More Suggestions that 'IC' Was Meant to be Read 'Man'

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 7243
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

More Suggestions that 'IC' Was Meant to be Read 'Man'

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Mar 28, 2016 12:24 pm

τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί, ἄνθρωπε Epictetus 2.19

τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί, IC Mark 1:24

I have never quite understood the 'angel Jesus' argument. So the demons know that 'Jesus' is a heavenly being? Really? Or is this just an ironic statement on the part of author (via the demons) using common parlance. I will take 'B' any day of the week. The implication that the demons know Jesus is entirely at odds with Mark's 'secret' narrative ...

The 'man' business as a figure of contemporary speech appears elsewhere in the gospels too. Luke 22:60 - Ἄνθρωπε οὐκ οἶδα ὃ λέγεις

Luke 5:20 - Ἄνθρωπε ἀφέωνταί σοι

Luke 22:58 - Ἄνθρωπε οὐκ εἰμί
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 7243
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: More Suggestions that 'IC' Was Meant to be Read 'Man'

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Mar 28, 2016 12:30 pm

AM 4:20 - One thing alone (Marcion) can get you out of these straits—if you are bold enough either to give your god, the father of Christ, the name of Man, which is what Valentinus did with the aeon,1 or else to deny that the virgin is human, which is a thing not even Valentinus has done.

Unum potest angustiis tuis subvenire, si audeas aut deum tuum patrem Christi Hominem quoque cognominare, quod de aeone fecit Valentinus, aut virginem hominem negare, quod nec Valentinus quidem fecit.

And then it goes on:
Next, what if in Daniel Christ is dignified with this actual title, Son of man ? Is not this good enough proof that Christ is the subject of prophecy? For when he calls himself by that title which was in prophecy applied to the Christ of the Creator, without question he offers himself for recognition as that one to whom the prophecy applied. Joint possession of names, perhaps, can be regarded as having no special significance—though even so I maintain that persons possessed of opposite characteristics had no right to be called either Christ or IC (nec Christum nec Iesum vocari). But a title, such as 'Son of man', arises from attendant circumstances, and to that extent it is not easy for it to have any pertinence beyond the possession of the same name. Arising from attendant circumstances, it is applicable to one person alone, especially when there is no recurrence of the same cause for which it could become a joint possession. So then if Marcion's Christ too were reported to be of birth man (ex homine), in that case he also would be eligible for joint possession of the title, and there would be two sons of man, as there would be two named Christ and IC ( et essent duo filii hominis, sicut et duo Christi et duo Iesus). Therefore since this title belongs to that one alone to whom it has reason to apply, if it is also claimed for another, one in whom there is joint possession of the name though not of the title, the joint possession of the name too falls under suspicion in the case of the one for whom without good reason is claimed joint possession of the title. So it follows that we must take it to be one and the same Person whom we believe more capable of possessing both the name and the title, to the exclusion of the other who, having no good reason for it, is not in joint possession of the title. Nor can anyone be found more capable of possessing both than he who first came into possession of the name of Christ and the title Son of man, namely the Creator's IC ( Iesus scilicet creatoris). He it was whom the Babylonian king saw in the furnace, a fourth along with his martyrs, in form like a son
of man. He was also revealed expressly to Daniel himself as the Son of man coming as judge with the clouds of heaven, as scripture also shows him to be. I have affirmed that this could be enough about the names the prophets give in reference to the Son of man. But scripture provides me with still more, by our Lord's own interpretation. When the Jews were taking account only of his manhood (solummodo hominem), not yet aware that he was also God, as being also God's Son, and were (as might be expected) arguing that a man cannot forgive sins (non posse hominem delicta dimittere), but only God can, how is it that the answer he gave them concerning man (homine), that he has power to forgive sins—when by using the expression 'Son of man' he implied 'man' as well—was not in terms of their objection (quando et filium hominis nominans hominem nominaret)? Was it not that it was his wish by this title Son of man from the book of Daniel to turn their complaint back upon them in such form as to prove that he who was forgiving sins was both God and Man (ostenderet deum et hominem)— that one and only Son of man in terms of Daniel's prophecy, who had obtained power to judge, and by it of course the power to forgive sins (for he who judges also acquits)—and so after that cause of offence had been dispersed by his citation of scripture, they might the more readily recognize from that very act of forgiving sins that he and no other was the Son of man? Actually, he had never before professed himself the Son of man, but on this occasion first on which he first forgave sins—that is, on which he first exercised judgement, by acquittal. On this subject take
note of what all the arguments amount to which our adversaries allege. They cannot avoid arriving at such a pitch of madness as to insist <that Christ is> the Son of man, so as not to make him a liar, yet to deny that he is of human birth, to escape admitting that he is the Virgin's son. But if both divine authority, and the facts of nature, and common logic, do not admit of this heretical idiocy, we have even here occasion to insist, in the sharpest
possible terms, on the reality of <Christ's> body, in opposition to Marcion's phantasms. If, being the Son of man, he is of human birth, there is body derived from body. Evidently you could more easily discover a man born without heart or brains, like Marcion, than without a body, like Marcion's Christ. Go and search then for the heart, or the brains, of that man of Pontus.
My only solution to this strange and consistent distinction between the names is to assume 'Christ' (which for Marcion = god) and 'IC' (which = Man).
“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
DCHindley
Posts: 1990
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: More Suggestions that 'IC' Was Meant to be Read 'Man'

Post by DCHindley » Tue Mar 29, 2016 4:18 pm

Dood!

