aa5874

As I was replying to another thread, it occured to me that Mark's Jesus is very similar to the Jesus of Cerinthus.

In reading Against Heresies XXVI, I came across the doctrines of Cerinthus. This so-called heretic propagated a Jesus ,the man, and a Christ, the God, that were united when Jesus was baptised and Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove. Cerinthus does not need his Jesus to be the offspring of the Holy Ghost, his Jesus is born naturally to Mary and Joseph.

Now with the Christ in Jesus, and with the Spirit of God, Jesus is now the Son of God. Jesus Christ can now perform miracles, teach and lead a life as prophesied in the scriptures. Now once Jesus Christ dies on the cross, he has accomplished his role on earth for he is now the sacrificial lamb.

After the crucifixion, the Christ leaves Jesus, and the man dies, the God returns to heaven.

Now on reading gMark, and taking into account Cerinthus, the omission of the nativity of Jesus now becomes uderstandable, since it is the baptism and the entering of the Christ into Jesus that has significance. So Mark's Jesus Christ is essentially the same as the Jesus Christ of Cerinthus.

But there is one major difference, Cerinthus' God is not the God of the Jews, yet this unknown God has a Son or a Spirit called Christ that entered Jesus.

Which Jesus came first, the one from Cerinthus or Mark?

Solitary Man

If it's true that Cerinthus used a form of Matthew, then he would post-date Mark. Irenaeus gives Cerinthus as a contemporary of John.

aa5874

It seems more like a form of Mark to me. Mark did not give any significance to the birth of Jesus and according to Irenaeus, Cerinthus claimed Jesus was born naturally, unlike the Holy Ghost conception by Matthew.

Mythra

If Irenaeus' portrait of Cerinthus is correct, it's hard to see how Epiphanius came up with the idea that Cerinthus was the actual author of GJohn. Perhaps someone here has an explanation?

On Peter Kirby's site, he cites the following from Randall Helms:

How could it be that the Fourth Gospel was at one time in its history regarded as the product of an Egyptian-trained gnostic, and at another time in its history regarded as composed for the very purpose of attacking this same gnostic? I think the answer is plausible that in an early, now-lost version, the Fourth Gospel could well have been read in a Cerinthean, gnostic fashion, but that at Ephesus a revision of it was produced (we now call it the Gospel of John) that put this gospel back into the Christian mainstream."

andrewcriddle

Just to clarify: Epiphanius is claiming that earlier writers of whom he disapproved (the Alogoi) had made this claim.

Epiphanius himself did not regard Cerinthus as the author of the Gospel of John.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

It appears to me that the concept of a "son of God" of Moses and a "Holy Ghost or Spirit", coming as a Messiah, as depicted in the NT, was totally unheard of by Jews of Judea, whether by expectation of prophecy or from doctrine. There was an understanding of a prophesied Messiah, according to Daniel, but there was never any idea of a son of the God of Moses or baptism of the Holy Ghost. Philo, the Jew from Alexandria, did not propagate any prophecy with respect to the son of the God of Moses. Even the interpolator in the "TF" make Josephus write that Jesus was the Messiah, but not making mention that Jesus was actually the foretold Son of the God of Moses.

Now, Irenaeus claimed Cerinthus was an Egyptian, and if the Egyptians already had the concept of son of Gods, such as Orus, the son Isis, it would seem to me that the son of God and Holy Spirit concept may have been borrowed and did not originate in Jewish tradition.

Could Mark have borrowed this "son of God" as a Messiah from Cerinthus, since no prophecy of the son of God of Moses appears in Daniel or the entire OT?

Ben C Smith

Psalm 2.7:

I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to me: You are my son; today I have begotten you.

Ben.

aa5874

Ben, Psalms 2.7 has absolutely nothing to with the Jesus of the NT who was begotten during the census of Cyrenius or just before the death of Herod the Great.

And when the Psalmist wrote "today I have begotten you", it must have been hundreds of years before the 1st century that "this son was begotten".

Ben C Smith

I agree. Now, what does that have to do with your mistaken contention that the concept of a son of (the) God (of Moses) was unknown to Jews, even by expectation of prophecy (your words)?

Ben.

aa5874

You have taken Psalms 2.7 completely out of context. Chapter 2 of Psalms does not deal with a real birth, a prophecy of, or even a concept of a son of God of Moses, as Jesus is depicted in the NT.

Psalms 2.7 is metaphorical with respect the part, "....you are my son, today I have begotten thee"