Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gurugeorge · 04-19-2010, 09:15 AM

Just to make the above point even clearer:

Consider the difference between:-

1) "in accordance with Scripture" and;

2) "according to Scripture"

Meditate on it, think about it, let it sink in.

If you read the passage as 2), then it becomes as plain as the nose on your face that there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the people Paul is talking about should be understood as being people who knew their cult deity personally, or were disciples of him. There was no physical-Messiah-eyeballing whatsoever by anybody involved, nor even any claim to such, at that time.

On the contrary, THEIR EVIDENCE FOR THEIR TAKE ON THE DOINGS OF THAT ENTITY WAS FROM SCRIPTURE (and, judging by the fact that Paul's "seeing" is in line with theirs, and we know that his "seeing" is avowedly what we would call visionary - i.e. a hallucination of sorts - also from their own mystical, visionary experience).

So to my mind the most likely situation is: these people were Messianists, but of an unusual sort - they weren't Messianists looking to the future, or looking to any contemporary or putative Messiah claimant. They knew not to expect him in the future, or to expect him to be any contemporary BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED THERE WAS EVIDENCE IN SCRIPTURE THAT HE HAD ALREADY BEEN AND DONE HIS STUFF.

And this is in line with the idea of proto-Gnosticism being "disappointed Apocalypticism" - a sublimation and spiritualisation of disappointed hopes that God or God's representative in some great military victor, would come and put the Jews on top, give the Romans a black eye, right all wrongs, etc. The Messianic message becomes spiritualised - the "victory" becomes instead spiritual, gnostic, interior, mystical. It is a turning about of the very heart of the Messianic message. It is an admission that they, and all other Messianists, had formerly been misled as to the nature of their Messianic hopes; and a discovery that the victory had already been won, only it wasn't some petty military victory over some petty earthly tyrants, but a spiritual victory over death itself, and over the bamboozlement of the Archons. This is the "good news" - that it's all done and dusted, and the Kingdom is already established, if you but have eyes and ears to cognize it.

Even deeper, what this is is a form of non-dual mysticism (along the lines of Zen or Advaita) but stuffed into the cramped box of theistic language.

The trope: "relax, it is already done and dusted" is the trope of non-dual mysticism throughout, in all its forms. But here we find it awkwardly translated into a theistic form, using god concepts, parochial Jewish concepts such as "Messiah", and the like.

TimBowe · 04-19-2010, 09:17 AM

Wow, I'm glad I started this thread LOL

I still agree with Freud....

Quote:

The ambivalence that dominates the relation to the father was clearly shown, however, in the final outcome of the religious novelty. Ostensibly aimed at propitiating the father god, it ended in his being dethroned and got rid of. Judaism had been a religion of the father; Christianity became a religion of the son. The old God the father fell back behind Christ; Christ, the Son, took his place, just as every son had hoped to do in primeval times. Paul, who carried Judaism on, also destroyed it. No doubt he owed his success in the first instance to the fact that, through the idea of the redeemer, he exorcized humanity's sense of guilt; but he owed it as well to the circumstance that he abandoned the "chosen" character of his own people and its visible mark — circumcision— so that the new religion could be a universal on, embracing all men.

Sigmund Freud

Loomis · 04-19-2010, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

it did not matter if your name was SIMON you could get the title Messiah.

But that has nothing to do with the price of rice in China. Your premise (that Messiah was a title) does not demand the conclusion that Jesus/Joshua was not a title.

I already explained that here.
http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...&postcount=163

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

people were called Jesus by their parents when they were babies.

Right. And it is absurd to think that they did it for no reason at all. It is much more likely that they did it for a reason. It is much more likely they gave the issue some thought before they did it.

A typical conversation may have gone something like this:

Mother: “Oh shit! I’m pregnant. What are we going to name our baby?”

Father: “If it’s a boy let’s name him Joshua.”

Mother: “Why do you want to do that?”

Father: “Because Joshua was the name that was given to heros and messianic figures in the Jewish traditions.”

Mother: “Oh! I’m cool with that. Let’s do it”

See? The action of naming a baby is a product of conscious thought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, the name Jesus/Joshua, unlike the Messiah, was given at birth and not after some accomplishment.

But, not in some scriptrures.

Numbers 13:16
These are the names of the men Moses sent to explore the land. (Moses gave Hoshea son of Nun the name Joshua.)

