A Breakthrough in My Ishu Theory

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A Breakthrough in My Ishu Theory

Post by Secret Alias »

Ben Smith on Justin and Irenaeus thinking IC = Man:

posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=107990
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: A Breakthrough in My Ishu Theory

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 8:40 am
I think Justin is confabulating / doing eisegesis (creating new theological concepts) centred around various key entities including 'Iesous'
I think very differently .. In traditional cultures...religion proceeds A CERTAIN WAY.

This is the whole point of Papias's 'taxis' statement about the gospels. The gospel of Mark isn't ordered, regulated, doesn't proceed according to the way things are supposed to proceed. That's the real gist of the statement. However the supporters of the gospel of Mark responded to Papias. Justin was in the camp of Papias which meant that he understood that things should proceed in a certain way and his gospel was ordered in the right way. We see echoes of the argument in Irenaeus, Tertullian etc.
That is [mostly] nonsense.

That "Justin was in the camp of Papias which meant that he understood that things should proceed in a certain way and his gospel was ordered in the right way" is meaningless (and a non-sequitur) in light of what Justin was doing.

There was no 'certain way'

The Christians 'made up' essentially the existence of a 'Jesus' angel and everyone went along with it. I see no evidence that the ancient mind could have accepted this sort of arrangement. If anything it was the exact opposite. Christianity was based on the understanding that IC had great antiquity - 'before the Creation' IC existed, Christianity had a mystery established 'before the Creation of the world' etc.
Which 'Christians' essentially 'made up' the existence of a 'Jesus angel'? When?

Saying "Christianity was based on the understanding that IC had great antiquity" is kinda true ... but why1 is that?

1 I'd say it's b/c of what Justin wrote. Because of the what he laid out ...


... But Ish - a higher protype of Man, an ideal - does make logical sense. The athlete when he trains approaches the ideal Man. He has to activate all the muscles that predecessors in his field used. Muscles, thoughts, actions that aren't ordinarily used by ordinary people. He has to become an idealized prototype. The same is true with a soldier, a cook, a streetsweeper, a pilot of a ship. There are all these 'ideals' of every type of person and then - if you follow the logic - the ideal type of Man as such.
Justin's 'Ish' was all encompassing -
MrMacSon wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 12:11 am
For example -

Dial. 59 -
"Permit me, further, to show you from the book of Exodus how this same One, who is both Angel, and God, and Lord, and man, and who appeared in human form to Abraham and Isaac, appeared in a flame of fire from the bush, and conversed with Moses."

Dial. 128 -
." ... the power sent from the Father of all, which appeared to Moses, or to Abraham, or to Jacob, is called an Angel because He came to men (for by Him the commands of the Father have been proclaimed to men); is called Glory, because He appears in a vision sometimes that cannot be borne; is called a Man, and a human being, because He appears arrayed in such forms as the Father pleases; and they call Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to men ..."


Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 8:40 am The fact that the orthodox took issues with certain aspects of 'the original Christian2 doctrine' - namely that the Creator made an imperfect Man and thus was criticized for his imperfection is of no real consequence to us. The reality is that birth, sin, baptism, death - all events in the life of an imperfect human being - still have the same relationship with the Ideal Man even if he is called by now a new name 'Joshua' or 'Jesus'.3 It just puts the modern practitioner of the old religion maybe a step or two behind the truth. But the impressions caused by mimicking the path to perfection to union with the Ideal Man are still there. The religion still 'works' as it were as long as you follow the diagram set forth even if the names and texts were slightly changed.
2 There was no 'original Christian doctrine' - stop writing such superficial generalities

3 Yes, the main concept of a new Ideal Man likely arose out or or was reified—cemented—by Justin ...4

But, ffs, stop the stoopid dichotomy of 'Joshua' or 'Jesus' - the name then in the main early Christian language was Iēsous / Ἰησοῦς / Ἰησοῦ

4 Justin is likely the key figure in the genesis of what became 'orthodox' / [small c] catholic Christianity
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A Breakthrough in My Ishu Theory

Post by Secret Alias »

That is [mostly] nonsense.
How do mythicists understand Papias bit about Mark not having the right taxis if there never was a historical Jesus?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: A Breakthrough in My Ishu Theory

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 3:14 pm
That is [mostly] nonsense.
How do mythicists understand Papias bit about Mark not having the right taxis if there never was a historical Jesus?
taxis:
3. linguistics
"the systematic arrangement of linguistic units (phonemes, morphemes, words, phrases, or clauses) in linear sequence"

