Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 03-29-2013, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

And here is the material which (in some form) begins the Marcionite gospel. It would seem to me at least that the Marcionite gospel according to our sources. That the Marcionite gospel was like a Diatessaron (= containing or 'mixing' narratives found in the canonical four is witnessed by Eznik and apparent from the citations of the Fathers). That is began with Bethsaida rather than Capernaum is apparent from the order in Luke (and the substitution that Ephrem tells us of 'Bethsaida' for 'Nazareth'). Also look again at Clement's citation of the 'beginning of

Here you go: At about 30, is prior to midlife and thus to soon to point at human desire as per John 1:13 and so prior to Gods own time it was not Jerusalem as faith in the heart from Nazareth, but fear based on doubt that converted Nazareth to Bethsida to make the jump.

So while Capernaum may be from inside a void or vacuum, it is better than desire based on doubt from Bethsaida.

Quote:

Luke':

Quote:

"And to prove that this is true, it is written in the Gospel by Luke as follows: "And in the fifteenth year, in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias." And again in the same book: "And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old," and so on. And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: "He hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."

The 'reach only a year' makes reference to Galilee where the purifying fire is at that in total should be no longer than 42 months instead of 40 years. This is where the 1260 days are what it takes to get into heaven as per Rev.12:14 with here now the first year is self identification and the next two and one half years to set his own captives free from deep within his soul, and so is where the 'mermaid' stuff begins, wherefore then the dragon took his position upon the shore of the [celestial] sea.

And keep your eys on Rev.13: were the difference is made between the first and second beast that is not able to make this change inside the purgation period that the first beast made. Zamjatin calls these Mephi as persistent evils ("WE" record 26 'The World does not exist').

In Buddhism this is where the Sotapanna moves on to be the Sakadagami, and I include these here only to add weight to the archetype itself.

In the material world it is where the kundalini is raised from the crotch to the heart and now must move from the heart to the mind to transform the world in scope to the Universe for him to be the centre of (sic), wherein the first requisite is that the world does not exist . . . and here Galileo calls it round?.

Quote:

Notice that the various references in Jacob of Serug seem to come from this section too (= the Good Physician,' 'the Lord of the Sabbath' reference etc.). I wouldn't be surprised if Jesus came down from heaven to the 'House of the Field' (= the Dosithean 'Bethel' in Joseph's field near Shechem) which happened to have some sort of healing pool:

Beth-le-hem is the house of Bread that is contingent upon Nazareth near Shechem where the offering was made. I so is a stable that hold a manger to nurse the bare naked animal man here reborn. And so "no room at the Inn" where people flock and congregate to say that it is intuit in design, and only the passified ox and mule are there to represent the now silenced Adam and Eve in this same mind (and no squacking chickens in their either as evangelistic meme-orgies = memories).

stephan huller · 03-29-2013, 12:27 PM

It is worth noting that the paralytic narrative in the synoptics has a reference to "unroofing the roof" i.e. taking off the roof to make it more like a Mosaic tabernacle. I think this is an important clue as to the house being or becoming some sort of temple or shrine in the early Church. The Apocryphon of James makes reference to the Dosithean obsessions being passed on to earliest Christianity:

Quote:

Therefore, I say to you, be sober; do not be deceived! And many times have I said to you all together, and also to you alone, James, have I said, 'Be saved!' And I have commanded you to follow me, and I have taught you what to say before the archons. Observe that I have descended and have spoken and undergone tribulation, and carried off my crown after saving you. For I came down to dwell with you, so that you in turn might dwell with me. And, finding your houses unceiled, I have made my abode in the houses that could receive me at the time of my descent."

stephan huller · 03-29-2013, 12:39 PM

from Attridge's notes on Nag Hammadi

9.5-6*unceiled(eMN MeAurr 2Tcuoy): As ed. pr. (61) suggest, the Coptic probably translates the Greek ἄστεγος , which can mean both "without a roof,unceiled," and "incapable of holding.

stephan huller · 03-29-2013, 12:53 PM

On the metaphorical significance of 'roofless' with prophecy cf. Philo De Fuga 191:

Quote:

When, then, is it without a guardian? Is it not when the sight is without any covering (ἄστεγος), being poured forth upon the objects of sight; and when the hearing is without a covering (ἄστεγος), being occupied in drinking in all kinds of sounds; and when the sense of smell is uncovered (ἄστεγος), and the kindred powers are left to themselves, and so are most ready to suffer whatever the invading enemy may be disposed to inflict? And that speech is uncovered and uttered which speaks ten thousand things in an unseasonable manner, without any thing to restrain its impetuosity; therefore flowing on unrestrainedly, it overturns many noble purposes and plans of life which were previously sailing on erect as though in calm weather.