Barnabas 12:8
What again saith Moses unto Joshua the son of Nun, when he gave him this name, as being a prophet, that all the people might give ear to him alone, because the Father revealed all things concerning his son Joshua?

Sirach 46:1
Joshua son of Nun was mighty in war,
and was the successor of Moses in the prophetic office.
He became, as his name implies,
a great savior of God’s elect

Philippians 2:9-10
God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

the name Jesus was not above any other name until some writer wrote those words perhaps sometime time after the middle of the second century.

Nope.

Sirach 46:1 (150 BC)
Jesus the son a Nave was valiant in the wars, and was the successor of Moses in prophecies, who according to his name was made great for the saving of the elect of God, and taking vengeance of the enemies that rose up against them, that he might set Israel in their inheritance.

This is getting tedious. You are getting boring.

Let’s step it up. Can you?

If you can find fault with my claim (and it’s not really my claim) that Jesus/Joshua was an honorary title bestowed on heroes and messianic figures in Jewish literature then please do so soon.

Loomis · 04-19-2010, 01:18 PM

“But, but, but. Clearly, clearly, clearly.”

aa5874 · 04-19-2010, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

“But, but, but. Clearly, clearly, clearly.”

You have illustrated my point very well.

If I were to call to someone "parrot" because they verbally repeat the same mistakes, it would not be a title but rather symbolic.

spamandham · 04-19-2010, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

I think it possible that the Pastorals may be as late as the early second century. (I don't think they were that late, but it isn't out of the question.) The ten (excluding the Pastorals) were in Marcion's cannon, but Marcion can't have written them. They are far too dependent on the OT for him, and this dependence is all over the letters.

I really don't see why Marcion could not have written them. We do not have anything extant from Marcion. All we have are rants against Marcion (almost all of it from Tertullian). If we accept the basic premise that Marcion rejected the Old Testament, which seems reasonable, I think I'd say we see that in Paul's letters too, and surely Marcion would not have embraced those letters (assuming he didn't write them) if they were in opposition to his perspective.

Quote:

Marcion's versions (as reconstructed) have much of the most obvious OT references excised, but this is not enough to change their basic character as heavily OT dependent.

Paul's letters are not *favorable* to the Old Testament. I think that's the key point.

aa5874 · 04-19-2010, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I have repeatedly asked you to IDENTIFY who "THEY" are but you have FAILED to do so.

I have not "failed" to do so, I've explained that it applies to ANYBODY WHO MAKES THAT KIND OF CLAIM. Pick someone who makes a claim of having large numbers of people - anybody at all, from any time in history - if no large numbers of followers can be found via archaeology or external references, then that claim is in doubt, and seeing as people often boast about the size and power of their organisation, it's a good bet that they're lying.

Why do you want me to pick someone for you?

We are dealing SPECIFICALLY with your blanket statement,.."THEY WERE LYING and hyped up their origins. They must be LYING...[/b]

You must pick or identify your LIARS in the NT Canon. It is most blatantly obvious that you have failed to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The author of Acts claimed there was about 8000 Jews converted in two days and the Pauline writings essentially tend to indicate that there was a MASSIVE network of JESUS BELIEVERS all over the Roman Empire.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Oh really? Let's see the quotes from the "genuine" Pauline epistles, where the "Paul" writer "essentially tends to indicate" that there is a "massive network of Jesus Believers all over the Roman Empire".

Well here are some passages that TEND TO INDICATE that there was a massive network of Jesus believers, (NOT a TEENSY-WEENSY network) all over the Roman Empire.

Romans 16.3-5

Quote:

Greet Priscilla and Aquila.......... but also all the churches of the Gentiles. 5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house.

1 Cor 16.19

Quote:

The churches of Asia salute you....

2 Cor 8:1 -

Quote:

Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia..

2Co 1:1 -

Quote:

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia.

Galatians 1:2 -

Quote:

And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia..

Galatians 1:22 -

Quote:

And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ..

Col 4:15 -

Quote:

Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

1Th 1:1 -

Quote:

Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians...

Surely this MUST TEND TO INDICATE that there was a massive network of Jesus belivers

Now, let's get some comprehensive quotes from the Pauline writings, (NOT your speculative imgination) that show there was a TEENSY-WEENSY Jesus cult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Or do you think whenever "Paul" mentions a church, that it must be some sort of giant basilica?....

