Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 02-20-2013, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Yes, but it is also self-sacrifice if he is doing it for others.

But does God have a self?

stephan huller · 02-20-2013, 10:12 PM

Quote:

But there are a number of core conceptions - like the resurrection of the dead - which are completely absent from the Pentateuch.

The Pentateuch is of higher authority than Daniel.

aa5874 · 02-20-2013, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Yes, that would put it in a different light. Jesus displayed a certain amount of hubris, a tragic flaw, which led to his downfall and death.

So let's look at gMark as a play, a Greek Tragedy. When we do this, we begin to see that the audience plays a much greater role in the story than even the disciples...

The short gMark is NOT a Greek tradegy. There is no tragic flaw in the story.

Jesus in the story taught his disciples that he was going to be Killed and then RESURRECT.

A tragedy does not result in a Predicted and accomplished Resurrection.

The short gMark turns out be probably the most fascinating story in the history of mankind where for about 2000 years people have duped themselves, literally deceived themselves, into believing a complete fiction story is history.

Nowhere in the short gMark does the author claim that he was writing history and all his accounts of Jesus are total fiction or implausible yet authors of the Canon have INVENTED blatant fictional birth narratives and post-resurrection accounts that could not be true and hudreds of years later people still accept corroborated and multiple attested fiction as history.

We can see that the short gMark story was ALTERED and that initially there was NO claim whatsoever that Jesus would be Killed as a Sacrifice for the Remission of Sins yet 2000 years later even those who claim they are NOT Christians are mis-representing the short gMark exactly as the authors of the Canon

There is absolutely no need to add anything to the short gMark. The story is complete. Jesus went up to Jerusalem, he was Killed and he Resurrected.

short gMark 8

Quote:

31 And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be put to death, and rise after three days.

short gMark

Quote:

9 31 For he taught his disciples and said to them that the Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and when he has been killed he will rise after three days.

32 But they understood not the saying, and were afraid to ask him.

short gMark 10

Quote:

33 Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered to the chief of priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles,

34 And they shall mock him, and spit upon him, and scourge him, and put him to death, and after three days he shall rise.

The story is Finished. Jesus was Killed and he Resurrected.

short gMark 16

Quote:

6 But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified; he has risen, he is not here..

The short gMark can no longer be interpolated and manipulated.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

Quote:

....there would be two advents of His,--one in which He was pierced by you; a second, when you shall know Him whom you have pierced...

Aristides' Apology

Quote:

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High........But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried ; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven.

Tertullian's Answer to the Jews

Quote:

A second time, in fact, let us show that Christ is already come, (as foretold) through the prophets, and has suffered, and is already received back in the heavens, and thence is to come accordingly as the predictions prophesied.

For, after His advent, we read, according to Daniel, that the city itself had to be exterminated

The short gMark Jesus is about the fulfillment of prophesy in Hebrew Scripture.

The Jews Pierced Jesus, the Son of God, and Jerusalem was exterminated and the Temple Fell according to the prophets of God.

spin · 02-21-2013, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

A messiah is specifically a person who will save the Jews through military intervention at the head of an army. Forgetting that part just indicates that the term is only essential to the dogma for its historical necessity.

I value the Jewish Encyclopedia's opinions more highly than yours spin, and they say you are just dead wrong about this.

I don't care any more, TedM. You've proven to me that you will not read and that you are beyond repair. I didn't ask you to copy and past any fucking thing. How many times do I have to ask you to present your own stuff, not other people's opinions, other internet site's stuff, what your sunday school teacher taught you, or the wisdom you found scrawled on the toilet wall. You just cannot do it. You're unable to respond to what people ask of you. You will not think. You won't open a book that's of any use.

I asked you at least five times to present materials that reflect messianism in the HB that you would stick by but you wouldn't do that, you couldn't do that, preferring the easy way of copying and pasting someone else's work, someone who is not here to respond for themselves. And, because you didn't have the decency to read my post #62 of this thread, you don't even know that I have responded to the antiquarian crap below about Isa 9:6. The stuff even indicates that scholars were in disagreement with the writer in 1906.

You just want authorities who support your views to hold your hand. Hence you have the audacity to say to me "I value the Jewish Encyclopedia's opinions more highly than yours spin". Don't you understand, I want you think for yourself? Instead, you are insulting the both of us by functionally saying you aren't prepared to think for yourself and do your own analysis, so you won't even entertain whatever it is I said.

:hitsthefan:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Please tell me why I should pay attention to your narrow definition of a Messiah and not continue in my belief that a broader perspective was held:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar.../10729-messiah

Quote:

But though the name is of later origin, the idea of a personal Messiah runs through the Old Testament. It is the natural outcome of the prophetic future hope. The first prophet to give a detailed picture of the future ideal king was Isaiah (ix. 1-6, xi. 1-10, xxxii. 1-5). Of late the authenticity of these passages, and also of those passages in Jeremiah and Ezekiel which give expression to the hope in a Messiah, has been disputed by various Biblical scholars (comp. Hackmann, "Die Zukunftserwartung des Jesaiah"; Volz, "Die Vorexilische Jahweprophetie und der Messias"; Marti, "Gesch. der Israelitischen Religion," pp. 190 et seq.; idem, "Das Buch Jesaia"; Cheyne, "Introduction to Isaiah," and edition and transl. of Isaiah in "S. B. O. T.").