A prophetic movement would seemingly be more at home in a roofless house it would seem.

Chili · 03-29-2013, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It is worth noting that the paralytic narrative in the synoptics has a reference to "unroofing the roof" i.e. taking off the roof to make it more like a Mosaic tabernacle. I think this is an important clue as to the house being or becoming some sort of temple or shrine in the early Church. The Apocryphon of James makes reference to the Dosithean obsessions being passed on to earliest Christianity:

Quote:

Therefore, I say to you, be sober; do not be deceived! And many times have I said to you all together, and also to you alone, James, have I said, 'Be saved!' And I have commanded you to follow me, and I have taught you what to say before the archons. Observe that I have descended and have spoken and undergone tribulation, and carried off my crown after saving you. For I came down to dwell with you, so that you in turn might dwell with me. And, finding your houses unceiled, I have made my abode in the houses that could receive me at the time of my descent."

I see, that sounds like Cargo Cult material where riches from heaven comes down from the sky and those people took the roof from their house so they would get some too . . . but got rained out instead.

Now lately here they are building runways that one of those big Jets can land there too, and harbors maybe so those big ocean vessels can unload there too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

stephan huller · 03-29-2013, 09:00 PM

More on the Marcionite interest in Gerizim from Ephrem's Against Marcion Book 1. On the Transfiguration narrative i.e. 'the high mountain' (= epithet of Gerizim):

Quote:

But concerning Moses and Elijah who were found on the mountain in company with Isu, what do they (i.e. the Marcionites) say that they were doing in his presence ? But they say that they were guardians (= shamar viz. 'Samaritans). there. And what. pray, were they guarding (= shamar), since there was nothing on the mountain?

The Samaritans identify Gerizim as Eden (= Pummer "Eden was on Mount Gerizim" http://books.google.com/books?id=_iM...0eden&f=false; "It also appears that the Samaritans made Gerizim, as the Mount of the World, the site of the Garden of Eden, an identification which has its roots in the antique book of Ezekiel where Mountain of God and Eden are identical http://books.google.com/books?id=eIh...0eden&f=false; the idea is first referenced in Marqe [who else!]) so when Ephrem continues with his next line only the ignorant can't see what is being discussed:

Quote:

And if there had been anything on it, the Maker would have had the Cherub and the point of the sword with which to surround the mountain.

Next line in Ephrem makes the identification with Gerizim even clearer when we add reference to the 'sanctuary':

Quote:

And if because Isu was a stranger to Him (i.e. to the Maker) they were guarding (= shamar) the mountain for Him, then, as between the mountain and the sanctuary (= Beth El near Shechem), which of them was greater to the Maker, that He should cease to guard (= shamar) His city and His sanctuary and send them (i.e. Moses and Elijah) to guard (= shamar) a mountain in which there was nothing ?

Ephrem goads the Marcionites into explaining again what Jesus the Stranger was doing on the 'mountain of the Creator' (= Gerizim):

Quote:

If He did not set forth [P.88.] some symbol there for us, let them tell us what such persons as Moses and Elijah were doing there. And if they say, 'You are asking us concerning your own (affairs) also,' then leave that (question) of ours as to what they were doing, and tell us (?) your own (opinion), namely on what account Isu went up thither. Was it in order to fight that he went up thither ? . . . did he make war against the Maker or . . . ? . . .