I think whenever "Paul" mentions the churches that he implies that the Jesus believers network was NOT TEENSY-WEENSY.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

... It was a teensy-weensy movement of middle-class dabblers in the occult.

Can I SEE a quote from the Pauline writings that show:

1. The Jesus cult was TEENSY-WEENSY.

2. The Jesus cult was MIDDLE class.

3.The Jesus cult were dabblers in the occult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

See, I want to find out what really went on - what was the shape and size of the movement, in reality; what were the people like, in reality; how did they spend their time, in reality. You seem to be content to go through the text, note some contradictions, pat yourself on the back and make a blanket ascription of "LIES!!!" to it all.

But, was it not you who made this blanket statement, They were lying...they must be lying...?[/b]

I am specific. I claimed that the Pauline writers and the author of Acts were LIARS.

Again, once you agree that Jesus did not exist during the 1st century at the time of Pilate, then Jesus did not have 12 twelve apostles or disciples. The apostle Peter was a fictitious character so the Pauline writer could not have met him and stayed fifteen days in Jerusalem with him.

The Pauline writers have become VICTIMS of their own LIES.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Or, to put it another way, if I were to accept your theory, I'd still be no clearer as to WHAT ACTUALLY WENT ON in those days (pre and/or post Diaspora, whichever, in reality, applies). I'd be no closer to the truth, except in an abstract sense ("oh, ok, it was all lies - but why was it lies, who lied, when did they lie, in what sequence, and for what reasons?" - your theory has no particular interest in these sorts of questions)....

The acceptance of my theory is irrelevant to the fact that I have presented EVIDENCE to support my theory, you have only used speculative imagination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

But what if it's the other way round - what if Acts is making stuff up on the basis of the "Paul" writings? We both agree that Acts is LATE, right?

You need EVIDENCE to support your WHAT IFS.

What if an apologetic source claimed the Pauline writers were aware of gLuke?

Eusebius did make such a claim in" Church History".

What if an apologetic source claimed Marcion did not use the Pauline writings?
Hippolytus did in "Refutation Against All Heresies".

What if an apologetic source claimed Marcion did not mutilate the Gospels.

Origen did in "Against Celsus"

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

What does make sense is an older layer of genuinely proto-Gnostic stuff, that's the actual origin of the "heresies" the orthodox found already established wherever they went (cf. Bauer), being included in the Canon because it HAD to be, because some of that writing was FAMILIAR to many people (if not from an original pre-Diaspora "Paul", then at the very least from the Marcionite Canon, granted that Marcion was "huge" at the time - but - oops! - Marcion thought "Paul" was from the standard dating time!), and because the orthodox wanted to keep as much of the "old school" on board as possible, if at all possible.

OOPS.

Let's SEE some quotes from Marcion that show he was "huge". May I remind you that Tertullian admitted that Marcion's Gospel actually was anonymous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

....In actual fact, all you are doing is allowing a background reading of Acts/gospels to influence your reading of the "Paul" writing, instead of seeing what the "Paul" writing says for itself. This is the source of the circularity in your argument.

You have identified your OWN ERROR.

You HAVE rejected the EVIDENCE from sources of antiquity that contradicts the Pauline writer and have made the Pauline writings the ONLY EVIDENCE for itself.

This is your fundamental error and the source of your FLAWED methodology. Whatever you believe Paul said must be true or most likely to be true.

Imagine what would happen if your ABSURD methodology was applied in a court trial where only the EVIDENCE from one single witness is used even when both sides, for and against, contradict the single witness and where written statements supposedly from the very single witness were deemed forgeries.

Now, not only Acts must be read into the Pauline writings but any Evidence of antiquity that can shed some light on the Pauline writings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Yes, but we don't find anything in the "Pauline" writer that suggests "apostle" means "someone who personally knew the Messiah while he was alive and got teachings from him". That's an idea that starts with GMark, and that ball gets picked up and run with in GLuke and Acts - why? Because, again, here we have a MOTIVE.

But, the Pauline writings are part of the Canon where it is claimed Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost and Creator had an apostle called Peter.

The author of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writers did write that Paul did meet the apostle Peter.