The objections of these scholars, however, rest principally on the hypothesis that the idea of the Messiah is inseparably bound up with the desire for universal dominion, whereas, in reality, this feature is not a characteristic of the Messianic hope until a later stage of its development. The ideal king to whom Isaiah looks forward will be a scion of the stock of Jesse, on whom will rest the spirit of God as a spirit of wisdom, valor, and religion, and who will rule in the fear of God, his loins girt with righteousness and faithfulness (xi. 1-3a, 5). He will not engage in war or in the conquest of nations; the paraphernalia of war will be destroyed (ix. 4); his sole concern will be to establish justice among his people (ix. 6b; xi. 3b, 4). The fruit of his righteous government will be peace and order throughout the land. The lamb will not dread the wolf, nor will the leopard harm the kid (xi. 8); that is, as the following verse explains, tyranny and violence will no longer be practised on God's holy mountain, for the land will be full of the knowledge of God as the water covers the sea (comp. xxxii. 1, 2, 16). The people will not aspire to political greatness, but will lead a pastoral life (xxxii. 18, 20). Under such ideal conditions the country can not but prosper, nor need it fear attack from outside nations (ix. 6a, xxxii. 15). The newly risen scion of Jesse will stand forth as a beacon to other nations, and they will come to him for guidance and arbitration (xi. 10). He will rightly be called "Wonderful Counselor," "Godlike Hero," "Constant Father," "Prince of Peace" (ix. 5).

Quote:

I don't want your thanks. I want you to admit that you will use anything to try to force your religious prejudices or pacify your apologetic obligations. It doesn't matter what anachronism you use, if someone at some time said something you can throw, you'll use it.

I won't admit something that isn't true. In my mind the future period of peace and prosperity prophecied in the OT is a period ushered in by the Messiah, and called the Messianic age. In some cases that involves a military leader, in others it doesn't appear to require one. Sins and salvation of the people are closely tied to their suffering and the hoped for removal of suffering for all time. Others don't seem to be future related but since they were believed to be written by David, were seen to apply to a future Messiah since he was to be 'like' David and from his line..

You have made claims and pointed me to a recent scholar that suggest the Messianic expectation was much more narrow. Unless we have a book from the time of Jesus that clearly purports to examine all of the then-current thinking regarding the expected Messiah and his attributes and purpose I don't know why I should consider your view or the scholar that you mentioned to be doing anything other than speculating. Can you tell me what you are bringing to the table other than arguments from silence that seem to be contradicted by not only the usage of passages within that same century but by the Jewish Encyclopedia?

I don't automatically accept your authority on this spin even though I know you have a much greater knowledge of many subjects than myself. I need you to convince me that you know what you are talking about.

It's not a matter of authority. It's a matter of you using your brains and making a reasoned analysis. I never asked you to accept anything other than your responsibility to read and evaluate logically.

jakejonesiv · 02-21-2013, 12:19 AM

I will suggest that the gospel known as Mark (or urMark) was written as a gnostic allegory with secret teachings hidden in plain sight, that gnostic exegesis was baked in. It was the outer teaching of a mystery cult, and only initiates were privy to the inner teachings.

We are warned, from nearly the beginning of the gospel that everything is told in parables, so that outsiders will be damned:
"But unto them on the outside, everything is told in
parables that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and
hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time
they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven
them." Mark 4:11b-12.

The Gospel according to Mark is clearly adoptionist, with Jesus being possessed by the Spirit at the baptism (Mark 1:10ff). It is at this moment that Jesus becomes the Son of God (Mark 1:11, cf Psalm 2:7). This was confirmed by Irenaeus who stated that Mark was favored by “those who separate Jesus from Christ”

The Gospel according to Mark is a very curious document. The Latinisms in it indicate that it was likely written (or redacted from an earlier Alexandrian version) by a Latin speaking author writing for a Roman audience. It is quite obvious that the gospel in its current form was not written from scratch by a single author. For example, the woman who anointed Jesus was to be forever remembered for her deed. But her name has been deleted from the extant version for what must have been a compelling reason.

The apostles and family of Jesus are disparaged as incompetent dunces, and they are surrounded by minor characters who know far more than they do! Gnostics!?

The woman who anoints Jesus for death, the owner of the ass, the man carrying water (14:13), the owner of the house (14:14) where Jesus and the Twelve (14:17) took Passover, the man who fled naked, the young man at the tomb (not an angel); these all had more knowledge than the alleged family, disciples, and women who went to the tomb.

This is a not-so-veiled attack on the churches that claimed legitimacy from succession from these very same groups. The disciples led by Peter are the proxies of the proto-orthodox. The aleged family of Jesus are proxies for the followers of James. This is indication of an originally Gnostic gospel that had been somewhat sanitized for the orthodox. No, Mark as we have it is very far from the first gospel. We are well into the second half of the second century before it achieves its final form.

Canonical Mark (including short gMark) is the deliberate redaction of antenicean Church Fathers and their circles to refute heretical, Jewish and heathen attacks against proto-Orthodoxy, and to establish a church discipline.