ORIGIN
mid 18th century ('in taxis'): from Greek, literally ‘arrangement’, from tássein | τάσσειν, ‘arrange’ ( τάξις | táxis )

The issue is not
  1. whether or not Mark had the right taxis or not
  2. nor whether or not Papias had a view about that
  3. nor whether or not
    Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 8:40 am ... Justin was in the camp of Papias
  4. nor whether or not
    Secret Alias wrote:... the supporters of the gospel of Mark responded to Papias
  5. nor whether or not Justin
    Secret Alias wrote: ... understood that things should 'proceed in a certain way' and 'his gospel'1 was ordered in the right way
1 which gospel are you referring to? Mark? a [different] 'gospel' Justin had? :confusedsmiley:

Regardless, the issue is Justin's commentary. Aspects of which you have provided novel, interesting exegesis of ...

... ie. Papias, etc., are, imo, a bit of a side-show ... especially to me as I believe there are reasonable grounds to suspect that Justin commentaries preceded Mark's and the other synoptic gospels ...
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: A Breakthrough in My Ishu Theory

Post by GakuseiDon »

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 12:34 pm Ben Smith on Justin and Irenaeus thinking IC = Man:

posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=107990
That thread starts here: "Ish(u), Ye(ho)shua, and the nomina sacra." viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6509

A lot of good information in that thread, well worth a full read.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: A Breakthrough in My Ishu Theory

Post by Jax »

SA, how do you think "son of man" factors into this? If at all?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A Breakthrough in My Ishu Theory

Post by Secret Alias »

Don't know to be honest. Samaritans don't use that expression far as I know.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A Breakthrough in My Ishu Theory

Post by Secret Alias »

This is the line that changed my life. From Origen to Africanus.
Φασὶ δὲ οἱ Ἑβραῖοι «ἐσσὰ» μὲν καλεῖσθαι τὴν γυναῖκα· δηλοῦσθαι δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς λέξεως τὸ «ἔλαβον,» «Χῶς ἰσουὼθ ἐσσά,» ὅπερ ἑρμηνεύεται· «Ποτήριον σωτηρίου λήψομαι·» «ἴς» δὲ τὸν ἄνδρα, ὡς φανερὸν ἐκ τοῦ· «Ἐσρὴ ἀΐς,» ὅπερ ἐστί· «Μακάριος ἀνήρ.»
Now the Jews say that the woman was called Essa, and that taken is a translation of this word as is evident from chos isouoth essa, which means, I have taken the cup of salvation; and that is means man, as we see from Hesre aïs, which is, Blessed is the man. According to the Jews, then, is is man, and essa, woman, because she was taken out of her husband (is).
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A Breakthrough in My Ishu Theory

Post by Secret Alias »

ἴς for איש is included in various Greek lexicons https://books.google.com/books?id=EzrFb ... ew&f=false
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A Breakthrough in My Ishu Theory

Post by Secret Alias »

Eusebius Preparation for the Gospel 11
Πάλιν Ἑβραῖοι τὸν ἄνδρα ΙΣ καλοῦσι. παρῆκται δὲ αὐτοῖς τοὔνομα ἀπὸ τοῦ ΕΣ, δι' οὗ σημαίνουσι τὸ πῦρ, ἵνα ᾖ παρὰ τὸ θερμὸν καὶ διάπυρον τῆς 11.6.18 τοῦ ἀνδρὸς φύσεως ὁ ἀνὴρ ὠνομασμένος. ἡ δὲ γυνή, ἐπείπερ εἴρηται ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς εἰλῆφθαι, καὶ τὴν προσηγορίαν ἐπικοινωνεῖ τῷ ἀνδρί. ΙΣΣΑ γὰρ ἡ γυνὴ λέγεται παρ' αὐτοῖς, ὥσπερ ΙΣ ὁ ἀνήρ.

Again the Hebrews call the man 'Ish' : and the name is derived by them from Ἔς, by which they signify fire, that the man may be so named because of the hot and fiery temper of the masculine nature. But the woman, since she is said to have been taken out of man, also shares the name in common with the man: for the woman is called among them 'Issha,' as the man is 'Ish.'

https://books.google.com/books?id=CHF4V ... 22&f=false
Post Reply