stephan huller

The Isis (Ἶσ) = yesh (יֵשׁ) = Jesus (ישו in Aramaic) suggestion isn't as stupid as I first thought. I keep running across this study by "Dillon" in serious books:

Apparently the book is listed as:

The idea here of course is that there are strong parallels between Plutarch's Isis and Philo's Sophia. The important thing for this argument is that Jesus is also consistently identified by Clement (Philo's devoted posthumous disciple) as the Sophia of God.

The book was apparently reprinted in 1996 and here are the pages in question:

http://books.google.com/books?id=aJQ...sophia&f=false

Dillon argues that Plutarch's Isis = the World Soul which appears to be Justin's argument in the Apology about the crucified Jesus. Very interesting! Could this actually emerge as a serious theory after all? My family is stirring upstairs. Have to be a father again ...

stephan huller

I think is it. This is the real deal. All other 'mythicism' is complete bullshit. This is the mythical origins of Jesus as a divinity. No malice. No veiled attempt to make fun of the religion. Jesus was the yesh. It explains everything especially if Jesus was conceived as being crucified in the form on the lower left (especially if a large stage held up the saltire cross thus forming a chresimon):


World Soul, baby.

DCHindley

Hi Doug,

The comment was really directed at sotto, not you, as I realized you were being a bit coy with him.

Sotto seems to think that the truth of Christianity and the unity of scripture, "fitted as exactly ... as the strings are to the harp," must be so obvious to any sensible person that it is folly to consider otherwise.

The kind of Christianity sotto appears to endorse is one that assumes a dogma that rules all. We're stepping back into the era of Scholasticism. There was a certain "anti-humanist" leaning in his one post to me (the one he got upset about when I tried to comment on it), but unfortunately "humanism" is interpreted many ways by various parties. In some quarters, even Calvin is portrayed as a humanist so far infected that he might as well be an atheist. Wow!

DCH

tanya

Well, I for one, remain certain, that I am unpersuaded, thus far.....

I am not writing that the thread has not thus far been both interesting, and educational--for it has been.

If we think of the forum as first and foremost an opportunity to challenge our own prejudices, then, this thread merits a star.

But, conversely, the thread jumps about, from one topic to another. There are loose ends, which ought to be brought together....

Notwithstanding the title: Mystical Controversy at the Heart of Nicaea, the thread could perhaps more accurately be titled:

The true meaning of Yesh.

Started off with something about the meaning of ousia. Well, except, we skipped Aristotle:
He used ousia to mean: substance....
oops
yup, that's pretty much what Arius meant, when explaining why Jesus could not be of the same substance as the father, yahweh, and also be his son.

To my provincial way of thinking, that was the essential rationale for the conference at Nicea, in 325.

yesh, and its supposed secret meanings, had nothing to do with Nicea, or at least, thus far, we have not yet encountered the text written by the Nicean participants, explaining how "yesh" figures into the controversy before them--the correct interpretation of "ousia", not yesh.

Somehow, we got twisted into the quagmire of Isis, and its' meaning. So, now we have, half a dozen topics running through a thread, with essentially zero data introduced, thus far, explaining why or how "yesh" would have figured into the equation, for the participants at Nicea.

DOES "yesh" equal Jesus? Does "yesh" equal "Isis"? Does "yesh" translate, most accurately, in terms understood among participants at Nicea, as "there is"?

How about "Isis"? How does her contribution to Egyptian theology, figure into the circumstances that led to the expulsion of the Arians, post Nicea?

What about "ousia"? What's wrong with accepting Aristotle's use of the term? Where's the evidence that the Nicean participants had rejected Aristotle's application, i.e. that "ousia" corresponds to "substance", and instead adopted some other, "mystical" meaning, more appropriate to the theological arguments of the day?

The only scripture, that I have observed, thus far in this thread, that offers some solace and comfort to one so thoroughly confused, as I obviously am, is Genesis 28:16

VYYQTSh Y'yQB MShNThV VY'aMUr 'aKN YSh YHVH BMQVM HZH V'aNKY L'a YD'yThY

Yesh Yahweh. Very clear. Not Jesus God, but rather, Surely God. or, perhaps a tad more mundane: there is God.

No need for "mystical" interpretations. The folks getting clobbered by Constantine, including Arius himself, at Nicea, weren't being hammered for arguing about mystical craziness. They were expelled, and killed, for speaking out against the obvious absurdity that God and his son were of the same substance.

stephan huller

tanya (vid):

The argument is very simple. All of what is now taken to be nomen sacrum like this:



in documents like this:



are merely copying the original name of Jesus = יֵשׁ as it appeared in the original Aramaic manuscripts which are now lost. In other words Ἰησοῦς is universally acknowledged to be an expansion of what appears in the earliest manuscripts. I am suggesting that it might have been an innovation. The original texts NEVER read 'Jesus.' They were suggesting that the World Soul (= in Hebrew יֵשׁ) took the appearance of a human being in order to be crucified and manifest his presence in a familiar Platonic sign (= chi).

In short יֵשׁ = IC (iota-sigma) AND THAT'S ALL. Ἰησοῦς was an expansion of the original understanding, an innovation.

stephan huller

In Qumran texts (which are universally acknowledged to be the likely precursors for the nomina sacra) YHWH appears similarly distinguished on the written page

Sheshbazzar

יש




ששבצר

stephan huller

And then I was standing in a Target when I figured out where Jesus came from

Duvduv

Let's not forget what the name YESHU spells out as a famous Hebrew acronym of Yimach Shmo Ve-zichro. (May his memory be blotted out) that is discussed in the Talmud concerning Pandera.

יש"ו = ימח שמו וזיכרו

stephan huller

Those come later