The EVIDENCE clearly shows that the Synoptic Jesus and the Revelations from Jesus to John did predate the supposed visions of the Pauline writer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Humour me and suppose my scenario is true for a moment: if the pre-Diaspora church was small beer, one tiny cult amongst many pullulating cults at the time, and based around some missionary work by a visionary, who never knew, and never claimed to know the cult deity personally, and who never even claimed that the people who were into the cult deity before him knew the cult deity personally; and if the post-Diaspora church in Rome wanted to rationalise, streamline and grow the religion, then the notion that the original apostles (i.e. in reality, merely apostles of the novel Messiah idea), actually knew the Messiah they were talking about personally, and got teachings from him, becomes rather a useful tool, don't you think? Look at the argument in the Pseudo-Clementines: there, what's implicit in the whole Acts fabrication is made explicit, there, a fabricated "Peter" tells a fabricated "Paul" that it surely makes more sense to follow someone who got his teachings directly from the cult figure in person, rather than just from someone who got them from visions which might or might not be genuine. THAT is the nerve, the essence, the nub, the root, of the heavy historicization of the "Jesus Christ" entity. It's all totally the other way round from the way people think it is - the tail wags the dog. It was necessary for the Christ figure to be placed at a specific time in recent history SO THAT the Roman church could claim lineage back to him.

I read your story and it is a big joke.

I think you might have forgotten to give a geographical location "PAUL".

OOPS. I think I get it. Your story is just "out of this world"

Q. Paul, please tell me about your Jesus, your cult deity?

A. "I never knew him.

Q. Paul, does Peter know your Jesus?

A. We never knew him.

Q. Paul, please tell me something anything about you Jesus.

A. No one ever knew him.

Your story is madness.

Petergdi · 04-20-2010, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

I really don't see why Marcion could not have written them. We do not have anything extant from Marcion. All we have are rants against Marcion (almost all of it from Tertullian).

I don't take anti-marcionite material at face value. It is very rare that anyone characterises someone else's beliefs correctly when arguing against them. This is even true when people argue against beliefs they once held.

But in this case the anti-marcionite arguments are highly detailed and highly structured. We can certainly get information from them without trusting our sources to be fair to Marcionite beliefs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

If we accept the basic premise that Marcion rejected the Old Testament, which seems reasonable, I think I'd say we see that in Paul's letters too, and surely Marcion would not have embraced those letters (assuming he didn't write them) if they were in opposition to his perspective.

Marcion certainly liked what he thought they said. So did the proto-orthodox. It is very common to like something even if you don't get it completely. You can look at Reformation era arguments where both sides highly value the text as we have it, and both sides somewhat misread it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Marcion's versions (as reconstructed) have much of the most obvious OT references excised, but this is not enough to change their basic character as heavily OT dependent.

Paul's letters are not *favorable* to the Old Testament. I think that's the key point.

I certainly don't read Paul in the way that you do, but even so, is it plausible that someone whith the attitude towards the OT which you ascribe to Marcion would write Pauline epistles so highly dependent on the OT?

I think the idea that Marcion's luke-type Gospel is his version of an older Gospel than our Luke is plausible. It is even plausible that the Pauline epistles as we have them contain some anti-marcionite redactions. It don't think either of these are true, but they do seem plausible. But I don't think it plausible that the Pauline epistles in any form got their start with Marcion.

Peter.

DCHindley · 04-20-2010, 06:18 AM

aa,

Why have you switched from short posts of CATEGORICAL ASSERTIONS to really looooooong posts of CATEGORICAL ASSERTIONS?

Is this your version of a US Republican filibuster? :constern01:

You do sometimes make good points, so why make posts soo long and tedius that folks just tune them out? Kinda obscures any valid points you are making.

Thanks!

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

I have not "failed" to do so, I've explained that it applies to ANYBODY WHO MAKES THAT KIND OF CLAIM. Pick someone who makes a claim of having large numbers of people - anybody at all, from any time in history - if no large numbers of followers can be found via archaeology or external references, then that claim is in doubt, and seeing as people often boast about the size and power of their organisation, it's a good bet that they're lying.

Why do you want me to pick someone for you?

We are dealing SPECIFICALLY with your blanket statement,.."THEY WERE LYING and hyped up their origins. They must be LYING...[/b]

You must pick or identify your LIARS in the NT Canon. It is most blatantly obvious that you have failed to do so.

Well here are some passages that TEND TO INDICATE that there was a massive network of Jesus believers, (NOT a TEENSY-WEENSY network) all over the Roman Empire.