Text becomes fragmentary (could be restored with new technology) but notice that there are 'myriad of angels' on the aforementioned mountain of the Creator (Gerizim = the gate of Heaven Gen 28:17 where the ladder with angels descending and ascending were seen):

Quote:

These [two, why] were they sent ? For the Maker had myriads [l. 46.] of angels, if to make war [He desired] ... Or were they with [P. 89.] him to say to him (i.e. to Isu) : "If thou art really buying, in order to buy mankind,29 what is the price of mankind ? And if thou art taking mankind, why didst thou beforehand take the Twelve and the Seventy -two from the [flock] 30 of another ? . . . 31 Or can it be that thou art taking mankind [l. 12.] hence ? And art thou not, lo, he that said that before the foundation of the world thou knewest them ? 32 Why then didst thou not take them before, when as yet [thou didst not intend to [1. 27.] buy ?]"... If again they returned and said to him "[As for] mankind, because thou art about to buy them, if thou didst take them beforehand, nothing hinders (?) :

Then we get into the description of the mountain as a heavenly ladder (references emboldened):

Quote:

this mountain that thou hast gone up—and why ?—was this mountain also really required for thee ? And if it is required for thee, give the price of it, seeing thou hast gone up ; and if it is not intended by thee to buy the mountain, get down off it; why wilt thou stir up enmity for thyself with the Maker about nothing ? But the price of mankind will not be found by thee to give to the Maker, for He has given no pledge." If such words were [P. 90.] put forward (lit. were in the midst), and things similar to them, [then] it was for war that they had come to him. But if Isu came to (wage) war, he was not a good Being, for he did not purchase ... it would not be right for a good Being to injure, [l. 14.] much less those whom he had not yet even purchased ! And were it not that our Maker is good and there is no end to his kindness, He would surely, not have trusted the Stranger so as to give him men to accompany him, when as yet he had not paid their price to Him. Or was there, forsooth, a bargain ? And did Isu say to the Maker, 'Give me men, and I will not depart from Thy house, that is, Thy creation, until I pay Thee their price ' ? And did not the Maker learn from the descent of Isu that he was also to ascend, so that as there was no one who perceived him when he came down, in like manner he would remove those whom he wished to purchase and carry (them) off without any one perceiving him ? But perhaps the Maker [p. 91.] said to him these very things, and Isu returned answer to Him and said to Him, 'If I carry (them) off, as Thou thinkest, in virtue of that which I did when coming down, those souls which I am purchasing from Thee, how can I take them up without Thy consent ?'

There is clearly a going down and up on the 'mountain of the Creator' which is 'guarded' by the Patriarchs of the Israelite religion just as you would expect with Gerizim. Moreover the Transfiguration narrative is clearly understood to parallel the traditional Samaritan understanding of the glory resting in the Sanctuary of their traditional religion. Ephrem continues:

Quote:

And that we may not explore too far into the perverse tale of Marcion, this pact that Moses, etc., agreed on with the Stranger in the mountain,—the glory moreover, which He shewed them in the mountain, for what purpose (was it shewn) ? Can it be |lxii (that it was done) in order that He might shew them that what He gave was greater than what He received ? Then also Moses, etc., sold themselves to Him there, on account of that surpassing glory which they saw. And perhaps Isu too shewed them that glory on the mountain in order to incite Moses, etc., so that because Moses and Elijah were accustomed to that surpassing vision of the Maker Isu shewed them that (his glory) surpassed that of the Maker, in order that they might desire it eagerly on [P. 92.] account of its surpassing character. Well, then, in short, they made a bargain with him, because they had loved him.

Again Jesus is understood to have not only descended down the ladder on the mountain in the Marcionite gospel narrative but also went up the ladder after the Transfiguration:

Quote:

And if thou sayest that neither for a sale nor for a bargain had Moses, etc., come to Him, then why had they come to Him ? Can it be that they had come to fight ? And very likely It is that men would come to fight against God ! And which of them is it who strikes (the blow), or which is it who is struck ? Or did he on this account take his Apostles with him and cause them to ascend (the mountain), in order that they might wage war with the Prophets ? And which of the sides conquered there or lost ? But that battle, what was it for ? Can it have been on account of the love of their Gods ? And why would not those Gods themselves contend for the love of mankind ? For if the Gods are at peace, why do they contend about mankind ? . . . [l. 39.] For if created things are from One, unadvisedly did Isu [1.42.] interpose, ... If they say that in truth the Stranger went up to heaven, see how much the Maker despised him and . . .