The legend of Judas is unknown before Irenaeus. We find no mention of the arch betrayer in Justin or the Gospel of Peter, which according to JDC incorporates material from a gospel more primitive than the canonical gospels. In GPeter, each of the Twelve in grief retires to their respective homes after the death of Jesus. Thus no member of the Twelve could have been the betrayer. Yet in Mark, we find Judas front and center, even though the crucial scene indicates an intermediate version in which the betrayer is nameless (14:24). And as RPrice has noted, why was one of the disciples the only one explicitly said to use a weapon (14:47) at the arrest of Jesus? Is this an indication of an even earlier version in which Jesus is captured by his disciples?

The most divisive doctrine of the heretics was that Jesus managed to escape literal crucifixion by some means. At Gethsemane (14:32), Jesus prays for this very outcome.
“Abba! Father! All things are possible for you; remove this cup from me!” 14:36.
We may be excused if we entertain the expectation that the Father would grant Jesus’ prayerful request.
But here is the bottom line. None of the disciples, who are the representatives of the proto-orthodox, could have witnessed this scene. They are all asleep.
But there is another secret witness afoot, who follows the arresting party from Gethsemane dressed only in grave clothes (14:51). Only he could have witnessed Jesus’ thrice fold plea to escape death. In Mark, there is a heretic behind every bush.

In Mark, the only person who could vouch that Jesus was really dead was Joseph of Arimathea (15:43), an otherwise unknown and secret follower of Jesus!

The disciples had all run away, and the women followers were at too great a distance (15:40) to confirm the events. The legend of Simon Magnus predates Mark, in the guise of Simon of Cyrene who carries the cross. From that point, straight thru the crucifixion it is all pronouns, so a literal reading would indicate that Simon was crucified in Jesus’ place. [of course the final catholic redaction of Mark obscures Jesus' escape]
This is further evidence that canonical Mark was derived from heretical sources. Indeed, the naming of Simon’s sons rather than his father indicates Gnostic leaders to later readers.

The use of the term “gospel” in the singular, meaning the good news about Christ, is uncontroversial in Justin. But in only one instance does Justin apparently equate the term _gospels_ (plural) with the memoirs of the apostles.

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter LXVI – of the Eucharist.

So just who did write urMark? I recommend the Basilideans.
It is a fact widely disregarded (or unknown) by Apologists that the heretics had their own traditions point for point with the proto-orthodox.

According to Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 7.106.4. Basilides was said to be a disciple of Glaucias, the interpreter (hermenea) of Peter. Since Clement knew and quoted Basilides' works, we can presume the claim goes back to Basilides himself. Clement dates Basilides vaguely to the reigns of Hadrian and Antonius Pius. This would make Papias and Basilides near contemporaries. (See Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham, page 237 ff).

Remember that, according to Eusebius, Papias said that Mark was the "hermeneutes" of Peter. So who is right, Eusebius (who was a known liar and had very reason to make it up) writing on Papias in the 4th century (Peter->Mark) or Clement as a hostile witness relying on Basilides in the early 3rd century (Peter-> Glaucias)?

Best regards,
Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv · 02-21-2013, 12:34 AM

I have noted before, with G.Bolland, the importance of Alexandria in gospel origins. Stephan has also had thoughts along these lines. The gospel traditions began in Alexandria (not Palestine) based on an allegorical method of interpretation of the Septuagint exemplified by Philo. Many sources point to Rome as the origin of the gospel by a certain Mark, but there are also traditions that link GMark strongly to Egypt. According to Eusebius EH 2.16.1, Mark’s gospel was first proclaimed in Egypt, and the establishment of the churches in Alexandria was linked to Mark’s gospel. Chrysostom speaks of Egypt as the place of composition ("Hom. I. on Matt.", 3). I would suggest that urMark was composed in Alexandria, and Mark was completed in Rome.

Irenaeus reports that Basilides professed this: "Jesus did not suffer, but a certain Simon of Cyrene was obliged to carry the cross in his place. It was he whom, by ignorance and error, was crucified, having been transfigured by Jesus, in order to take the place of Jesus. As for Jesus, he took the shape of Simon and stood aside and laughed at them." AH 1.24.3. A literal reading of the Gospel of Mark supports Basilides. Simon of Cyrene carried the cross, and it is pronouns all the way until he is crucified. Mark 15:21-24.

According to traditions set down by Clement of Alexandria, the Gnostics claimed apostolic authority that parallels the proto-orthodox claims. (Or perhaps it was the other way round!) "Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter. Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul." Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, book 7, chapter 17.
Basilides taught in Egypt just after the revolt of the Jews in 115-117 CE. He also was a pupil of Menander.

Clement of Alexandria states that Basilides rose up under Hadrian and continued unto the reign of Antonius Pius, which give Basilides a career of at least until 138 CE. This would have made him a contemporary with Valentinus who left Egypt for Rome between 136 and 140 CE. Basilides had 365 emanations from the unoriginating Father, before arriving at the angels who created the world. These angels rule the world and the chief of these is the god of the Jews. One is reminded of certain Pauline passages such as Ephesians 6:12, “For our struggle is not against human opponents, but against rulers, authorities, cosmic powers in the darkness around us, and evil spiritual forces in the heavenly realm.”