I C, man!

Farm House!

Out of State!

That's really Gravy, man!

DCH :crazy:

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 7243
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: More Suggestions that 'IC' Was Meant to be Read 'Man'

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Apr 07, 2016 10:09 am

Crash course on the 'ideal man' and Plato:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1s8YHk5iIY
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 7243
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: More Suggestions that 'IC' Was Meant to be Read 'Man'

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:29 am

When I watch this video I can't help but think that 'Jesus' is the Ideal man or 'Man' but also that Christ may well embody the Ideal 'Good'
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 7243
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: More Suggestions that 'IC' Was Meant to be Read 'Man'

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Apr 08, 2016 6:04 am

I am currently stuck on the possibility that the earliest Christians identified 'Chrestos/Christos' with Plato's idea tou agathou. Already Heidegger identified the 'idea of the good' with the Demiurge. I am also interested in the Marcionite reading of 1 Corinthians 9:9 which implies that Jesus was only interested in men (i.e. not oxen). Under this scenario the salvation mission of 'Chrestos/Christos' was universal and included 'all things' but not Jesus's. It is also interesting to consider that the Marcionites distinguished between a purely 'good god' who must have been Christ and a 'just god' who in the related system of Apelles was a 'fiery god' (= aysh/ayshu). Clement explicitly identifies the Marcionites as absolute Platonists.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 7243
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: More Suggestions that 'IC' Was Meant to be Read 'Man'

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Apr 08, 2016 6:10 am

The argument of Tertullian with respect to implausibility of their being 'two Christs' but if the Jews identified him as any Christ it must have been their Christ is coupled with a less pronounced but nevertheless present 'two gods' and if Christ was any god he was the god of the Jews argument. This is really strange especially if we consider the idea of Christianity developing from a heavily Platonized form of Judaism. So for instance, when Justin Martyr identified Jesus with the man who wrestled with Jacob, could he have imagined that this man was the Platonic idea tou agathou or the ideal Man in heaven? I tend to think the latter give the evidence for the existence of such a figure in rabbinic literature and the literal words of the Pentateuch in describing the second god of Sinai. So it could be entirely conceivable that Justin held a highly Platonized exegesis of the Pentateuch (much like Philo) and even conceived of Christ as the idea tou agathou. In this sense then Christ, as Paul describes, only appeared in human form possibly explaining the origins of doceticism.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 7243
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: More Suggestions that 'IC' Was Meant to be Read 'Man'

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Apr 08, 2016 6:12 am

Was Judas also the archetypal 'Jew' i.e. Judah? Just throwing it out there. The three main characters - 'the Good (god),' 'Man' and '(the) Jew.'
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 7243
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: More Suggestions that 'IC' Was Meant to be Read 'Man'

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Apr 08, 2016 6:40 am

The origin of the Marcionite 'good God' from Rep. 2, 379c.

“Neither, then, could God,” said I, “since he is good, be, as the multitude say, the cause of all things, but for mankind he is the cause of few things, but of many things not the cause. For good things are far fewer with us than evil, and for the good we must assume no other cause than God, but the cause of evil we must look for in other things and not in God.”

οὐδ᾽ ἄρα, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ, ὁ θεός, ἐπειδὴ ἀγαθός, πάντων ἂν εἴη αἴτιος, ὡς οἱ πολλοὶ λέγουσιν, ἀλλὰ ὀλίγων μὲν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις αἴτιος, πολλῶν δὲ ἀναίτιος: πολὺ γὰρ ἐλάττω τἀγαθὰ τῶν κακῶν ἡμῖν, καὶ τῶν μὲν ἀγαθῶν οὐδένα ἄλλον αἰτιατέον, τῶν δὲ κακῶν ἄλλ᾽ ἄττα δεῖ ζητεῖν τὰ αἴτια, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τὸν θεόν.

or as paraphrased in later Christian works

Plato said, "Since God is good, he is not responsible for everything, as many people say; rather, for many things he is not responsible. We say that he and no other is responsible for good things: only of what is beautiful, hardly of what is bad."

Πλάτων εἶπεν· Ἐπειδὴ ὁ θεὸς ἀγαθός, οὐ πάντων ἐστὶν αἴτιος, ὡς οἱ πολλοὶ λέγουσιν· πολλῶν δὲ ἀναίτιος· καὶ τῶν μὲν ἀγαθῶν, οὐδενὸς ἄλλου, φαμὲν αἴτιον εἶναι· μόνον τῶν καλῶν, κακῶν δὲ οὐκέτι.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 7243
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: More Suggestions that 'IC' Was Meant to be Read 'Man'

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Apr 15, 2016 6:10 am

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven ... And I know that this man ... was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.
The passage was likely written fourteen years from the crucifixion retelling Paul's out of body experience being 'seized' by Jesus. Note what happens when you accept my theory that IC = man not Jesus. In our terminology what Paul is saying is:
I know Jesus in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven ... And I know that this Jesus ... was caught up to paradise and I heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.
“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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Ben C. Smith, Bernard Muller, Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], hakeem, james_C, John2, lsayre, MrMacSon, outhouse, Peter Kirby, Yahoo [Bot] and 34 guests