Loomis

Btw, this (Matthew 24:5) is more proof that Jesus/Joshua was a title to be earned, and not a birth name. See also John 17:11, Philippians 2:6-11, and Numbers 13:16.

Loomis

Sorry if you didn’t understand me. I’m a nut. And like most nuts I insist that you need to understand two important things.

1. The names Jesus and Joshua are interchangeable, and they appear to be titles that were bestowed on priests and othet 'messianic' figures. There appears to be a Jewish tradition of Joshua worship that pre-dates the time when Jesus supposedly lived.
   
   
2. There is no mention of Yahweh anywhere in the New Testament or in the Greek (Christian) Old Testament (LXX). The authors of the New Testament either never heard of Yahweh, or else they made a conscious deliberate effort to wipe him out of their religion. They (someone) replaced the name Yahweh with the title Lord (Kurios).

With those two things in mind it seems (to me, anyhow) that there are two conflicting origins for the Jesus character.

1. That the Jesus character was some sort of personification of the character called Kurios – who developed its own identity separate from Theos (the father god) after Yahweh was wiped from the bible.
   
   
2. That the Jesus character was some sort of cumulative personification of all the Joshua characters from Jewish folklore. This possibility makes no statement about Kurios (Yahweh). It leaves it open to additional interpretation and more diversity.

These two paradigms are incompatible but we see evidence for both of them in the New Testament. So the question that I wanted to raise is if Marcion’s theology might be tied to one paradigm in a way that the other guys (Justin Martyr et al.) either didn’t understand or else just didn’t like.

Does this make any sense? Or should I just walk my dog?

--------------------------------------------

Btw – it looks to me like GJohn 7:40 was aware of this problem and wrote it into his story.

When they heard these words, some of the people said, "This really is the Prophet." Others said, "This is the Christ."

The first part (about the Prophet) is an allusion to Deuteronomy 18:15, and it belongs to the Joshua category. The second part (about the Christ) probably belongs to the Kurios category (since it is presented as a competing alternative).

Loomis

The ‘Jewish Christ’ is a false premise. There was a lot of diversity and conflicting opinions about what a ‘Jewish Christ’ was.

I think this link does a great job of identifying some of that diversity.

Qumran's two Messiahs

You don’t need to look outside of Judaism to find a shitload of messiah theories.

maryhelena

Of course - the Jesus gospel character is most probably all of the above - contradictions - part of the game plan methinks. Not that that would, in and of itself, bring up issues of some negative motivations...it's all interpretation anyway and laying negative motivations upon the gospel writers would betray our own inadequacies in understanding rather than blacken their reputations...

Indeed, a non-Jewish Jesus, an anointed one, can be traced back to the OT - but, as with all interpretations - such an interpretation leaves lots of room for non-acceptance by those with a different take on things. The twist, if one wants to call it that, with Marcoin's non-Jewish anointed one, was that his Jesus was not about 'saving' the Jews from whatever - as in the case with Cyrus and the release from bondage in Babylon and the restoration of Jerusalem and its temple.

Josephus came up with a strange application - his messiah, his anointed one, Vespasian, not only did not 'save' the Jews but knocked the socks of them by destroying their sacred temple....Now then, maybe Josephus was on to a thing or two....a messianic figure that was forever going to change the face of Jewish history....by 'destruction' rather than 'restoration'...things would never be the same again...

dog-on

Correct. As far as it goes, at least regarding the books, Marcion was right.

dog-on

Works for me.

dog-on

Non-Jewish as in Non-Human, not as in gentile.

dog-on

Just figure out who Melchizadek (sp?) was worshiping and you got it!

Loomis

Oops. I’m an idiot. I didn’t see this post.

Bingo.

Maybe I agree with Hoffman – but I’d love to know what his arguments are.

Loomis

The one in Genesis 14 was a high priest of El. He never heard of Yahweh. Genesis 14 is an old Canaanite story. The ‘Yahweh’ in verse 22 is a insertion. The entire chapter (14) is an insertion.

Melchizedek was the King of Salem – named after Shalim the god of dusk. Shalim was Shahar’s brother. They were both sons of El but Shahar was mothered by Asherah and Shalim was mothered by Anat.