outhouse

I think we could get into facts that would prove that statement wrong.

christianity evolved, into roman religion from judaism.



so now you need ti get into specifics, [in another thread as not to derail Stephans view]

Sheshbazzar

:thumbs:

Sheshbazzar

Oh well, can't ever agree on -everything-

stephan huller

The scholars here at the forum at least recognize the new model existing c. 138 CE - two divine beings (the just Lord, the kind God) and the unknown Father.

This was seen as deriving from the Pentateuch before such beliefs lost favor with the Emperor.

The understanding was that the just Lord gave the world the Ten Commandments. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob only knew 'the sufficient God' (as Aquila translates El Shaddai). Eusebius says this name reinforces that the Jesus and the Father were unknown to them.

Moses was likely understood to know the kind God (perhaps implying that the initiated Jews already went beyond fearing God and believing = Philo).

But I guess the final act in this drama was that the kind God came back to earth at the end times and revealed his own version of the Ten Commandments (originally revealed by the other just Lord). Love one another or the like. One 'kind' commandment instead of ten (the other six hundred and three were written by Moses). This was given to a chosen disciple who took the role of Moses redivivus.

While Jewish theology equates Christ with Moses, it is important to remember the Samaritan concept of the Ta'eb presents a Moses redivivus figure who is not regal/royal. The Marcionite equivalent would be the figure of the Paraclete which later transferred to Manichaeanism and Islam.

maryhelena

Book burning time.....:huh:


The Arch-Heretic Marcion: Sebastian Moll (or via: amazon.co.uk)

outhouse

Marcionism


because Israelites were factually polytheistic, and the remnants are visible, despite redaction to monotheism

any connection to this fact and later church fathers would have to be well spelled out so to speak, without invoking imagination.

and it still would have nothing to do with the evolution of the jesus concept, from its beginning jews not romans claimed jesus to be part of god as a son.

I can see the simularities your toying with here, 2 deities in one for both counts, but you would need earlier proof that there was a interpretation that way, before later church fathers read teh OT that way


translates to a lot of things, and El Shaddai can translate to god of the mountains, although the term evolved from that into god almighty.


sources please.

sounds awefully out of context


was fiction, a literary creation


No

the beginning of the movement adhered to the laws, only with the roman paul stealing the movement did a different translation of how the laws would be applied came to be

Not even close

a failed messiah in judaism doesnt even stand a candle to its moshe

Chili

Christianity may have evolved but it was never the Roman Church that Jesus had in mind and never was part of it either.

Insight is needed to see the mystery and is the best kept mystery on earth that took 400 years of useless head banging before Eusebius put a stop to that nonsense. Then 1200 years later they are at it again, now with 20.000 varieties and not even one ever gets in or he would have told them how wrong they all are.

Narrow gates are narrow for a reason, and the good thing about that is that heaven is for Catholics only but the problem with that is that one must also be a Catholic first, which is not to say that all Catholics get there but they surely will be either hot or cold and are excommunicated if they are lukewarn.

The problem is that Christians are in heaven and if they are not every word they speak will be a strike against them and is much like feeding a wolf in their own mind where heaven is at.

andrewcriddle

Hi Stephan

Have you read the works of Margaret_Barker ? And if so would you see her ideas as having any similarity to yours ?

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

Thank you Andrew. No I haven't read her work but if she is associated with Cambridge I know she will be worth the read. More reading.

Stephan

stephan huller

A possible solution for why 'redemption' was equated with 'crucifixion.' The Aramaic term פָּרַק which means to redeem but literally comes from the concept of separation. I know this is difficult for our minds to see because it is a completely different linguistic paradigm but Jastrow notes that the cross-like shape (especially significant if Jesus's cross was saltire) is always described as paraq-like.



For instance, the rabbinic literature uses paraq to describe open scissors:




Paraq is used to designate a cross-road.



I wonder if the Cross was originally associated with purqana (redemption) simply because of its shape. There is also the strange reference in the Gospel of Philip - "The eucharist is Jesus. For he is called in Syriac "Pharisatha," which is "the one who is spread out," for Jesus came to crucify the world."

Al-furqan is mentioned in the Koran seven times. Although according to Watt (1988: 139-141), it probably originated in a Jewish-Aramaic or Syrian term for salvation (purqana), the Arab root verb faraqa ('to separate') certainly influenced its meaning. In the Koran al-furqana expresses the divine consent and final separation of believers and unbelievers.