Romans 16.3-5

1 Cor 16.19

2 Cor 8:1 -

2Co 1:1 -

Galatians 1:2 -

Galatians 1:22 -

Col 4:15 -

1Th 1:1 -

Surely this MUST TEND TO INDICATE that there was a massive network of Jesus belivers

Now, let's get some comprehensive quotes from the Pauline writings, (NOT your speculative imgination) that show there was a TEENSY-WEENSY Jesus cult.

I think whenever "Paul" mentions the churches that he implies that the Jesus believers network was NOT TEENSY-WEENSY.

Can I SEE a quote from the Pauline writings that show:

1. The Jesus cult was TEENSY-WEENSY.

2. The Jesus cult was MIDDLE class.

3.The Jesus cult were dabblers in the occult.

But, was it not you who made this blanket statement, They were lying...they must be lying...?[/b]

I am specific. I claimed that the Pauline writers and the author of Acts were LIARS.

Again, once you agree that Jesus did not exist during the 1st century at the time of Pilate, then Jesus did not have 12 twelve apostles or disciples. The apostle Peter was a fictitious character so the Pauline writer could not have met him and stayed fifteen days in Jerusalem with him.

The Pauline writers have become VICTIMS of their own LIES.

The acceptance of my theory is irrelevant to the fact that I have presented EVIDENCE to support my theory, you have only used speculative imagination.

You need EVIDENCE to support your WHAT IFS.

What if an apologetic source claimed the Pauline writers were aware of gLuke?

Eusebius did make such a claim in" Church History".

What if an apologetic source claimed Marcion did not use the Pauline writings?
Hippolytus did in "Refutation Against All Heresies".

What if an apologetic source claimed Marcion did not mutilate the Gospels.

Origen did in "Against Celsus"

OOPS.

Let's SEE some quotes from Marcion that show he was "huge". May I remind you that Tertullian admitted that Marcion's Gospel actually was anonymous.

You have identified your OWN ERROR.

You HAVE rejected the EVIDENCE from sources of antiquity that contradicts the Pauline writer and have made the Pauline writings the ONLY EVIDENCE for itself.

This is your fundamental error and the source of your FLAWED methodology. Whatever you believe Paul said must be true or most likely to be true.

Imagine what would happen if your ABSURD methodology was applied in a court trial where only the EVIDENCE from one single witness is used even when both sides, for and against, contradict the single witness and where written statements supposedly from the very single witness were deemed forgeries.

Now, not only Acts must be read into the Pauline writings but any Evidence of antiquity that can shed some light on the Pauline writings.

But, the Pauline writings are part of the Canon where it is claimed Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost and Creator had an apostle called Peter.

The author of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writers did write that Paul did meet the apostle Peter.

The EVIDENCE clearly shows that the Synoptic Jesus and the Revelations from Jesus to John did predate the supposed visions of the Pauline writer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Humour me and suppose my scenario is true for a moment: if the pre-Diaspora church was small beer, one tiny cult amongst many pullulating cults at the time, and based around some missionary work by a visionary, who never knew, and never claimed to know the cult deity personally, and who never even claimed that the people who were into the cult deity before him knew the cult deity personally; and if the post-Diaspora church in Rome wanted to rationalise, streamline and grow the religion, then the notion that the original apostles (i.e. in reality, merely apostles of the novel Messiah idea), actually knew the Messiah they were talking about personally, and got teachings from him, becomes rather a useful tool, don't you think? Look at the argument in the Pseudo-Clementines: there, what's implicit in the whole Acts fabrication is made explicit, there, a fabricated "Peter" tells a fabricated "Paul" that it surely makes more sense to follow someone who got his teachings directly from the cult figure in person, rather than just from someone who got them from visions which might or might not be genuine. THAT is the nerve, the essence, the nub, the root, of the heavy historicization of the "Jesus Christ" entity. It's all totally the other way round from the way people think it is - the tail wags the dog. It was necessary for the Christ figure to be placed at a specific time in recent history SO THAT the Roman church could claim lineage back to him.

I read your story and it is a big joke.

I think you might have forgotten to give a geographical location "PAUL".

