Page 11 of 11
Re: Arthur Drews, 1910
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2022 11:06 am
by billd89
I have not read Drews'
The Christ-Myth [
1910] but suspect that my own explanation echoes
Drews' rationale at several junctures. **Edit: Drews outlines a similar argument to much the same conclusion, but without noting Philo's own 'Zemach' and without specifying 'Yesseus Mazareus Yessedekeus'* (discovered decades later in the 20th C.)**
The Jessaes or Jessenes (Jessaioi) named themselves after Jesus, or after "the branch from the root of Jesse." They were closely connected on one side with the Essenes and on the other side with the Jewish sect of the Nazarenes or Nazoraes (Nazoraiori), if they were not absolutely identical. These were, as Epiphanius shows, in existence long before Christ, and had no knowledge of him. They were, however, called Nazoraes (Nazarenes (Nazarenos) is only a linguistic variation of it, cf. Essaes and Essenes) because they honoured the Mediator God, the divine "son," as a protector and guardian (Syrian, Nasarya; Hebrew, Ha-nosri) (cf. "the Protector of Israel ...
* I think the Sethian holy name "Yesseus, Host of the Righteous Jessaean" (or: "Y., Sacrifice of the Righteous Jessaean"; "Y., Branch of the Righteous Jessaean", etc.) is extremely important in this hypothesis. Not everyone agrees 'Yesseus = Jesus' though.
Re: Did Christianity Emerge From the Two Powers Tradition?
Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2022 12:52 am
by rgprice
Getting back to this....
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2015 10:09 am
When did white people stop trusting experts on Hebrew (and learning from Kabbalah) that Jesus means 'man'? It would seem that reference entries to 'Jesus' stopped including the idea by the mid-eighteenth century. However there are isolated examples of commentaries and the like still referencing this idea:
(commenting on Exodus 15:3) And it will be no other than Jehovah-Jesus, the El Gibbor, " God the Mighty Man," who will thus suddenly appear as Israel's deliverer in the hour of their sorest need. (David Baron Zechariah-Commentary 1918 p. 87]
(commenting on Joshua 5:6) There stood a man (= ish). One in the appearance of a man, one whom Joshua at first took for a man. That he was a superhuman being, however, is evident from what follows; and there seems no good reason to dissent from the established opinion of both ancient and modern expositors that this was no other than the Son of God, the Eternal Word appearing in that form which he was afterwards to assume for the redemption of men. The reasons for this opinion are (i) the title which he here gives himself, “Captain of the host of the Lord,” which is but another form of the name, “Lord of hosts,” implying the ruler of all the heavenly hosts, and which is evidently the appropriate title of Jehovah-Jesus (George Bush Critical Commentary on Joshua 1838, 1840, 1844, 1878, 1881)
Thus the Lord Jesus is a Man of War, Exod. xv. 3. And appears majestic in his warlike Dress, being clothed in a Vesture dipt in Blood, and his Name is called, The Word of God ; for he accomplishes the Will of God. And he hath on his Vesture, [Cave An epistle to the inhabitants of Gillingham 1781 p. 32]
But if it be improper for us to call God a man, what authority had Moses to call him a man; saying, The LORD is a MAN of war. Exod. xv. 3. We also read that when Jacob was about to pass over the brook Jabbock, “there wrestled a man with him until the break of day;”-and he says “I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” Gen. xxxii. 24.30.) etc [Pilkington, An investigation of "Unitarian remarks on a compliance 1824 p. 38]
What exactly is this about. I don't quite understand what's being said here.
Is the claim being made in this thread that there is an abbreviation that can mean "God-Man" or "Yahweh-Man" that can also be interpreted as "Jesus/Joshua"?
Re: Did Christianity Emerge From the Two Powers Tradition?
Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2022 8:11 am
by Secret Alias
When did white people stop trusting experts on Hebrew (and learning from Kabbalah) that Jesus means 'man'? It would seem that reference entries to 'Jesus' stopped including the idea by the mid-eighteenth century. However there are isolated examples of commentaries and the like still referencing this idea:
(commenting on Exodus 15:3) And it will be no other than Jehovah-Jesus, the El Gibbor, " God the Mighty Man," who will thus suddenly appear as Israel's deliverer in the hour of their sorest need. (David Baron Zechariah-Commentary 1918 p. 87]
(commenting on Joshua 5:6) There stood a man (= ish). One in the appearance of a man, one whom Joshua at first took for a man. That he was a superhuman being, however, is evident from what follows; and there seems no good reason to dissent from the established opinion of both ancient and modern expositors that this was no other than the Son of God, the Eternal Word appearing in that form which he was afterwards to assume for the redemption of men. The reasons for this opinion are (i) the title which he here gives himself, “Captain of the host of the Lord,” which is but another form of the name, “Lord of hosts,” implying the ruler of all the heavenly hosts, and which is evidently the appropriate title of Jehovah-Jesus (George Bush Critical Commentary on Joshua 1838, 1840, 1844, 1878, 1881)
Thus the Lord Jesus is a Man of War, Exod. xv. 3. And appears majestic in his warlike Dress, being clothed in a Vesture dipt in Blood, and his Name is called, The Word of God ; for he accomplishes the Will of God. And he hath on his Vesture, [Cave An epistle to the inhabitants of Gillingham 1781 p. 32]
But if it be improper for us to call God a man, what authority had Moses to call him a man; saying, The LORD is a MAN of war. Exod. xv. 3. We also read that when Jacob was about to pass over the brook Jabbock, “there wrestled a man with him until the break of day;”-and he says “I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” Gen. xxxii. 24.30.) etc [Pilkington, An investigation of "Unitarian remarks on a compliance 1824 p. 38]
Ignoring the fact that I am impulsive and have a habit of reacting or making arguments impulsively the argument might be expressed more soberly like this.
1. In early Jewish/Hebrew sources there is an acceptance that God appeared as a man.
2. Samaritanism developed a tendency to mask 'anthropomorphism' in the third - fourth century because of the implications of (1)
3. (1) and (2) can be argued to derive from a monarchian imposition placed on all religions in the Empire in the third and fourth centuries as the Empire was disintegrating.
4. the preference for interpretation or revaluing or redefining the nomen sacrum IS in terms of or as an abbreviation (now embedded in the surviving manuscripts from the third - fourth centuries) rather than as (1)
I hope that helps. In short, 'white men' (= the Imperial government based in Rome) for their own security and longevity basically forced all religions to be monarchian/monotheistic so as to reshape them in to Emperor worship as much as possible. I tend to speak in terms of 'white' this or that not because I am trying to pretentious (I might be) or 'woke' but because of my background and my job. I happen to be aware of European culture imposing itself on foreign (non-European) culture. Sometime it sounds 'woke' but I don't mean to be. I am saying that European governments weren't interested in preserving 'authentic' religious traditions as much as they were reshaping them for continued hegemony over subjected peoples.
Re: Did Christianity Emerge From the Two Powers Tradition?
Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2022 12:28 pm
by rgprice
I'm reading the David Baron Zechariah-Commentary. Your quote I actually find on page 495:
https://archive.org/details/thevisions0 ... r&q=Gibbor
But I'm confused by what's being said. How do we get from "El Gibbor" to "Jehovah-Jesus"?
http://thehumanjesus.org/2016/11/01/is- ... saiah-9-6/
Why is Baron using the name Jesus here? El Gibbor I would think would be translated Mighty God. Where is man coming from? Is it that Gibbor can be translated as mighty man? Assuming that, from which does Baron get the name Jesus?
Re: Did Christianity Emerge From the Two Powers Tradition?
Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2022 12:53 pm
by Secret Alias
Isaiah 9:6 was always used by many early Christians to prophesy the coming of Jesus and Jews to a king who lived many centuries earlier.
Re: Did Christianity Emerge From the Two Powers Tradition?
Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2022 1:44 pm
by rgprice
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 12:53 pm
Isaiah 9:6 was always used by many early Christians to prophesy the coming of Jesus and Jews to a king who lived many centuries earlier.
Right, but there is nothing linguistically here that would get you to "Jesus" correct?
Re: Did Christianity Emerge From the Two Powers Tradition?
Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2022 9:16 pm
by Secret Alias
גבור is an adjective in Isaiah and גיבור is the replacement for ish in the SP Ex 15:3 (apparently because Exodus 15:3 was used to prove "there are two powers" by the enemies of the rabbis presumably Christians). The Samaritans apparently like the Jews had to take drastic measured to redefine themselves away from the "Jesus" movement.