The Marcionite Transfiguration narrative not only has Jesus ascend (as in the Apocalypse of Peter) but features only two figures (presumably Jesus and Peter) and three patriarchs:

Quote:

against his disciples and against him [who said], 'This is my Son and my Beloved,' 33 [for] He had sent only two against them. the Maker's or the Stranger's ? And if they did not suffer, why did the Maker not come against him ? Or can it be that He really knew that Moses, etc., would be sufficient to meet the attack of the Stranger, and therefore He did not come ? For lo, even the Stranger did not contend with them, and it is clear that he really perceived that they were stronger than he, and on that account he remained quiet (and refrained) from engaging in battle. And as to his preparing battle with the Maker, if [his desires hankered] 34 after men, why was he [lo,] unable to [P. 94.] create this ? And if to create men he was too weak, how much more was he too weak to wage war against God ! Again, the Stranger who proclaimed there, 'This is my Son and my Beloved,' whom did He wish to cause to hear (it) ? Can it be that He was calling to Moses, etc., that He might make them His disciples ? Or that He might warn them not to say anything to him (i.e. to Isu) ?

It is well established that "This is my Son and my Beloved" is a variant of the more traditional "this is my beloved Son." Ephrem takes this as being directed at two different people (i.e. not just Jesus). Who the other person is anyone's guess.

In what immediately follows we go back to the main theme of descending and ascending on the heavenly ladder at Gerizim. Ephrem says of the God who spoke on the mountain:

Quote:

And from which heavens did He call ? Was it from the heaven of the Maker ? And why did He descend to it ? If, as it were, on account of the aforesaid Maker the Stranger descended to it, then He did not snatch away men only but also the heaven. Or can it be that the Stranger purchased the angels who were in the heaven together with the heaven ? But if those who were above were not purchased by Him, why did He pass through their abodes ? But if (the voice) came that it might be a witness to the Son, who had no witness on earth, lo ! seeing that the voice came from the heaven of the Maker, who is to tell us that he is not the Son of the Maker, in a case where the voice which came was coming from the heaven of the Maker, especially when the mountain was the mountain of the Maker, and the cloud of Moses, etc., belonged to the Maker, and the prophets likewise who were on the mountain of the Maker ?

It is impossible not to acknowledge that the Marcionites understood the Samaritan holy mountain to have central significance in their gospel. The narrative had Jesus descend down Gerizim the mountain, transform himself and go back up to heaven at the end of the narrative. He continues in what follows to say:

Quote:

For if the voice had come from the heaven of the Stranger perhaps it would have been reasonable for us to think that in order that mankind might not be mistaken, owing to the mountain and the cloud and Moses, etc., on that account the voice was coming to them from the heaven of the Stranger, so as to overthrow the opinion which they had concerning Isu. But if even the voice which came was from the heaven of the Maker, it did not by any means disown him (by asserting) that he was not the Son of the Maker, but it actually confirmed it that he is the Son of the Maker, and the servants of his Father's house, who had come to do him honour, were witnesses (thereto).

But most significant of all - and perhaps least understood - is the fact that Philo understands that Jacob changed gods at this mountain at Gerizim. In other words, when Jacob says 'the Lord will be my God' (Gen 28:21) this was taken by Philo, Clement and the Targums as the manifestation of another God - the god Chrestos, the kind god - who adopted Jacob in a rite that was taken over by the early Christians. Ephrem writes:

Quote:

let us turn to the question of purchase. Explain to us then, What is the purchase which the Stranger made, and from whom did He purchase it ? And, moreover, by means of what did He purchase it ? And that thing by means of which he purchased that which He purchased, of what nature was it ? Was that which He gave of the nature of the aforesaid Good Being, or did He really create (something) and give (it) ? And was not that which the Stranger created fairer than that which the Maker created for Himself ? And if that which He (i.e. the Stranger) created for Himself was fairer, why did He [P. 97] sell unadvisedly and become a laughing-stock ? And if that which He gave was something smaller, the weakness of the Stranger was seen in His creative action. And how was the wise Just Being persuaded to give to the Stranger something great in return [P.98. 17] for something small ? . . . Was it . . . bodies that are from HULE that he bought, or souls ? And if it was souls, |lxv then why [did he not buy] the bodies ? . . . they say that [l. 32.] because the souls had been polluted (lit. had become turbid) He came to purify them. But if those souls were not polluted, then did not the Stranger who purchased them make a. mistake about them ? And even if the souls were polluted, on which account he came to buy them, [was he not alien to their nature ?]

