Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The enigma raised by Cerinthus is the following:

• He hoped in an earthly kingdom of god of 1000 years;

• He hated YHWH as inferior god (anti-demiurgism)

• He believed that Jesus existed as a mere man on the earth and pious adorer of the wrong god, YHWH (historicity).

Given the strange anomaly of having a mix of these three beliefs in the same person, what is strange is that the third point would be in conflict with the second point, just as the first point would be in conflict with the separationism and the anti-demiurgism.

The solution advanced by some sholars, that the anti-demiurgism was not a cerinthian idea, appears to me as mere apologetics.

What would be the great fear shown by the scholars who don't like the existence of an anti-demiurgist who hoped in an earthly kingdom?

The great fear is the following:

It is broken the twice implication:

Belief in an earthly kingdom ----> genuine Jewishness ---> historicity.

If Cerinthus was anti-demiurgist then he was not a true Jew, but a Gentile Christian.

Hence, the idea of an earthly kingdom could emerge even in the mind of a Gentile Christianity without no connection at all with a historical Jesus.

Remember that the so-called "Quest for the historical Jesus" started when Reimarus (or a his remote precursor) argued the following implication:

(Hope in a) Earthly Kingdom ----> Jesus was a Rebel


After Reimarus, the apologists (masked as scholars) converted the implication as the following:

(Hope in a) Earthly Kingdom ----> Jesus existed.

So the mere fact of Cerinthus (an anti-demiurgist who hoped in an Earthly Kingdom) goes directly against both the two implication above.

If the Hope in an Earthly Kingdom could raise even in the mind of a late Christian (Cerinthus) without no connection at all with a historical Jesus* then the evidence of a such implication vanishes completely.


* Anti-demiurgist are not Jews

One wonders if the hope in an earthly kingdom was not original of the early Christians (as the historicist think) but at contrary was introduced later, when the phenomenon of the so-called "ebionitism" started:
As even the historicist scholar Gerd Ludemann noted, after the 70 (and by logical extension, even more so after the 135) an authentic flood of Jewish-Christians fell on the Christian communities of the diaspora, so the clash between Torah-observants and Gentile Christians was more expected after the 70, rather than before the 70.

Hence, Paulinism itself (as an attempt to abandon Torah pacifically) makes more sense if it is dated after the 70, rather than before the 70.

Other items that were added after the 70:

• The emphasis that Jesus was the Christ (docet Salm et alia)

• The emphasis that the god of Jesus is YHWH not an alien god (docet Magne et alia)

• The emphasis that the kingdom of god hoped by Jesus was earthly and not celestial (docet myself).

• The emphasis that Jesus had a lot of carnal brothers, evidence of a mother who was authentically Jewish (because Jewish women were obliged to make many sons). Docet Magne .

Apparently, a historicist would answer that a deity couldn't be degraded in a such manner, by reducing it to a mere man. But when what is in dispute was the same DNA of the movement, then any mean is justified (docet Machiavelli).

Further evidence that the clash between gentilizers and judaizers erupted after the 70:

https://www.academia.edu/9266810/Jealou ... AHDBUbb1_U

The Romans realized that there was a sect of Christiani distinct from the Jews when they noted the disturb provoked, as collateral effect, by such clash, between gentilizers and judaizers.

The Acts didn't report the pessimistic conclusion: that between the two factions (Paul, icon of the gentilizers, versus Peter, icon of the judaizers), only the imperial repression came to restablish law and order. In a bloodshed.

The entire point of this thread is, therefore, the claim that the hope in an earthly kingdom of god was imposed later, towards the 64, 70 CE, on the original hope of the sect, that was about an entirely celestial kingdom.

In short: the earthly kingdom as part and parcel of the late judaization/"christianization" of the Christianity.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 3:53 am The enigma raised by Cerinthus is the following:

• He hoped in an earthly kingdom of god of 1000 years;

• He hated YHWH as inferior god (anti-demiurgism)

• He believed that Jesus existed as a mere man on the earth and pious adorer of the wrong god, YHWH (historicity).

.

The claim that Cerinthus hoped in an earthly kingdom of god of 1000 years derives from Caius/Gaius of Rome c 200 CE.
He appears to have been arguing that the Book of Revelation (which he rejected) was really written by Cerinthus.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerinthus

Andrew Criddle

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 7:26 am Other items that were added after the 70:

• The emphasis that Jesus was the Christ (docet Salm et alia)

• The emphasis that the god of Jesus is YHWH not an alien god (docet Magne et alia)

• The emphasis that the kingdom of god hoped by Jesus was earthly and not celestial (docet myself).

• The emphasis that Jesus had a lot of carnal brothers, evidence of a mother who was authentically Jewish (because Jewish women were obliged to make many sons). Docet Magne .

Add the emphasis of the resurrection in the flesh, the forgivenness of sin (including original sin), and the opposition of YHWH -- Satan.

I don't understand the conclusions you leap to.
Board Link 1
Board Link 2

billd89 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 11:38 am I don't understand the conclusions you leap to.

Are you searching for vain polemic?

This is a concession I can give you, along the lines of this comment:


http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2022/02/ ... ment-62233

Are you satisfied, now? As you see, the point stands all.