Obviously, I'm supposing at same time that Paul was a marcionite Paul (therefore not dissimilar from the authors of Mcn), or a pure marcionite propaganda.

Question: how can you disagree with this logic (once suppose, for sake of argument, the Mcn priority) ?

Thanks for any reply.

[Tenorikuma]

I'm not sure how it can be maintained that Mcn was the first Gospel given the current state of synoptic research. I think it was the second, after Mark.