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * * [P. 99.]

And if they should say that 'He purifies the nature of [l. 8.] the Souls' . . . because 'a fire is kindled in mine anger and [l. 19.] it will burn unto the lowest Sheol.' 35 If He is a nature from whom fire is kindled and it then consumes Him in His turn, (in the case of) everything else which is found to belong to that nature fire will therefore be kindled from it and will then consume it in its turn. For if thou bringest some of the water of the sea into a royal city bitterness is (still) in it. And so too. the souls which (come) from the Maker are polluted as the source (lit. root) from which those souls came is polluted. For it is unlikely that they will say that the fruits are changed when the root of the fruits is not changed. And if they say that that root [P. 100.] also is changed, then how did He (i.e. the Stranger) not exert Himself in the case of the root as in the case of the fruits, that the perfect goodness of the Stranger might be proclaimed ? But the Apostle says,36 'Eve shall live on account of her children' : then the Maker will have lived on account of the souls which (came) from Him. Or did the Maker not wish to live thus ? And how did the souls which (came) from Him consent to live ? But if the nature of the souls is the same, their will also is the |lxvi same. And if their will is different, their nature also is strange, and they are not from the Maker. And let them tell us whence are those souls ; for it is probable that they are not from the Maker. For He would not sell them (if they were really His), because He would not hate His own nature and love a nature which was not His own. " And if He was selling His nature for something which was not akin to His nature, there is a great kinship between Him and the Stranger, for lo ! one affection is found in both of them ; and moreover one will belongs to both [P. 101.] of them, namely that the Just One should love the nature of the Stranger and sell some of His possessions to Him, and that the Stranger should love the nature of the Just One and purchase from Him. And it will also be (considered) that that nature of the Just One, which is bought as being something precious, surpasses (the other) ; for if the nature of the Just One were not more excellent than that of the Stranger, the Stranger would not have actually purchased it. But what did the Stranger give to those whom He purchased ? And if He gave them a kingdom, can it be that He gave them one greater than that of Elijah and Enoch ? And why then did He not bring with Him some of His good things hither also ? Or (was it) because our domain is not worthy of them, (and) did He on that account not even introduce them into our domain ? In that case they are greater than the aforesaid Isu, inasmuch as our domain is worthy of Isu and unworthy of His (i.e. the Stranger's) good things. And if (it was) in order that they might not be denied, then he (i.e. Isu) was denied when he entered our domain. . . .

stephan huller · 03-29-2013, 09:46 PM

Notice that when the Marcionite 'purchase' (= redemption) rite is mentioned the individual is somehow 'bought' from the Just God (= Yahweh) to the Kind God (= Chrestos) in a manner that approximates Philo's understanding of what happened to Jacob at Bethel:

Quote:

"But," it is said, "He paid our debt by His death." But know that we owed a real debt: if therefore He died in reality, He also paid our debt in reality ; but if it was in appearance that He died, that debt of ours also was paid in by a fraud. Yet know that the Good One also was pleased by this deception, that He should come and pay our debt by a fraud. Yet He who is just and mighty is not mocked, for in virtue of His justice He does not act wrongly and in virtue of His might He is not mocked. For the Just One would not act [P. 132.] wrongly so as to come, when our debt has been paid, and demand the paid debt afresh, nor again would the Mighty One be mocked, so to allow His real possessions to be snatched from Him, without receiving anything real in exchange for His real possessions. "But," it is said, "though the Just One is mighty, the Good One is nevertheless mightier than He." If therefore He overcame Him by might, how 7 do they bring in the term 'purchase'? [Ephrem Book Three]

and again a little later (making reference to actual things the Marcionites apparently said in Edessa at the time of Ephrem:

Quote:

But if they say that the Just One did not perceive the Good One, (I reply) 'And how was it that that Good and Humble One came to purchase something which its owner did not wish to sell—something which it did not even enter His mind to sell ?' But if they say something that pleases them they must hear something that does not please them. For it pleases them to say this, that this Just One did not perceive that Good One ; but it does not please them that some man should say concerning that Good One that He robs with violence

and again:

Quote:

But this (statement) which does not please them is derived from that (statement) which pleases them. For if the Just One did not perceive the Good One, He therefore did not even contemplate the selling of His possessions to Him, for lo, He did not even perceive that He (i.e. the Good One) existed ! But if He did not perceive Him and moreover did not contemplate the selling (of anything) to Him, it necessarily follows that if He sold (anything) He was compelled by force to sell that which He did not [P. 137.] wish to sell. But perhaps they may say that even if the Good One compelled the Just One by force it was only for our salvation that He compelled Him by force. Know that in this respect He was on a level with all robbers. For he also who goes forth to take by robbery a possession that is not his own puts pressure on the possessor by reason of his love for the possession ; and, in a word, all those who take away things from their owners; it is because of the love which they have for the things themselves that they grieve the heart of their possessors. But they say, "Even if the Good One put pressure on the Just One by snatching us from Him, He only took us to Himself in a loving manner."

stephan huller · 03-29-2013, 10:01 PM

More on Jesus descending by a ladder from Gerizim to heaven in Ephrem. This time Third Discourse Against the Teachings:

Quote:

But if that boundary was capable of being crossed so that also the Stranger crossed it and came down to us, as they say, and the Souls also rent it asunder and ascended, as they falsely state, then (it follows that) a boundary which could be crossed would not be able to prevent the Maker from going up to the Domain of the Stranger. If, therefore, when he was able to go up he was unwilling to trample down the boundary of his Companion, he is a God who is worthy of praise, since even those things which he (i.e., Marcion) has invented, redound (lit., cry out) to his praise. But if he had the will to go up, and the Stranger above [L. 39.] allowed him, let them show us why. . . . And if the Good (Being) was guarding himself, he was verily afraid lest he (i.e., the Maker) should injure him. And how did he who was afraid in his own Domain, come to the Domain of the Maker to struggle with him? And if he guarded his freedom that there should be no Strife and [P. 47.] Contention between him and his neighbour, let his Heralds be despised who make him quarrelsome and contentious. And if they say that the Maker did not perceive the Stranger, it is unlikely. For how did he not perceive him when he was his neighbour? And if they say that he was far from him, infinitely far, if it was a mountain immeasurable and an endless path, and a vast extent without any limit, then how was that Stranger able to proceed and come down the immeasurable mountain, and (through) a dead region in which there was no living air, and (across) a bitter waste which nothing had ever crossed? And if they make the improbable statement that "the Stranger like a man of war was able to come," well if he came as a man of war--[though he did not come], (take the case of) those weak Souls whom he brought up hence, how were these sickly ones able to travel through all that region which God their Maker and Creator was not able to traverse, as they say?

Surely the Maker could reach the Domain of the Stranger.

And if they say that these were able but their Maker was not, if they say anything they like, they must hear something they dislike, (namely), that if the Soul, which is all the creation of this Creator, was strong enough so that with the strength of the Stranger, it was able to cross and to go, and did not remain |liii anywhere (?) on that immeasurable journey, how much more able [P. 48, l.13.] would the Creator be to go, not only up to the Domain of the Stranger, but even to explore the other regions inside of it, if there were any there! . . . [Thou mayest know that the system of statements which they make is impossible.] For (being) a Person who grows not old nor ever dies or grows weary, who has no need of a conveyance of any kind, and requires no food,--and in that Domain there were no walls to hinder him,--how was the Maker hindered from travelling to see what was above him, (to see) whether that Domain was empty or had something in it or not? But if he reached the heavens of the Stranger, even if he did not actually enter he must have struck them to see what they were or whose they were.

The Samaritans think the top of Mount Gerizim is missing and located in heaven and likely = Eden.

stephan huller · 03-29-2013, 11:22 PM

Gerizim, they say, is the highest mountain in the world (though Ebal is 200 feet higher), and Gerizim alone was not covered by the Flood. http://books.google.com/books?id=cmw...overed&f=false

To the Samaritans of two hundred years ago, or even later, Mount Gerizim was the highest mountain in the world, the only one not covered by the flood, and the place where the Ark rested. It was the earth’s center, and on it altars were erected by Adam, Seth and Noah. In this neighbourhood was the meeting place for God’s temple. There Joshua erected altar, tabernacle and temple, and there were set up the twelve stones in whose coating of plaster were engraven the words of the Law. In its neighbourhood was the well of Jacob, the tomb of Joseph, and at ‘Awartah, seven miles away, were the burial places of Eleazar, Ithamar, and Phinehas. http://shomron0.tripod.com/articles/...ndextracts.pdf

with the Samaritan who insisted that Mt. Gerizim was not covered. A donkey driver refuted the Samaritan with the phrase "all the high mountains were covered." [Gen 4. 32.10; Deut. R.3.6; Cant. R. 4. 4]