Basilides had a remarkable observation against the god of the Jews. He alleged that the world had been created by angels (not by the “Father without birth”). These angels divided up the nations between themselves in a manner very reminiscent of the "Old Testament" One of these angels was the one reputed to be “God of the Jews.” He stirred up so much trouble, that the other angels (i.e princes) turned against him, and likewise the nations of the world turned against the nation of the Jews. I think this opinion can be directly linked to the revolts of the Jews against Rome, especially the little known second revolt in North Africa. I think it is at this time the Gnostic Jews of Alexandria turned from Yahweh because of his seemingly utter inability to to protect his religion and his people from destruction by other nations. And in his place, they created a new savior, Christ.

“Those angels who occupy the lowest heaven, that, namely, which is visible to us, formed all the things which are in the world, and made allotments among themselves of the earth and of those nations which are upon it. The chief of them is he who is thought to be the God of the Jews; and inasmuch as he desired to render the other nations subject to his own people, that is, the Jews, all the other princes resisted and opposed him. Wherefore all other nations were at enmity with his nation.” AH 1.24.4.

Basilides believed that the Father sent Christ to bestow deliverance on them that believe in him. But Basilides make a sharp distinction between Christ and Jesus.There is a similarity here to the comment by Irenaeus AH 3.11.7 that the gospel of Mark was previously in the hands of those heretics "who separate Jesus from Christ." We should not be much suprised to find that Basilides had a gospel mentioned by Origen, (Homilies on Luke 1.1), Jerome, Ambrose, Philip of Side, and the Venerable Bede.

As I said above, I tie the appearance of Mark to the the second rebellion which started in Cyrenaica and spread across northern Africa against Trajan (115-117 CE). And then chapter 13 :the Littke Apocalypse" was added in the 130's CE at the time of the Bar Kotchba revolt.

We can read of the second revolt in Eusebius, Church History 4.2.1-5 and Dio Cassius Hist. Rom. 68.32.1-3. It was immediately after this revolt, and in this area, that the first full blown Gnostic teachers appeared in Alexandria, namely Basilides, Valentinius, Carpocrates and his son Epiphanes.

It is interesting that these leaders were all from (or strongly associated) with Alexandria in the 120's CE. Basilides was a native of Alexandria. Valentinius was born in the Nile delta, educated & taught in Alexandria and moved to Rome where he was nearly elected Bishop. (This indicates that the proto- orthodox rejection of Gnostic teaching was something that only gradually developed). Likewise Carpocrates was from Alexandria and used only the "Gospel of the Hebrews" another heretical gospel that predated the canonical gospels.

Away in the East, in the "wild" areas of Asia Minor, another movement was afoot about the same time as Basilides, or perhaps a decade or so before. Here we find the followers of the Great Apostle himself, who had disappeared over the horizon into legend long before, but who was wont to return to his churches when they needed him the most, in the form of terrifying epistles. Today we know him as Paul, but perhaps earlier he was Simon.[See R.Price Amazing Colossal Apostle). These two religions, spreading from Alexandria and Pontus respectively, would meet, compete, and merge in the middle to late second century CE.

And yet, we are not quite finished even yet! There was another great leader of the early second century whose followers may have been of more significance than either of the other two. He was supposed to be the writer of Revelation and the arch enemy of Paul. Of course, I speak of Cerinthus.

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

stephan huller · 02-21-2013, 12:40 AM

I agree with most of what you have written. The Marcionite gospel has Jesus coming down from heaven. I am stuck with what we should do with the baptism narrative in the synoptics. Was there something 'like a dove' coming from heaven in Mark originally? Or was this added later to obscure a Jesus-spirit coming on to someone else? In Epiphanius's account of the Marcionite gospel Jesus is said to 'have settled among' the apostles. The 'flying Jesus' also seems to have escaped the crowd of angry synagogue participants in this text and the Diatessaron. I find it hard to reconcile Jesus being adopted by Christ in any gospel narrative. But I also can't seem to find a way forward.

And why 'like a dove'? What a strange phrase. Wouldn't it be more natural to say 'like a bird'? Who would say the wind came 'like a bichon frise' as opposed to 'like a dog.' It's so ------ strange.

stephan huller · 02-21-2013, 12:48 AM

I can't help but think that dove is deliberately chose because it is symbolic of something or went back to some scriptural reference. Saadya translation of Genesis 15:11 is instructive here:

Quote:

He put the bird [singular] on the bodies and stirred them [by breathing on them], and they started moving

This passage is taken by the early rabbis as one of the most important references to resurrection in the Pentateuch. The word meaning “bird” in verse 10 is tsippor. In verse 11 it is ‘ayiṭ, which normally would mean an eagle, but can mean birds of prey collectively. It is highly unexpected here as a reference to a young dove. Some kind of transformation has clearly taken place to make a bar yonah (dove) emerge as an eagle ('ayit).

