The Sarah-vs-Hagar allegory in Galatians 4:21–31

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Sarah-vs-Hagar allegory in Galatians 4:21–31

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 3:59 am
Paul is creating Christianity right in front of your very eyes, from scratch. That is to say, based on the new Christian spin which in essence is that all of it is a fulfillment of the Tanakh, up to including the complete bypassing of any and all Judaics
Or he is re-booting it in a new direction so not completely from scratch, but he is innovating independently of the founders. how do you know what these shadowy original Chrestians thought? If all we have is Thomas it looks like a mystical group and they tend to exist as part of the esoteric traditions of the religion they're in, for them a Jewish one. If by 'Judaic' you mean formulaic, typical Judaism then no, they're not that and opposed to that stuff, but still in the Jewish orbit and inheriting from it's traditions (Thomas mentions Adam, the Sabbath, the tree of knowledge and other Jewish stuffs). The apostle wrenches that away from them either unwittingly or on purpose, who cares but, i think the injustice your seeing applies to the original Chrestians as must as to Jews. Jesus belonged to them and they stole his body, his teachings, his life and then got called heretics to be shunned, if that's the origins i can't but help take their side, your reading makes them seem most unappealing i'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt, but the apostle not so much
Chrestianity + Judaisation = Christianity, and Mark and Paul are in the exact same mission there: Mark pretends to tell about the living Jesus (IS), Paul pretends to tell about the dead one (XS)

Stop your Jewishness - the word Jew should be forbidden because it focuses ethnicity and religiosity, and it is a terrible racist label. Judaic denotes faith, Judean or Palestinian ethnicity - do keep them apart under all circumstances because they are apart, and Philip, considering himself a Hebrew, explicitly does not call himself a Judaic

"Thomas mentions Adam, the Sabbath, the tree of knowledge and other Jewish stuffs"

And he's against them all, and you damn well know it, but for some dodgy reason choose to hide that, obfuscate that, but mention it.
Thomas doesn't mention the tree of knowledge, haven't you ever wondered why the trees don't move, in summer nor winter (which comprises all the known seasons to them), and why their leaves don't fall?

Because they're fucking dead trees david, how blatantly obvious must it all become?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Sarah-vs-Hagar allegory in Galatians 4:21–31

Post by mlinssen »

It's like I was raised Roman Catholic but don't particularly hold warm feelings towards religion in general and Christianity in particular, am I allowed to do so david? Pretty please?

Or must I be a Christian because I talk about Christianity so much?

Chrestians were not Judaics, perhaps some converts among them, and some of them surely had a Hebrew background, just like I have a Christian background that died decades ago. But I don't see why "Gentiles" would not be allowed to join, nor would something like that facilitate their explosive growth and persistence across many centuries.
And yes, Christianity stole their story, resurrected their IS, called them heretics and then burned all their texts and killed all the people along with it
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: The Sarah-vs-Hagar allegory in Galatians 4:21–31

Post by davidmartin »

it's simple Thomas has to be spiritually 'Judaic' or my theory falls apart. of course i'm going to read Thomas that way. i'm not gonna disagree with my own theory, go back far enough and all religions are the same basic idea anyway. if i absolve any blame from them for what came later, that is like absolving my own interest in spirituality. it's cathartic. i want my theory to make myself feel good with a good Jesus. i could easily never post about it again but you're the only one that has anything remotely similar. similarity=disagreement
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: The Sarah-vs-Hagar allegory in Galatians 4:21–31

Post by lsayre »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 4:12 am Chrestians were not Judaics, perhaps some converts among them, and some of them surely had a Hebrew background, just like I have a Christian background that died decades ago. But I don't see why "Gentiles" would not be allowed to join, nor would something like that facilitate their explosive growth and persistence across many centuries.
And yes, Christianity stole their story, resurrected their IS, called them heretics and then burned all their texts and killed all the people along with it
Spot on!

I'll go (perhaps) further. It appears to me as if Paul's references to a Christ Jesus, and a Jesus Christ are very often strained, as if forced upon an earlier layer which revered only a god who is now unknown. Often bypassing these insertions leads to a better reading.

If the earliest Paul was Apollonius (or similar) this would be self evident.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Sarah-vs-Hagar allegory in Galatians 4:21–31

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 5:41 am it's simple Thomas has to be spiritually 'Judaic' or my theory falls apart. of course i'm going to read Thomas that way. i'm not gonna disagree with my own theory, go back far enough and all religions are the same basic idea anyway. if i absolve any blame from them for what came later, that is like absolving my own interest in spirituality. it's cathartic. i want my theory to make myself feel good with a good Jesus. i could easily never post about it again but you're the only one that has anything remotely similar. similarity=disagreement
Ah, that-a-way!

Well, our ways split then, when we traverse from Christianity to its origins - or Thomas just lies even beyond your "origins of Odes" that definitely are Judaic, and perhaps a little xtian as well

There is no Jesus in my theory, Thomas invented all the characters - that's what people do when they're first to write a story, line JK Rowling's Harry Potter, Hermione, and so on.
Nobody invents an abbreviation for his protagonist without telling what it stands for, that's not how it works

You can freely absolve Thomas for his anti-Judaism, it's just a side show in his work - spirituality and introspection come at the very first place there, although the hatred towards Judaism and Judeans does come next.
John? Mainly anti-Judean, he clearly is a Samarian rather than a Samaritan. He's got more Judaic stuff than the Synoptics together, but how much of that is original?
I'm unsure about *Ev, his anti-Judaism was a prime force, it was his Nemesis. I like to think that his spirituality was also about introspection, spiritual rebirth like Philip's baptism in the name of the father, soon and holy spirit - and allow myself the benefit of the doubt there.

