Page 2 of 8
Re: Two Powers Tradition and the question of historicity
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 9:42 am
by Giuseppe
I am thinking about Mark 14:60-64 :
Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?” But he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” Jesus said, “I am; and
‘you will see the Son of Man
seated at the right hand of the Power,’
and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven.’”
Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy! What is your decision?” All of them condemned him as deserving death.
Under the Two Powers Tradition, it seems that the high priest knew
already what Jesus was claiming about himself (to be the
visible YHWH). And he
knew that the claim was blasphemy according to Law.
If Jesus replies 'I am', then why does he need to quote
also the Danielic passage? Only to reiterate again and again that he, as Son of Man, is the
visible YHWH (something already explained by answering 'I am').
It seems that Jesus wants
both the things: the claim of being the
visible YHWH
AND the claim to be
himself the guy who requires the punition of the blasphemy, according to the same Torah appealed by the high priest.
Re: Two Powers Tradition and the question of historicity
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 9:53 am
by iskander
You may want to read this thread before continuing ,
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2397
Re: Two Powers Tradition and the question of historicity
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:07 am
by rakovsky
Were a ton of messages by me erased from this thread and the other one?
Re: Two Powers Tradition and the question of historicity
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:13 am
by Secret Alias
The problem with not reading anything worth reading is that you remain an informed idiot. Is there anyone older or more authoritative than Philo about the Jewish tradition in the Second Commonwealth period? Well then Moses was a god
https://books.google.com/books?id=BTEjB ... lo&f=false
The same answer is explained through dozens of other testimonies ... but 345 is the most obvious and most universally referenced in Jewish literature. But then again you don't read ... Sorry. Keep on with being a monkey on a typewriter.
Re: Two Powers Tradition and the question of historicity
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:15 am
by Secret Alias
Were a ton of messages by me erased from this thread and the other one?
If God is merciful
Re: Two Powers Tradition and the question of historicity
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:17 am
by Secret Alias
Can't people get the three stage process of knowledge from Nietzsche figured out - (1) go into the desert as a camel with books (2) emerge from the desert as a ferocious lion and then (3) play with the knowledge as a child. It just seems that no one in this discussion has done (1). How do you think you can pontificate on this subject without having actually read ANY of the pertinent background information? This is what is so amazing. It's the age of Trump and everyone has an 'opinion' and no one has any facts. Why should anyone listen to someone who posts in a thread called
"Two Powers Tradition and the question of historicity" when most of the participants HAVE NEVER READ THE MEKHILTA, NEVER READ SEGAL, NEVER READ ANY OF THE SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION but instead are appear eager to offer 'their opinion' on matters? It's laughable.
Re: Two Powers Tradition and the question of historicity
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:33 am
by Giuseppe
With all the respect, but to be a biblist or historical researcher cannot and must not be so difficult as being an expert of physics or of math. It seems that for you it is embarrassing to say something as:
"I think that the Two Powers Traditions supports better historicity because of x, y and z".
If Segal was alive, I would have liked question him directly on the matter.
Re: Two Powers Tradition and the question of historicity
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:43 am
by Secret Alias
If Segal was alive, I would have liked question him directly on the matter.
But the perplexing things is that you have (a) interest enough to EXPOUND THEORIES on this subject without (b) actually READING the pertinent material. You compare this to physics but even something as simple as cooking, would you think that someone without ever having tried Italian cuisine could make a lasagna from scratch? Of course not. Everything requires the proper learning, research and attention.
Re: Two Powers Tradition and the question of historicity
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 12:59 pm
by iskander
Giuseppe wrote:PLEASE Assume as
hypothesis in this thread that, even before the birth of Christianity, the Jews believed in
two YHWHs: an
invisible YHWH and a
visible YHWH (the same Angel of Lord of Exodus 23 etc).
Does this support more mythicism or historicity?
I remember that the title of Doherty's book is
''Neither God nor Man''.
There is a precise reason why Doherty, differently from previous Mythicists (I think about William Benjamin Smith, for example, but even the precursor of Doherty, Paul-Louis Couchoud, who thought the identity Jesus=YHWH), points out again and again that Jesus is not God for Paul.
Because there is a lot of passages in the epistles of Paul, where it is always ''God'' who does the things
x, y, z, while the ''kyrios Jesus'' is only his mere instrumentum, his mere passive agent. In this way, Doherty can rightly raise a great, surprising (=unexpected)
void just where one may expect that it is Jesus to have to do the things
x, y, z,
not ''God''.
Therefore from this point of view, to claim that Jesus is
only an angel or an archangel does support really - and greatly - the mythicism.
But what if Jesus is the
visible YHWH according to Paul, and therefore
one with the
invisible YHWH ?
The silence about a historical Jesus in Paul would become
less surprising, since it would remove the problems above raised by Doherty.
But paradoxically it may cause another problem:
could a Jew be deified
from day zero and be compared
to YHWH himself, even if a ''minor'' YHWH?
No. It is too much impossible.
Not even Moses was identified with YHWH.
Neither God nor man, what does it mean?
Re: Two Powers Tradition and the question of historicity
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 2:05 pm
by davidbrainerd
Giuseppe wrote:PLEASE Assume as
hypothesis in this thread that, even before the birth of Christianity, the Jews believed in
two YHWHs: an
invisible YHWH and a
visible YHWH (the same Angel of Lord of Exodus 23 etc).
Does this support more mythicism or historicity?
Mythicism, obviously. The only reason Stephan can't see that is he either can't calm down long enough to read anything objectively, Or, both the younger and older Yahweh frequently appear to him...take your pick.