I wonder if this is somehow the source of the adoption reference involving something 'like a dove' in the gospel.

stephan huller · 02-21-2013, 01:07 AM

Philo on this same passage as a symbol of spirit being passed on to the body from Who is the Heir of Divine Things:

Quote:

Therefore, after he has said what is becoming on this subject, he proceeds to add, "But the birds he did not Divide;"{72}{#ge 15:10.} meaning, by the term birds, the two reasonings which are winged and inclined by nature to soar to the investigation of sublime subjects; one of them being the archetypal pattern and above us, and the other being the copy of the former and abiding among us. (231) And Moses calls the one which is above us the image of God, and the one which abides among us as the impression of that image, "For," says he, "God made man," not an image, "but after that Image."{73}{#ge 1:27.} So that the mind which is in each of us, which is in reality and truth the man, is a third image proceeding from the Creator. But the intermediate one is a model of the one and a copy of the other. (232) But by nature our mind is indivisible; for the Creator, having divided the irrational part of the soul into six portions, has made six divisions of it, namely, sight, taste, hearing, smelling, touch, and voice; but the rational part, which is called the mind he has left undivided, according to the likeness of the entire heaven. (233) For in this, also, there is a report that the outermost sphere, which is destitute of motion, is preserved without being divided, but that the inner one is divided into six portions, and thus completes the seven circles of what are called the planets; for I imagine the heaven is in the world the same thing that the soul is in the human being. They say, therefore, that these two natures, full of reason and comprehension--that, I mean, which exists in man and that which exists in the world--are both at all times entire and indivisible. On this account, therefore, it is that the scriptures tell us, "He did not divide the birds." (234) For our own mind is here compared to a dove, since that is a creature which is tame and domesticated among us; and the turtle dove is compared to the model presented by the other, that is to say, by the mind of the world, the heaven; for the word of God is fond of retirement, and solitude, and privacy; not mixing itself up with the crowd of things which have been created and will be destroyed, but being at all times accustomed to roam on high, and being anxious to be an attendant only on the one supreme Being. Therefore, the two natures are indivisible; the nature, I mean, of the reasoning power in us, and of the divine Word above us; but though they are indivisible themselves, they divide an innumerable multitude of other things. (235) For it is the divine Word which divided and distributed every thing in nature; and it is our own mind which divides every thing and every body which it comprehends, by the exertion of its intellect in an infinite manner, into an infinite number of parts, and which, in fact, never ceased from dividing. (236) And this happens by reason of its resemblance to the Creator and Father of the universe; for the divine nature, being unmingled, uncombined with any thing else, and most completely destitute of parts, has been to the whole world the cause of mixture, and combination, and of an infinite variety of parts: so that, very naturally, the two things which thus resemble each other, both the mind which is in us and that which is above us, being without parts and indivisible, will still be able in a powerful manner to divide and distribute all existing things.

XLIX. (237) Therefore, after Moses has mentioned the facts of birds not being cut in two pieces or divided, he proceeds to say, "And the birds came down and descended upon the bodies which were Divided;"{74}{#ge 15:11.} using indeed expressions which are synonymous, but still representing the variance which exists in the facts in a most visible manner to those who are able to see. For it is contrary to nature that birds should come down, when they have been given wings for the purpose of soaring on high. (238) For, as the earth is the most appropriate place for land animals, and above all for reptiles, which do not endure even to crawl upon it, but seek caves and lurking places, avoiding the regions which are above, on account of their kinship with the things which are below; so, in the same manner, the air is the appropriate abode for the winged race, the element which is by nature light is the proper home for those creatures which are light by reason of their being feathered. When, therefore, those creatures, whose nature it is to traverse the air and who ought to roam through the aether, descend and come down upon the land, they are unable to live a life according to their nature. (239) On the other hand, Moses approves, in no ordinary degree, of whatever reptiles are able to take a leap in an upward direction. At all events he says, "Ye shall eat of these winged reptiles which go upon four feet, and which have legs above their feet so as to be able by them to leap up from the Ground."{75}{#le 11:21.} But these reptiles are the emblems of souls, which like reptiles being rooted in the earthly body, when they are raised up, get strength to soar on high, taking the heaven in exchange for the earth, and immortality in exchange for destruction. (240) We must, therefore, think that they are full of every description of misery, which, having been brought up in the air, and in the aether which is the purest of all things, have changed their abode (not being able to bear the satiety of divine things), and have descended to that mortal and evil district, the earth. And there are innumerable imaginations concerning an innumerable variety of things which roam about upon it also; some voluntary, and some out of ignorance, which are in no respect different from winged creatures, and which Moses compares to the birds that come down. (241) And of these imaginations those which take the upward course belong to the better class, since virtue, which conducts the mind towards heaven and the divine country, travels with them. But those which take the downward course belong to the worse class, since wickedness guides them and drags them in the contrary direction by force. And their very names do, to a great extent, show the opposite character of the places. For virtue (areteµ) has derived its name not only from the word (airesis) choice, but also from the fact of its being lifted up (para to airesthai), for it is lifted up (airetai) and borne on high because it always loves heavenly things; but wickedness (kakia) is so called from its tendency to go downwards (apo tou katoµ kechoµreµkenai), and also because it compels those who practise it to fall down to the bottom (katapiptein). (242) Accordingly the thoughts of the soul which are at variance with one another, flying towards and descending upon the earth, both come down themselves and also throw the mind down too, mingling with bodies in a disgraceful degree, and with things which are perceptible by the outward senses, not discernible by the intellect, imperfect not entire, perishable and not living. For they mix themselves up not only with bodies, but also with the divisions of the bodies which have been divided in two parts. And it is quite impossible that things which have been divided in this way should ever again admit of adaptation and union; since the nerves of the spirit, which were the strongest natural bond in them, are cut in two.

L. (243) Moreover, Moses introduces a very true opinion when he teaches us that justice and every virtue loves the soul, but that wickedness and every vice is attached to the body; and that what is friendly to the one is in every case of necessity hostile to the other, as is the case even now. For having figuratively represented the wars of the soul, he then introduces birds as eager to involve themselves with and to cling to the bodies, and to satiate themselves with the flesh, the inroads and attacks of which the virtuous man, desiring to check, is said to sit by them as if he were a sort of curator or overseer of them.