But the Romans? That's a difficult issue as their prime interest lay with restoring peace in the empire, and preservation of the Judaics. They wanted to counter the anti-Judaism, to undo it all, and they did, initially. But after Mark rewrote the story, friction came from another corner, and a new problem introduced itself

And that problem initially was one of credibility, of fit with Judaism: and naturally, the NT, with all the actions by Jesus, fits awfully badly with Judaism, which was precisely the goal of *Ev - and there's only so much that one can rewrite

So when we go back in time, I have the following main events:

A. Judeo Christianity is accepted by no one. It is the sole topic of the falsifying fathers, next to what they label heresy - and what can only be original movements "and then some".
B. Check https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... lic_Church - dozens of counter movements, and only the Ebonites are Judaic - no Judaic ever had ever given even one single flying fuck about it all.
C. Supersessionism nonetheless in the epistles, justifying Christianity as the parasite that ate its host.
D. Alleged host, as most of the prophecies in the NT are either fake and false, or no prophecies at all, or already fulfilled in and but the Tanakh.
E. And what we can see in the NT is that there is an enormous amount of Judaisation, of forcing some original story into a Judaic straight jacket - that causes friction from the very start as the original story contains very strong anti-Judaic elements
F. When we look at Thomas we see the Pharisees and scribes not as religious powers, but as just a management layer - and they get accused of nothing but hiding the truth. There's no religious aspect to any of them

[Drumroll...] In actuality I suspect that Thomas aimed his arrows against "Pharao-fanboys", and that there was no such thing as Pharisees at all - but even I find that a daring and preposterous idea as that would render fair options of Philo and Josephus, if not all of their work, to be a forgery in the name of Christianity

But I can see how there is gigantic anti-Judaism in Thomas, and Vinzent had convinced me that it has become even angrier in *Ev - and then next to we have Christianity where suddenly the entire movement is rooted into Judaism?
How the hell does anyone square that, isn't it blatantly obvious that Chrestianity + Judaisation = Christianity, and that there were no Judaics roots to any of it at all whatsoever, although there undoubtedly must have sprouted fusion stories after the first attempts at Christianity took place?

But tell me, when you depart from the NT, backwards in time, how is your itinerary?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Sarah-vs-Hagar allegory in Galatians 4:21–31

Post by mlinssen »

lsayre wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:21 am
mlinssen wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 4:12 am Chrestians were not Judaics, perhaps some converts among them, and some of them surely had a Hebrew background, just like I have a Christian background that died decades ago. But I don't see why "Gentiles" would not be allowed to join, nor would something like that facilitate their explosive growth and persistence across many centuries.
And yes, Christianity stole their story, resurrected their IS, called them heretics and then burned all their texts and killed all the people along with it
Spot on!

I'll go (perhaps) further. It appears to me as if Paul's references to a Christ Jesus, and a Jesus Christ are very often strained, as if forced upon an earlier layer which revered only a god who is now unknown. Often bypassing these insertions leads to a better reading.

If the earliest Paul was Apollonius (or similar) this would be self evident.
You should talk to Lane, who speaks of an ur-Paul

viewtopic.php?p=150967#p150967

But you've seen the thread anyway ;)
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: The Sarah-vs-Hagar allegory in Galatians 4:21–31

Post by davidmartin »

The reaction of the Chrestians to the apostle may be in the Ode 33, if that connection is made but it's possible?
Grace ran then She returned to expel the corruptor and She descended on him to bring him to nothing
for he destroyed to destruction what was before him and he corrupts in everything that he does

What is highly ironic in that deviant reading is the sheer amount of similarity in the Odes to the apostle's own teachings, that would make his denial in Galatians definitely false, he did know the founders and they probably kicked him out! Once on the loose he was free to create his personality cult, I see his methods as abusive threatening one moment then begging then laying down his laws and so on
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: The Sarah-vs-Hagar allegory in Galatians 4:21–31

Post by lsayre »

Remove 'the Jews are of Hagar, and the Christians are of Sarah' and the Christian claim of having originated from within the confines of Judaism is destroyed. As is any strained effort to find Christ within passages twisted and contorted and even altered from the text of the 'OT'. There is not a single self respecting Jew who would deny being of Sarah and accept being of Hagar.

The Gospel of John as seen in chapter 8 is also founded upon this very same matter of 'the Jews are of Hagar, and the Christians are of Sarah', but takes it farther in proclaiming that the Jews are not the children of Abraham, but rather they are the spawn of Satan (or perhaps at an earlier level, they are the spawn of the father of Satan).
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: The Sarah-vs-Hagar allegory in Galatians 4:21–31

Post by davidmartin »

the Jews are not the children of Abraham, but rather they are the spawn of Satan (or perhaps at an earlier level, they are the spawn of the father of Satan
Something is going on here in that gospel, my suspicion is it reflects interactions the 'John community' had with others, where the Christian community had already split so far that opposing groups would label their opponents' God as Satan (eg 1 John). I think this reflects in the attitude Jesus has in John, ie, it's been influenced by contemporary goings-on. Some may put it down to gnostic ideas, possible and maybe in the mix
But 'Jesus' by saying what he says to the Pharisees in the gospel, is saying it to the Christians that oppose the 'John community' as well. Very helpful
This is just an expansion on the tradition of opposition of Jesus to Pharisees.
It could be explained as relating to a 2 covenant theology disputes with Judaism, but also by intra-Christian disputes we know the John community had

PS I'm not using this to claim Jesus was 'pro-Judiac' in reality, i'm not saying anything about that lol, but rather treat more seriously Christian disputes to explain some of the things we find, eg classic example - 'Thomas community' being undermined in John by the late addition of doubting Thomas. The 'Pharisee' in John could be a symbol of the apostle even, an anti-Pauline element
Post Reply