Horatio Parker

I've been reading a collection Bertrand Russell's essays, and he makes a very interesting point about the Jewish emphasis on one and only one God. He speculates that the idea developed in exile to resist assimilation. The point being that elsewhere in the ancient world there was often a widespread tolerance of other Gods. I don't know much about Marcion, but if he had a classical education, he may have considered a One God based on an exclusionary chauvinism instead of a philosophical unity as undesirable. That could be a reason to remove Xtianity from Judaism.

Just talking.

andrewcriddle

Hi Jake

Pliny is apparently obtaining much of his information from people who had been Christians many years ago. Their evidence would not be about recent Christian practice. Pliny refers to the restoral of long neglected religious rites.

Andrew Criddle

maryhelena

Yes, Jewish monotheism has its dangers - the chosen people idea indicates a god of negative dualism. Something that sometimes paints a rather ugly picture within the pages of the OT. Marcion was correct - such a negative, 'evil god', could not produce a son any different than himself. Hence Marcion opted for another higher god that could produce his JC. However, methinks 'Paul' was a step ahead of Marcion. The Jewish god could produce a different kind of son if that Jewish god were to be confined to a new context - a purely spiritual or intellectual context where there would be no Jew nor Greek. No division in the new heavenly places. In other words, 'Paul' gave the Jewish OT god of monotheism a new 'home'. Operating within a new context - removed from having relevance between man and man, between Jew and Gentile, the OT god of monotheism, a monotheism of negative dualism, would be able to produce a 'son'; an 'unknown god' - who was able to become 'flesh'; able to produce value for living on earth.

No need to cut off the Jewish root - the christian branches can't sustain themselves without it......

Marcion lost the plot and became a footnote in history.....

Just talking......:wave:

Horatio Parker

That's a very good point about Paul that I never considered.

But if Paul's savior is removed from a Jewish context, how does it follow that Jewish roots don't need to be cut?

It sounds as if the only reason to retain the OT was it's respectable antiquity.

aa5874

Why are you continuing to imply that Christians in antiquity MUST be followers of the Jesus cult when you KNOW that Justin Martyr claimed that SINCE the TIME of CLAUDIUS the followers of Simon Magus the Magician were CALLED CHRISISTIANS. See "First Apology"

In the Synoptics themselves Jesus did NOT start a NEW religion under his name and did NOT WANT the JEWS to know he was Christ. See ALL the Synoptics.

Again, Pliny did NOT know what the Christians BELIEVED and had to TORTURE siome.

Based on the Church ALL the GOSPELS and the Pauline Jesus were PUBLICLY PREACHED and DOCUMENTED in MAJOR CITIES of the Roman Empire even ROME but Pliny, who once LIVED in ROME, had to TORTURE peolple in the SECOND CENTURY to find out what Christians BELIEVE for the supposed LAST 80 years.

It is CLAIMED that Peter preached in BITHYNIA in 1 Peter yet Pliny had NO idea that there was supposed rto be Christians in BITHYNIA since the Days of Peter.

Amazingly, Pliny's Christians did NOT claim that their Jesus was Crucified and RAISED from the dead even AFTER TORTURE.

Pliny Christians merely Sang to the name Christ as to a God.

Nothing about the GOOD NEWS of the Crucifixion and Resurection EVEN when TORTURED.

There is NO BLack hole in Christianity.

No credible historical source in antiquity has corrobrated the NT Jesus in the 1st century BEFORE the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

maryhelena

Even if that was the only reason not to cut the Jewish root - it's an important reason. Don't forget where you've come from - that's a refrain one often hears today, ie don't get too big for your boots, or, your where you are today because of those who came before you, in whatever field. Another reason is that once the negative theology/philosophy of OT monotheism was understood to be spiritually/intellectually based (as opposed to being applicable to a negative philosophy/theology between Jew and Gentile where it had no rational value) there is still a need for a new philosophy to apply in that man to man context. Can't have a vacuum - the spirit, the 'comforter', was to come, word made flesh. A new heaven requires a new earth. Thus, while intellectually speaking, Christianity is able to float free from the constraints of it's Jewish roots - that freedom is relative. Those high branches swaying to the music of the air and the wind rely on their roots being protected deep within the ground. Which is a fancy way of saying that we are not just our intellect - our bodily, fleshly nature, can't be devalued if we are to live rational lives.

I don't think 'Paul' removed his 'savior' from a Jewish context. 'Paul' can be read as referencing a literal son of David, born of a woman, born under law (no, not getting into all of that.....)ie 'Paul' wants his cake and wants to eat it as well! In other words; dualism. A human 'savior', messianic figure, plus a heavenly spiritual messiah figure. The messiah concept can't be restricted to any one application or context.

jakejonesiv

We have reason to be cautious about the alleged testimony of those rounded up in a witch hunt scenerio. And that is the only context in which the tweny years come up.

So how long had the temples of the gods been neglected? Since before the turn of the century?? Why not two or three years?

andrewcriddle

Hi Jake

I agree that it is possible that the situation Pliny encountered in Bithynia had only developed a few years before. However it is not the natural reading of his account.

Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv

Hi Andrew,

OK, I value your input. But "the numbers and kinds of incriminations are becoming more widespread" seems to imply something more recent.

Jake

aa5874

What source of antiquity support what you claim? I am really NOT interested in what you imagine.

Anybody can make up a story from imagination.

There is ZERO credible evidence from antiquity that Jews ever worshiped a man as a God or spiritualized a man called Jesus Christ.

Again, why don't you want to deal with the EVIDENCE,.

The Pauline writings CONTRADICT your imagination.

Paul claimed he was NOT the apostle of a man. See Galatians 1.1

The Pauline Jesus was BORN of woman just as gMatthew's Jesus was BORN of a woman.

It is just bizarre that people are claiming that the Pauline writings are HERETICAL even though they are canonised by the Church that claimed it was Heretical to say Jesus was just a man.