And then Philo speaks of four kinds of delirium because of what is said of Abraham after this sign:

Quote:

"And about the setting of the sun a trance fell upon Abraham, and, behold, fear with great darkness fell upon Him."{76}{#ge 15:12.} Now there is one kind of trance which is sort of frantic delirium, causing infirmity of mind, either through old age, or melancholy, or some other similar cause. There is another kind which is excessive consternation, arising usually from things which happen suddenly and unexpectedly. Another kind is mere tranquility of the mind, arising when it is inclined by nature to be quiet: but that which is the best description of all is a divinely inspired and more vehement sort of enthusiasm, which the race of prophets is subject to.

So Philo says that Abraham receives the prophetic spirit from the birds coming down upon the dead carcasses:

Quote:

An instance of the fourth kind of trance is the one which we are now considering: "And about the setting of the sun a trance fell upon Abraham," he being thrown into a state of enthusiasm and inspired by the Deity. But this is not the only thing which shows him to have been a prophet

The sign is also a symbolic reference to the state of being a stateless people:

Quote:

And it is well to hear what the things are which are thus said to have been predicted to Abraham. In the first place, that God does not grant to the man who loves virtue to dwell in the body as in his own native land, but only to sojourn in it as in a foreign country. "For knowing," says the scripture, "thou shalt know that thy seed shall be sojourners in a land which is not Theirs."{89}{genesis 15:13.} But the district of the body is akin to every bad man, and in it he is desirous to abide as a dweller, not as a sojourner. (268) Accordingly, these words contain this as one lesson; another is, that the things which bring slavery and disaster and bitter humiliation, as the prophet himself tells us, upon the soul are the dwellings upon earth. For the affections of the body are truly spurious and foreign, being produced by the flesh, in which they are rooted. (269) And this slavery lasts four hundred years in accordance with the powers of the four passions.

And then the line which follows:

Quote:

Having said this much on these subjects, the historian proceeds: "And thou shalt depart to thy fathers, having lived in peace, in a good old Age."{#ge 15:15.}

Is understood to pertain to a heavenly ascent fulfilled by Jacob:

Quote:

Therefore, when he says "fathers," he means not those whose souls have departed from them, and who are buried in the tombs of the land of Chaldea; but, as some say, the sun, and the moon, and the other stars; for some affirm that it is owing to these bodies that the nature of all the things in the world has its existence. But as some other persons think he means the archetypal ideas, those models of these thing which are perceptible by the outward senses and visible; which models, however, are only perceptible by the intellect and invisible; and that it is to these that the mind of the wise man emigrates. (281) Some, again, have fancied that by "fathers," are here meant the four principles and powers of which the world is composed--the earth, the water, the air, and the fire; for they say, that all created things are very properly dissolved into these elements. (282) For as nouns, and verbs, and all the other parts of speech, consist of the elements of grammar, and again are resolvable into these ultimate principles, so, in the same manner, each individual among us, being compounded of the four elements, and borrowing small portions from each essence, does, at certain fixed periods, repay what he has borrowed, giving what he has dry to the earth, what moisture he has to the water, what heat he has to the fire, and what cold he has to the air. (283) These then are the things of the body; but the intellectual and heavenly race of the soul will ascend to the purest aether as to its father. For the fifth essence, as the account of the ancients tells us, may be a certain one, which brings things round in a cycle, differing from the other four as being superior to them, from which the stars and the whole heavens appear to be generated, and of which, as a natural consequence, one must lay it down that the human soul is a fragment.

stephan huller · 02-21-2013, 01:19 AM

In case you are wondering, Philo understands the dove to have come down and given 'spirit' to the dead carcasses:

Quote:

For our own mind is here compared to a dove, since that is a creature which is tame and domesticated among us; and the turtle dove is compared to the model presented by the other, that is to say, by the mind of the world, the heaven; for the word of God is fond of retirement, and solitude, and privacy; not mixing itself up with the crowd of things which have been created and will be destroyed, but being at all times accustomed to roam on high, and being anxious to be an attendant only on the one supreme Being. Therefore, the two natures are indivisible; the nature, I mean, of the reasoning power in us, and of the divine Word above us; but though they are indivisible themselves, they divide an innumerable multitude of other things.

