Horatio Parker

How is "nothingness" superior to the Son?

And, what's the difference between Jesus and the Son?

Horatio Parker

That's a theological argument.

Are we talking history or theology?

stephan huller

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

stephan huller

No its a cultural argument. The Jewish religion starts with the assumption that Hebrew is the language of God. The Torah was written by god's finger in Hebrew. Even Philo who writes in Greek accepts the sanctity of Hebrew. So too the Church Fathers. A parallel example - a guy whose been divorced ten times thinking all women are whores.

This isn't what I believe. I am - as always - trying to keep the discussion from getting personal. The question isn't whether this is stupid but what the first Christians undoubtedly believed. In the case of the guy whose been divorced ten times, there's no point condemning his belief. It just is and if you want to understand him you have to accept that he believes that women are whores and move on to deeper things, to understand why he thinks that.

stephan huller

Now to move back to the original topic. The Nicene Creed speaks of Father, Son and the Spirit. The obvious question is if I am suggesting that the ousia was a separate hypostasis which the Arians knew couldn't be understood to be the same as 'the Son' (because of ayin and yesh or some parallel understanding in early Christianity) why can't we just identify the Holy Spirit with the ousia? God is spirit right? So the Father and the Son could both have been understood to 'share' in the Holy Spirit.

According to my proposed understanding Jesus was Wisdom, the firstborn creation and the Logos somehow came after and was ultimately inferior. I suspect that under the original model the spirit was the Son's bride just as Sophia was originally paired with the Father (although they did not consummate their love).

Yet Christians think that 'spirit' is the 'stuff' of heaven. It is interesting that the oldest Jewish sources identify something else as 'the heavenly stuff' - neshama. Indeed Ibn Ezra and his contemporaries only give 'spirit' a position midway between neshama and nefesh (life). I think a similar depreciation of 'Spirit' exists in Mandaeanism.

From Ibn Ezra's Sefer Yesod:

stephan huller

I should have also noted that in most Jewish traditions just as life (nefesh) is of the earth and ru'ah (spirit/wind) is of the air neshama is “of (the) heavens” (shama)

Also very important is the fact that this tripartite division of the wasn't an innovation on Ibn Ezra's part. He references it was shared by even Jewish exegetes he disagreed with

Chili

Right, and maybe he did not speak Hebrew, poor guy.

Horatio Parker

I've read that.

It says that Ayin is prior in time.

Arius says that the Father is greater than the Son. Are you saying that Ayin is greater than Yesh?

Horatio Parker

Calling this a cultural argument suggests to me that mythical elements are in play.
So Hebrew is a sacred language in Xtianity? "So too the Church Fathers"?
I'm trying to figure out who the whore is.

stephan huller

But as Celsus would compare the venerable customs of the Jews with the laws of certain nations, let us proceed to look at them. He is of opinion, accordingly, that there is no differ ence between the doctrine regarding "heaven" and that regarding "God;" and he says that "the Persians, like the Jews, offer sacrifices to Jupiter upon the tops of the mountains,"--not observing that, as the Jews were acquainted with one God, so they had only one holy house of prayer, and one altar of whole burnt-offerings, and one censer for incense, and one high priest of God. The Jews, then, had nothing in common with the Persians, who ascend the summits of their mountains, which are many in number, and offer up sacrifices which have nothing in common with those which are regulated by the Mosaic code,--in conformity to which the Jewish priests "served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things," explaining enigmatically the object of the law regarding the sacrifices, and the things of which these sacrifices were the symbols. The Persians therefore may call the "whole circle of heaven" Jupiter; but we maintain that "the heaven" is neither Jupiter nor God, as we indeed know that certain beings of a class inferior to God have ascended above the heavens and all visible nature: and in this sense we understand the words, "Praise God, ye heaven of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens: let them praise the name of the LORD."

CHAP. XLV.