The argument also develops again from the idea that the top of the mountain was in the highest heavens as Eden and Eden escaped the Flood

stephan huller · 03-29-2013, 11:42 PM

On Jesus the Samaritan in the Marcionite tradition

Roukema cites a seventh-century Syriac manuscript that appears to quote Marcion as saying, "Our Lord was not born from a woman, but stole the domain of the Creator and came down and appeared for the first time between Jerusalem and Jericho, like a human being in form and image and likeness, but without our body" (p. 57).

The point is not to say that Jesus came down between Jerusalem and Jericho but that Jesus came down as a Samaritan or the Samaritan in the parable (cf. Origen's Commentary where he identifies Jesus as the Samaritan. Note that he cites the opinion of an elder:

One of the elders wanted to interpret the parable as follows. The man who was going down is Adam. Jerusalem is paradise, and Jericho is the world. The robbers are hostile powers. The priest is the Law, the Levite is the prophets, and the Samaritan is Christ. The wounds are disobedience, the beast is the Lord’s body, the [inn], which accepts all who wish to enter, is the Church. … The manager of the [inn] is the head of the Church, to whom its care has been entrusted. And the fact that the Samaritan promises he will return represents the Savior’s second coming.[

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

03-29-2013, 12:39 PM	#43
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	from Attridge's notes on Nag Hammadi 9.5-6*unceiled(eMN MeAurr 2Tcuoy): As ed. pr. (61) suggest, the Coptic probably translates the Greek ἄστεγος , which can mean both "without a roof,unceiled," and "incapable of holding.

03-29-2013, 11:22 PM	#49
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Gerizim, they say, is the highest mountain in the world (though Ebal is 200 feet higher), and Gerizim alone was not covered by the Flood. http://books.google.com/books?id=cmw...overed&f=false To the Samaritans of two hundred years ago, or even later, Mount Gerizim was the highest mountain in the world, the only one not covered by the flood, and the place where the Ark rested. It was the earth’s center, and on it altars were erected by Adam, Seth and Noah. In this neighbourhood was the meeting place for God’s temple. There Joshua erected altar, tabernacle and temple, and there were set up the twelve stones in whose coating of plaster were engraven the words of the Law. In its neighbourhood was the well of Jacob, the tomb of Joseph, and at ‘Awartah, seven miles away, were the burial places of Eleazar, Ithamar, and Phinehas. http://shomron0.tripod.com/articles/...ndextracts.pdf with the Samaritan who insisted that Mt. Gerizim was not covered. A donkey driver refuted the Samaritan with the phrase "all the high mountains were covered." [Gen 4. 32.10; Deut. R.3.6; Cant. R. 4. 4] The argument also develops again from the idea that the top of the mountain was in the highest heavens as Eden and Eden escaped the Flood

03-29-2013, 11:42 PM	#50
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	On Jesus the Samaritan in the Marcionite tradition Roukema cites a seventh-century Syriac manuscript that appears to quote Marcion as saying, "Our Lord was not born from a woman, but stole the domain of the Creator and came down and appeared for the first time between Jerusalem and Jericho, like a human being in form and image and likeness, but without our body" (p. 57). The point is not to say that Jesus came down between Jerusalem and Jericho but that Jesus came down as a Samaritan or the Samaritan in the parable (cf. Origen's Commentary where he identifies Jesus as the Samaritan. Note that he cites the opinion of an elder: One of the elders wanted to interpret the parable as follows. The man who was going down is Adam. Jerusalem is paradise, and Jericho is the world. The robbers are hostile powers. The priest is the Law, the Levite is the prophets, and the Samaritan is Christ. The wounds are disobedience, the beast is the Lord’s body, the [inn], which accepts all who wish to enter, is the Church. … The manager of the [inn] is the head of the Church, to whom its care has been entrusted. And the fact that the Samaritan promises he will return represents the Savior’s second coming.[

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.