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

02-21-2013, 12:19 AM	#135
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	I will suggest that the gospel known as Mark (or urMark) was written as a gnostic allegory with secret teachings hidden in plain sight, that gnostic exegesis was baked in. It was the outer teaching of a mystery cult, and only initiates were privy to the inner teachings. We are warned, from nearly the beginning of the gospel that everything is told in parables, so that outsiders will be damned: "But unto them on the outside, everything is told in parables that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them." Mark 4:11b-12. The Gospel according to Mark is clearly adoptionist, with Jesus being possessed by the Spirit at the baptism (Mark 1:10ff). It is at this moment that Jesus becomes the Son of God (Mark 1:11, cf Psalm 2:7). This was confirmed by Irenaeus who stated that Mark was favored by “those who separate Jesus from Christ” The Gospel according to Mark is a very curious document. The Latinisms in it indicate that it was likely written (or redacted from an earlier Alexandrian version) by a Latin speaking author writing for a Roman audience. It is quite obvious that the gospel in its current form was not written from scratch by a single author. For example, the woman who anointed Jesus was to be forever remembered for her deed. But her name has been deleted from the extant version for what must have been a compelling reason. The apostles and family of Jesus are disparaged as incompetent dunces, and they are surrounded by minor characters who know far more than they do! Gnostics!? The woman who anoints Jesus for death, the owner of the ass, the man carrying water (14:13), the owner of the house (14:14) where Jesus and the Twelve (14:17) took Passover, the man who fled naked, the young man at the tomb (not an angel); these all had more knowledge than the alleged family, disciples, and women who went to the tomb. This is a not-so-veiled attack on the churches that claimed legitimacy from succession from these very same groups. The disciples led by Peter are the proxies of the proto-orthodox. The aleged family of Jesus are proxies for the followers of James. This is indication of an originally Gnostic gospel that had been somewhat sanitized for the orthodox. No, Mark as we have it is very far from the first gospel. We are well into the second half of the second century before it achieves its final form. Canonical Mark (including short gMark) is the deliberate redaction of antenicean Church Fathers and their circles to refute heretical, Jewish and heathen attacks against proto-Orthodoxy, and to establish a church discipline. The legend of Judas is unknown before Irenaeus. We find no mention of the arch betrayer in Justin or the Gospel of Peter, which according to JDC incorporates material from a gospel more primitive than the canonical gospels. In GPeter, each of the Twelve in grief retires to their respective homes after the death of Jesus. Thus no member of the Twelve could have been the betrayer. Yet in Mark, we find Judas front and center, even though the crucial scene indicates an intermediate version in which the betrayer is nameless (14:24). And as RPrice has noted, why was one of the disciples the only one explicitly said to use a weapon (14:47) at the arrest of Jesus? Is this an indication of an even earlier version in which Jesus is captured by his disciples? The most divisive doctrine of the heretics was that Jesus managed to escape literal crucifixion by some means. At Gethsemane (14:32), Jesus prays for this very outcome. “Abba! Father! All things are possible for you; remove this cup from me!” 14:36. We may be excused if we entertain the expectation that the Father would grant Jesus’ prayerful request. But here is the bottom line. None of the disciples, who are the representatives of the proto-orthodox, could have witnessed this scene. They are all asleep. But there is another secret witness afoot, who follows the arresting party from Gethsemane dressed only in grave clothes (14:51). Only he could have witnessed Jesus’ thrice fold plea to escape death. In Mark, there is a heretic behind every bush. In Mark, the only person who could vouch that Jesus was really dead was Joseph of Arimathea (15:43), an otherwise unknown and secret follower of Jesus! The disciples had all run away, and the women followers were at too great a distance (15:40) to confirm the events. The legend of Simon Magnus predates Mark, in the guise of Simon of Cyrene who carries the cross. From that point, straight thru the crucifixion it is all pronouns, so a literal reading would indicate that Simon was crucified in Jesus’ place. [of course the final catholic redaction of Mark obscures Jesus' escape] This is further evidence that canonical Mark was derived from heretical sources. Indeed, the naming of Simon’s sons rather than his father indicates Gnostic leaders to later readers. The use of the term “gospel” in the singular, meaning the good news about Christ, is uncontroversial in Justin. But in only one instance does Justin apparently equate the term _gospels_ (plural) with the memoirs of the apostles. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn. Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter LXVI – of the Eucharist. So just who did write urMark? I recommend the Basilideans. It is a fact widely disregarded (or unknown) by Apologists that the heretics had their own traditions point for point with the proto-orthodox. According to Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 7.106.4. Basilides was said to be a disciple of Glaucias, the interpreter (hermenea) of Peter. Since Clement knew and quoted Basilides' works, we can presume the claim goes back to Basilides himself. Clement dates Basilides vaguely to the reigns of Hadrian and Antonius Pius. This would make Papias and Basilides near contemporaries. (See Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham, page 237 ff). Remember that, according to Eusebius, Papias said that Mark was the "hermeneutes" of Peter. So who is right, Eusebius (who was a known liar and had very reason to make it up) writing on Papias in the 4th century (Peter->Mark) or Clement as a hostile witness relying on Basilides in the early 3rd century (Peter-> Glaucias)? Best regards, Jake Jones IV

