Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Horatio Parker · 02-03-2012, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

So that's how we take the theoretical existence of Yesh and knock it out the park. The Jews believed Wisdom was the first created thing. The unknowable God was before creation in another dimension of essentially non-existence. This wisdom is Jesus but also yesh (cf Gikatillah Sha'are Orah Ninth Chapter). The Gnostic myth referenced in Irenaeus is essentially a negative “spin” on the traditional Jewish understanding

If you say so.

It sounds to me you're trying to create something new out of these associations rather than trace the history of certain ideas.

Nothing wrong with that, with the understanding that that's what's going on.

stephan huller · 02-03-2012, 12:46 PM

When I get a moment I will cite from McKenna's translation of Plotinus's Against the Gnostic 10. There was clearly a lot of ambiguity regarding the exact details but the Christians “introduced” Wisdom into Platonism. Yet the “innovation” was Jewish not Christian. The Gnostics just added the negative myth. So too the “invention” of the idea that the highest God cares about humanity which Plotinus finds offensive

stephan huller · 02-03-2012, 01:10 PM

If we leave aside the (unimportant) question of whether yesh figures into any of this can we at least agree that the issue at the heart of Nicea was the Alexandrian tradition likely held that Jesus was Wisdom but the Logos was not one and the same with Wisdom?

tanya · 02-03-2012, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

If we leave aside the (unimportant) question of whether yesh figures into any of this can we at least agree that the issue at the heart of Nicea was the Alexandrian tradition likely held that Jesus was Wisdom but the Logos was not one and the same with Wisdom?

I don't know if "yesh" was an important issue to those congregating at Nicea, upon receiving an "invitation" from Constantine, but I doubt, very much, that the reason for the furor that caused such dissension in Alexandria, was a debate over wisdom versus logos.

In essence, Arius demanded acknowledgement that if Jesus was the son of God, then, he could not have been of the same substance as God, just as the son of any animal, including humans, is not identical to the substance of the parent.

I observe no connection with "wisdom" or "logos" in this argument.

stephan huller · 02-03-2012, 01:47 PM

Please read citation of the Against the Arians 5, 6

stephan huller · 02-03-2012, 03:03 PM

For those who care about the Jesus = Yeshu = yesh argument here is a summary of Gikatillah's ninth chapter showing that according to his tradition Wisdom = yesh:

Quote:

Gate 9
[חכמה - Hokhmah]

"From the dire straits I called to the Lord [Yah], answer me with generosity,
Lord [Yah]." (Psalms 118:5)
Yah (L-rd) - יה
Yesh (There Is, Substance) - יש
Hokhmah (Wisdom) - חכמה
Ratzon (Will, Desire) - רצון
O'mek HaMachshavah (The Depth of Thought) - המחשבה עומק
O'mek Ram (Deep Height) - רם עומק
Yirah (Awe, Fear) - יראה
Yod Shel Shem (Yod of the Name) - שם של יוד
Machshavah (Thought) - מחשבה
E'den (Paradise, Pleasure) - עדן
Abba (Father) - אבא
Av (Father) - אב
Pele (Wonder) - פלא
Pelioth Hokhmah (Wonders of Wisdom) - חכמה פליאות
Ta'alumoth Hokhmah (Mysteries of Wisdom) - חכמה תעלומות
Hokhmah Ila'ah (Upper Wisdom) - עילאה http://www.bahaistudies.net/asma/gikatilla.pdf

The reason this matters of course is that 'mythicism' has very little historical context. It can be seen as an attempt to merely 'disprove' the humanity of Jesus. I think it is important to make sense of the Alexandrian and Marcionite traditions and as an added 'bonus' the idea of a human Jesus is demonstrated to be secondary, late development. There is a difference.

If Jesus was merely a mythical angelic figure the name 'Jesus' has to be explained. One wouldn't expect an angelic figure to possess a human name. Michael is an angelic name that became a human name late in history. Raphael is another.

So to recap - either mythicists are arguing that Jesus was an fictitious human figure OR he was an angelic figure later distorted into a human being by the orthodox. In the latter case (= Marcionitism) the name Jesus is a problem. Bottom line - it doesn't make sense to think that someone would invent an angel named Ἰησοῦς

Horatio Parker · 02-03-2012, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

If we leave aside the (unimportant) question of whether yesh figures into any of this can we at least agree that the issue at the heart of Nicea was the Alexandrian tradition likely held that Jesus was Wisdom but the Logos was not one and the same with Wisdom?

Sounds to me that Jesus was considered to be both:

Quote:

upon the bishops asking the dissembling minority if they agreed that the Son was not a Creature, but the Power and only Wisdom of the Father, and the Eternal Image, in all respects exact, of the Father, and true God, Eusebius and his fellows were observed exchanging nods with one another, as much as to say 'this applies to us men also, for we too are called the image and glory of God

There's Wisdom. and Logos:

Quote:

even though one saying may refer to the Father Himself, yet it would now be more aptly spoken of the Word, because when He became man, He changed not

Horatio Parker · 02-03-2012, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

So to recap - either mythicists are arguing that Jesus was an fictitious human figure OR he was an angelic figure later distorted into a human being by the orthodox. In the latter case (= Marcionitism) the name Jesus is a problem. Bottom line - it doesn't make sense to think that someone would invent an angel named Ἰησοῦς

They're not mutually exclusive ideas. The second complements the first.

Regarding the name, though, I don't have a clue.

stephan huller · 02-03-2012, 10:23 PM

Quote:

upon the bishops asking the dissembling minority if they agreed that the Son was not a Creature, but the Power and only Wisdom of the Father, and the Eternal Image, in all respects exact, of the Father, and true God, Eusebius and his fellows were observed exchanging nods with one another, as much as to say 'this applies to us men also, for we too are called the image and glory of God

It wouldn't be considered a compromise they already held that belief. Even Arius is said to have come over to a compromise position - that is before they killed him...

Horatio Parker · 02-03-2012, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Accordingly, it is not possible to know him unless we are one with Him and know who he is via sonship.

Which is directly to the point of intelligibility vs transcendence.

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

02-03-2012, 12:46 PM	#112
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	When I get a moment I will cite from McKenna's translation of Plotinus's Against the Gnostic 10. There was clearly a lot of ambiguity regarding the exact details but the Christians “introduced” Wisdom into Platonism. Yet the “innovation” was Jewish not Christian. The Gnostics just added the negative myth. So too the “invention” of the idea that the highest God cares about humanity which Plotinus finds offensive

02-03-2012, 01:10 PM	#113
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	If we leave aside the (unimportant) question of whether yesh figures into any of this can we at least agree that the issue at the heart of Nicea was the Alexandrian tradition likely held that Jesus was Wisdom but the Logos was not one and the same with Wisdom?

02-03-2012, 01:47 PM	#115
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Please read citation of the Against the Arians 5, 6

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.