Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Iskander · 02-03-2012, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

... I am not sure if Jews were completely unfamiliar with the concept of ousia. What ousia is occupied a lot of Spinoza's time.

off topic: Nicea, early fourth century, is the focus of this thread.

Well done. Keeping to the topic!!

patience, friend, patience. You soon will achieve enlightenment about the nature of the confusion.

Really? We shall learn about "mystical controversy" underlying the Nicean Creed, by reading Origen?

oops:

That's not what I encounter upon reading

Very strange. I cannot find any reference to this "YeSh". Am I reading the wrong source?

Let's look more carefully at the Hebrew, for Genesis 28:16 transliterated:
YSh YHVH

Yes, there it is. Yesh Yahweh, without the vowels.

But, how is it translated? In Latin, it is written:

vere Dominus...

Then, is it not more accurate to write: The GENUINE God, or the TRUE god, rather than "Surely, god"?

More to the point: Does not this Latin version of the Hebrew text, dispel the claim that "yesh" corresponds to a secret encoding of Jesus? "Yesh" in Genesis 28:16 appears to me, to indicate "veracity" or "authenticity" or "legitimacy", not some sort of convoluted, secret, "mystical" message, addressing the rationale for the first convocation at Nicea in 325 CE.

That's not what I read at

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 32:22

For a fire is kindled in my anger, Burns to the lowest Sheol, Devours the earth with its increase, Sets on fire the foundations of the mountains.

Quote:

But, how is it translated? In Latin, it is written:
Originally Posted by Vulgate
cumque evigilasset Iacob de somno ait vere Dominus est in loco isto et ego nesciebam
vere Dominus...

Then, is it not more accurate to write: The GENUINE God, or the TRUE god, rather than "Surely, god"?

Genesis 28:16 is translated from Hebrew by the Stone edition of the torah as;”Surely Hashem is present in this place...”

Nahum M. Sarna commenting on this verse in, Understanding g Genesis, also translates 28:16 as:
“Surely...”

Nobody uses the Vulgate, not even the Catholic Church, which has replaced the useless Vulgate with the NABRE.

Horatio Parker · 02-03-2012, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But you are citing Arius's enemy Alexander of Alexandria not Arius

I am? From the site:

Quote:

The creed given in this document is quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea in his letter to Alexander of Alexandria (Urk. 7).

Eusebius was an Arian, wasn't he? So presumably this is a sympathetic account. Or no?

stephan huller · 02-03-2012, 09:30 AM

Here's what I am thinking today. There must have been a Jewish philosophical system very much LIKE Platonism but was still different enough that pagans could accuse the Jews of imperfectly copying or borrowing from Plato. When you look at studies of Philo they say his system is IN SOME WAYS similar to Platonism IN SOME WAYS similar to Stoicism etc. Of course scholars just assume that Philo was inventing his interpretation as he went along. I strongly doubt this. He is borrowing from Greek philosophical terminology to EXPLAIN a core Jewish (Sadducean? Essene?) tradition.

I think Horatio brings up a very good point. Why pick Judaism when “real” Platonism is available. The answer must be that Sadducean or Essene Judaism was LIKE Platonism, its ideas compatible with Greek philosophy but different enough to claim to be an authentic tradition in its own right

sotto voce · 02-03-2012, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Here's what I am thinking today. There must have been a Jewish philosophical system very much LIKE Platonism but was still different enough that pagans could accuse the Jews of imperfectly copying or borrowing from Plato. When you look at studies of Philo they say his system is IN SOME WAYS similar to Platonism IN SOME WAYS similar to Stoicism etc. Of course scholars just assume that Philo was inventing his interpretation as he went along. I strongly doubt this. He is borrowing from Greek philosophical terminology to EXPLAIN a core Jewish (Sadducean? Essene?) tradition.

A Greek tradition that had borrowed from Hebrew tradition. Perhaps.

stephan huller · 02-03-2012, 09:35 AM

Alexandrian Christianity from Philo to Arius is a continuous tradition. That doesn't mean that Philo believed in the gospel (although such claims abound). Rather Alexandrian Judaism is the mud out of which the flower of Alexandrian Christianity developed. This is indisputable

sotto voce · 02-03-2012, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Alexandrian Christianity from Philo to Arius is a continuous tradition.