02-21-2013, 12:34 AM	#136
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	I have noted before, with G.Bolland, the importance of Alexandria in gospel origins. Stephan has also had thoughts along these lines. The gospel traditions began in Alexandria (not Palestine) based on an allegorical method of interpretation of the Septuagint exemplified by Philo. Many sources point to Rome as the origin of the gospel by a certain Mark, but there are also traditions that link GMark strongly to Egypt. According to Eusebius EH 2.16.1, Mark’s gospel was first proclaimed in Egypt, and the establishment of the churches in Alexandria was linked to Mark’s gospel. Chrysostom speaks of Egypt as the place of composition ("Hom. I. on Matt.", 3). I would suggest that urMark was composed in Alexandria, and Mark was completed in Rome. Irenaeus reports that Basilides professed this: "Jesus did not suffer, but a certain Simon of Cyrene was obliged to carry the cross in his place. It was he whom, by ignorance and error, was crucified, having been transfigured by Jesus, in order to take the place of Jesus. As for Jesus, he took the shape of Simon and stood aside and laughed at them." AH 1.24.3. A literal reading of the Gospel of Mark supports Basilides. Simon of Cyrene carried the cross, and it is pronouns all the way until he is crucified. Mark 15:21-24. According to traditions set down by Clement of Alexandria, the Gnostics claimed apostolic authority that parallels the proto-orthodox claims. (Or perhaps it was the other way round!) "Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter. Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul." Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, book 7, chapter 17. Basilides taught in Egypt just after the revolt of the Jews in 115-117 CE. He also was a pupil of Menander. Clement of Alexandria states that Basilides rose up under Hadrian and continued unto the reign of Antonius Pius, which give Basilides a career of at least until 138 CE. This would have made him a contemporary with Valentinus who left Egypt for Rome between 136 and 140 CE. Basilides had 365 emanations from the unoriginating Father, before arriving at the angels who created the world. These angels rule the world and the chief of these is the god of the Jews. One is reminded of certain Pauline passages such as Ephesians 6:12, “For our struggle is not against human opponents, but against rulers, authorities, cosmic powers in the darkness around us, and evil spiritual forces in the heavenly realm.” Basilides had a remarkable observation against the god of the Jews. He alleged that the world had been created by angels (not by the “Father without birth”). These angels divided up the nations between themselves in a manner very reminiscent of the "Old Testament" One of these angels was the one reputed to be “God of the Jews.” He stirred up so much trouble, that the other angels (i.e princes) turned against him, and likewise the nations of the world turned against the nation of the Jews. I think this opinion can be directly linked to the revolts of the Jews against Rome, especially the little known second revolt in North Africa. I think it is at this time the Gnostic Jews of Alexandria turned from Yahweh because of his seemingly utter inability to to protect his religion and his people from destruction by other nations. And in his place, they created a new savior, Christ. “Those angels who occupy the lowest heaven, that, namely, which is visible to us, formed all the things which are in the world, and made allotments among themselves of the earth and of those nations which are upon it. The chief of them is he who is thought to be the God of the Jews; and inasmuch as he desired to render the other nations subject to his own people, that is, the Jews, all the other princes resisted and opposed him. Wherefore all other nations were at enmity with his nation.” AH 1.24.4. Basilides believed that the Father sent Christ to bestow deliverance on them that believe in him. But Basilides make a sharp distinction between Christ and Jesus.There is a similarity here to the comment by Irenaeus AH 3.11.7 that the gospel of Mark was previously in the hands of those heretics "who separate Jesus from Christ." We should not be much suprised to find that Basilides had a gospel mentioned by Origen, (Homilies on Luke 1.1), Jerome, Ambrose, Philip of Side, and the Venerable Bede. As I said above, I tie the appearance of Mark to the the second rebellion which started in Cyrenaica and spread across northern Africa against Trajan (115-117 CE). And then chapter 13 :the Littke Apocalypse" was added in the 130's CE at the time of the Bar Kotchba revolt. We can read of the second revolt in Eusebius, Church History 4.2.1-5 and Dio Cassius Hist. Rom. 68.32.1-3. It was immediately after this revolt, and in this area, that the first full blown Gnostic teachers appeared in Alexandria, namely Basilides, Valentinius, Carpocrates and his son Epiphanes. It is interesting that these leaders were all from (or strongly associated) with Alexandria in the 120's CE. Basilides was a native of Alexandria. Valentinius was born in the Nile delta, educated & taught in Alexandria and moved to Rome where he was nearly elected Bishop. (This indicates that the proto- orthodox rejection of Gnostic teaching was something that only gradually developed). Likewise Carpocrates was from Alexandria and used only the "Gospel of the Hebrews" another heretical gospel that predated the canonical gospels. Away in the East, in the "wild" areas of Asia Minor, another movement was afoot about the same time as Basilides, or perhaps a decade or so before. Here we find the followers of the Great Apostle himself, who had disappeared over the horizon into legend long before, but who was wont to return to his churches when they needed him the most, in the form of terrifying epistles. Today we know him as Paul, but perhaps earlier he was Simon.[See R.Price Amazing Colossal Apostle). These two religions, spreading from Alexandria and Pontus respectively, would meet, compete, and merge in the middle to late second century CE. And yet, we are not quite finished even yet! There was another great leader of the early second century whose followers may have been of more significance than either of the other two. He was supposed to be the writer of Revelation and the arch enemy of Paul. Of course, I speak of Cerinthus. Best Regards, Jake Jones IV

02-21-2013, 12:40 AM	#137
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I agree with most of what you have written. The Marcionite gospel has Jesus coming down from heaven. I am stuck with what we should do with the baptism narrative in the synoptics. Was there something 'like a dove' coming from heaven in Mark originally? Or was this added later to obscure a Jesus-spirit coming on to someone else? In Epiphanius's account of the Marcionite gospel Jesus is said to 'have settled among' the apostles. The 'flying Jesus' also seems to have escaped the crowd of angry synagogue participants in this text and the Diatessaron. I find it hard to reconcile Jesus being adopted by Christ in any gospel narrative. But I also can't seem to find a way forward. And why 'like a dove'? What a strange phrase. Wouldn't it be more natural to say 'like a bird'? Who would say the wind came 'like a bichon frise' as opposed to 'like a dog.' It's so ------ strange.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.