As Celsus, however, is of opinion that it matters nothing whether the highest being be called Jupiter, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth, or Ammoun (as the Egyptians term him), or Pappaeus (as the Scythians entitle him), let us discuss the point for a little, reminding the reader at the same time of what has been said above upon this question, when the language of Celsus led us to consider the subject. And now we maintain that the nature of names is not, as Aristotle supposes, an enactment of those who impose them. For the languages which are prevalent among men do not derive their origin from men, as is evident to those who are able to ascertain the nature of the charms which are appropriated by the inventors of the languages differently, according to the various tongues, and to the varying pronunciations of the names, on which we have spoken briefly in the preceding pages, remarking that when those names which in a certain language were possessed of a natural power were translated into another, they were no longer able to accomplish what they did before when uttered in their native tongues. And the same peculiarity is found to apply to men; for if we were to translate the name of one who was called from his birth by a certain appellation in the Greek language into the Egyptian or Roman, or any other tongue, we could not make him do or suffer the same things which he would have done or suffered under the appellation first bestowed upon him. Nay, even if we translated into the Greek language the name of an individual who had been originally invoked in the Roman tongue, we could not produce the result which the incantation professed itself capable of accomplishing had it preserved the name first conferred upon him. And if these statements are true when spoken of the names of men, what are we to think of those which are transferred, for any cause whatever, to the Deity? For example, something is transferred from the name Abraham when translated into Greek, and something is signified by that of Isaac, and also by that of Jacob; and accordingly, if any one, either in an invocation or in swearing an oath, were to use the expression, "the God of Abraham," and "the God of Isaac," and "the God of Jacob," he would produce certain effects, either owing to the nature of these names or to their powers, since even demons are vanquiShed and become submissive to him who pronounces these names; whereas if we say, "the god of the chosen father of the echo, and the god of laughter, and the god of him who strikes with the heel," the mention of the name is attended with no result, as is the case with other names possessed of no power. And in the same way, if we translate the word "Israel" into Greek or any other language, we shall produce no result; but if we retain it as it is, and join it to those expressions to which such as are skilled in these matters think it ought to be united, there would then follow some result from the pronunciation of the word which would accord with the professions of those who employ such invocations. And we may say the same also of the pronunciation of "Sabaoth," a word which is frequently employed in incantations; for if we translate the term into "Lord of hosts," or "Lord of armies," or "Almighty" (different acceptation of it having been proposed by the interpreters), we shall accomplish nothing; whereas if we retain the original pronunciation, we shall, as those who are skilled in such matters maintain, produce some effect. And the same observation holds good of Adonai. If, then, neither "Sabaoth" nor "Adonai," when rendered into what appears to be their meaning in the Greek tongue, can accomplish anything, how much less would be the result among those who regard it as a matter of indifference whether the highest being be called Jupiter, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth!

CHAP. XLVI.

It was for these and similar mysterious reasons, with which Moses and the prophets were acquainted, that they forbade the name of other gods to be pronounced by him who bethought himself of praying to the one Supreme God alone, or to be remembered by a heart which had been taught to be pure from all foolish thoughts and words. And for these reasons we should prefer to endure all manner of suffering rather than acknowledge Jupiter to be God. For we do not consider Jupiter and Sabaoth to be the same, nor Jupiter to be at all divine, but that some demon, unfriendly to men and to the true God, rejoices under this title. And although the Egyptians were to hold Ammon before us under threat of death, we would rather die than address him as God, it being a name used in all probability in certain Egyptian incantations in which this demon is invoked. And although the Scythians may call Pappaeus the supreme God, vet we will not yield our assent to this; granting, indeed, that there is a Supreme Deity, although we do not give the name Pappaeus to Him as His proper title, but regard it as one which is agreeable to the demon to whom was allotted the desert of Scythia, with its people and its language. He, however, who gives God His title in the Scythian tongue, or in the Egyptian or in any language in which he has been brought up, will not be guilty of sin.