OOPS. I think I get it. Your story is just "out of this world"

Q. Paul, please tell me about your Jesus, your cult deity?

A. "I never knew him.

Q. Paul, does Peter know your Jesus?

A. We never knew him.

Q. Paul, please tell me something anything about you Jesus.

A. No one ever knew him.

Your story is madness.

bacht · 04-20-2010, 06:44 AM

Peter what about these factors?

i) that all evidence for Paul is secondary

ii) that the canon and Catholic tradition insist that every NT book was written in the 1st C if not before 70

iii) that there was a long established tradition of pseudepigraphy and legend construction in the OT and intertestamental writings.

The first point means that we don't really know when the letters were written, we have to use other criteria like internal clues and church history. The second point suggests that the church wanted to completely suppress any implication that Christianity started in reaction to the Jewish revolts, presumably to reduce Roman suspicion.

The third point suggests that scientific history was never the main goal of any Judeo-Christian authors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

I am sure that you can offer some evidence in support of your fervent belief.

Radically late dating is silly because it involves:

(1) The claim that we need some simple and evident solid proof to date them in the first century, and since our evidence isn't of that sort, it amounts to nothing.

(2) A claim of some little known fact or facts which are supposed to tilt the balance strongly towards radically late dating. The "little known fact" is treated with the greatest possible credulity. Excuses are made for the fact that the academy does not recognise the importance or the truth of the "little known fact."

Someone who was really keen would show familiarity with mainstream Pauline scholarship. Someone who was really keen should notice the differences between what Paul says and how subsequent generations understood him.

Even the pastorals, which might be early second century, can hardly be far into the second century because their idea of church organisation reflects a world where episkopos and presbuter are still synonyms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Absent some reliable data, I will stick with my opinion that the Gospels were created in the aftermath of the third Jewish Roman War,

Apart from the fact that you obviously find it convenient to believe this, what actually do you find persuasive for this? The idea that the Olivet discourse somehow reflects the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba revolt is cute, but it would only look like a good match if you really really wanted it to be. If you looked at it with any sort of scepticism, I can't see how you could be convinced.

Peter.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-19-2010, 09:15 AM	#191
gurugeorge Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: London, UK Posts: 3,210	Just to make the above point even clearer: Consider the difference between:- 1) "in accordance with Scripture" and; 2) "according to Scripture" Meditate on it, think about it, let it sink in. If you read the passage as 2), then it becomes as plain as the nose on your face that there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the people Paul is talking about should be understood as being people who knew their cult deity personally, or were disciples of him. There was no physical-Messiah-eyeballing whatsoever by anybody involved, nor even any claim to such, at that time. On the contrary, THEIR EVIDENCE FOR THEIR TAKE ON THE DOINGS OF THAT ENTITY WAS FROM SCRIPTURE (and, judging by the fact that Paul's "seeing" is in line with theirs, and we know that his "seeing" is avowedly what we would call visionary - i.e. a hallucination of sorts - also from their own mystical, visionary experience). So to my mind the most likely situation is: these people were Messianists, but of an unusual sort - they weren't Messianists looking to the future, or looking to any contemporary or putative Messiah claimant. They knew not to expect him in the future, or to expect him to be any contemporary BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED THERE WAS EVIDENCE IN SCRIPTURE THAT HE HAD ALREADY BEEN AND DONE HIS STUFF. And this is in line with the idea of proto-Gnosticism being "disappointed Apocalypticism" - a sublimation and spiritualisation of disappointed hopes that God or God's representative in some great military victor, would come and put the Jews on top, give the Romans a black eye, right all wrongs, etc. The Messianic message becomes spiritualised - the "victory" becomes instead spiritual, gnostic, interior, mystical. It is a turning about of the very heart of the Messianic message. It is an admission that they, and all other Messianists, had formerly been misled as to the nature of their Messianic hopes; and a discovery that the victory had already been won, only it wasn't some petty military victory over some petty earthly tyrants, but a spiritual victory over death itself, and over the bamboozlement of the Archons. This is the "good news" - that it's all done and dusted, and the Kingdom is already established, if you but have eyes and ears to cognize it. Even deeper, what this is is a form of non-dual mysticism (along the lines of Zen or Advaita) but stuffed into the cramped box of theistic language. The trope: "relax, it is already done and dusted" is the trope of non-dual mysticism throughout, in all its forms. But here we find it awkwardly translated into a theistic form, using god concepts, parochial Jewish concepts such as "Messiah", and the like.

04-19-2010, 01:18 PM	#194
Loomis Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: The recesses of Zaphon Posts: 969	“But, but, but. Clearly, clearly, clearly.”

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.