Like Marx followed Adam Smith.

stephan huller · 02-03-2012, 09:57 AM

Another intimation Jesus was the yesh (ousia) in Athanasius Against the Arians 1:24

They (the Arians) talk in terns of “He who is” and of “Him who is not.” But who is “He who is” and what “are not,” ye Arians? Or who “is” and who “is not”? What are said “to be” and what “not to be”? It is not in the power of Him that is, to make those things which are not, and those things which are, and those things which were before

I find this and all that follows a striking parallel to the Jewish mystical conception of ayin and yesh where ayin “nothingness” brings forth yesh “being” as the first creative act

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayin_and_Yesh

Horatio Parker · 02-03-2012, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

But if 'all is illusion' except Truth and Beauty, religion itself is merely a tool to get the job done against the 'faculty of reason' and the Genesis has nothing to do with the origin of the Universe itself but is the beginning of the story line that we call myth where we come 'full circle,' and when the arrive there again will know the place as if for the first time. It is all illusion except in philosophy where only truth will stand.

Yes. Well said. Genesis(or, better IMO, Timaeus) relates to all beginnings.

stephan huller · 02-03-2012, 10:32 AM

And then it hit me. What is the created “thing” between the Father and the Son? Wisdom. The yesh reference in Proverbs 8 is in the context of Wisdom. Plotinus Against the Gnostics rails against their introduction of Hochmah into the Platonism. The Church Fathers present Wisdom (= Achmoth) as the first created material being. You need a mother for a father to have a son. I always thought the orthodox attempt to make Wisdom and Word as two titles of the same being utterly contrived.

stephan huller · 02-03-2012, 11:57 AM

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

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

02-03-2012, 09:30 AM	#103
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Here's what I am thinking today. There must have been a Jewish philosophical system very much LIKE Platonism but was still different enough that pagans could accuse the Jews of imperfectly copying or borrowing from Plato. When you look at studies of Philo they say his system is IN SOME WAYS similar to Platonism IN SOME WAYS similar to Stoicism etc. Of course scholars just assume that Philo was inventing his interpretation as he went along. I strongly doubt this. He is borrowing from Greek philosophical terminology to EXPLAIN a core Jewish (Sadducean? Essene?) tradition. I think Horatio brings up a very good point. Why pick Judaism when “real” Platonism is available. The answer must be that Sadducean or Essene Judaism was LIKE Platonism, its ideas compatible with Greek philosophy but different enough to claim to be an authentic tradition in its own right

02-03-2012, 09:35 AM	#105
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Alexandrian Christianity from Philo to Arius is a continuous tradition. That doesn't mean that Philo believed in the gospel (although such claims abound). Rather Alexandrian Judaism is the mud out of which the flower of Alexandrian Christianity developed. This is indisputable

02-03-2012, 09:57 AM	#107
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Another intimation Jesus was the yesh (ousia) in Athanasius Against the Arians 1:24 They (the Arians) talk in terns of “He who is” and of “Him who is not.” But who is “He who is” and what “are not,” ye Arians? Or who “is” and who “is not”? What are said “to be” and what “not to be”? It is not in the power of Him that is, to make those things which are not, and those things which are, and those things which were before I find this and all that follows a striking parallel to the Jewish mystical conception of ayin and yesh where ayin “nothingness” brings forth yesh “being” as the first creative act http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayin_and_Yesh

02-03-2012, 10:32 AM	#109
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And then it hit me. What is the created “thing” between the Father and the Son? Wisdom. The yesh reference in Proverbs 8 is in the context of Wisdom. Plotinus Against the Gnostics rails against their introduction of Hochmah into the Platonism. The Church Fathers present Wisdom (= Achmoth) as the first created material being. You need a mother for a father to have a son. I always thought the orthodox attempt to make Wisdom and Word as two titles of the same being utterly contrived.

02-03-2012, 11:57 AM	#110
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.