Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 06-09-2013, 08:11 PM

I know many of you have suffered through countless posts where I try to make sense of the original name of Jesus. I know that must have sounded very strange at first. After all, we assume that Jesus was a person named 'Joshua' - our Jesus being based on the Greek rendering of that name Ἰησοῦς. But I have never been satisfied with that explanation. Part of that goes back to Irenaeus (AH 2.22) being so eager to acknowledge that Jesus name goes back to the Aramaic yeshu (= 'two and a half letter name'). I have never understood by Joshua had to be shortened to yeshu when Joshua is already a short form of the original Hebrew name.

Then there was the fact that the Marcionites had another form of the name - Isu in the writings of Ephrem. Mitchell and others have noted this seems to be a transliteration of the Greek Ἰησοῦς again. Mahar notes that the form Isu naturally seems to suggest a alef-yod-samekh-vav (although this form never appears in Ephrem). I have struggled for years to figure out whether there was some alternative possibility here - and I think I finally found it.

I noticed in Tal Ilan's Lexicon of Jewish Names in Antiquity that the almost the exact same form suggested by Mahar is found in an early incantation bowl - אישו. The bowls in question are 1. Levine, CMB M163. The incantation includes an adjuration בשםיה דאישו דכבש רומא (in the name of Ishu who conquered Rome). This may be Jesus. His name is followed by "and in the name of his exalted father and the holy spirit" which may be an allusion to the trinity. Shaked (JSQ 1999) claims this is the only mention of Jesus in these bowl to date.

The point of course is that אישו is Biblical Aramaic for 'his man' or 'his person.' It is also among the most common epithets of Moses in Samaritanism based on Deuteronomy 33:1 = "the man of God" or "God's man." In ch. 17 of the Acts of Peter, a writing from the latter half of the second century C. E., it is related that Simon once lodged with a certain woman by the name of Eubula and, upon leaving, stole all her money. Eubula, however, suspected her household: But discovering this crime Eubula began to torture her household, saying:

Quote:

You took advantage of [the visit of] this Man of God and have robbed me, as you saw him coming in to me in order to do do honour to a simple woman. His name, however, is the Name of the Lord (cui nomen est autem nomen domini). (Acta Apostolorum, I, edited by R A Lipsius).

Eubula is represented as a type of the people who were deceived by Simon and acclaimed him as "the Man of God" and "The Name of the Lord". [Jarl Fossum, Sects and Movements in The Samaritans, Alan Crown ed. p. 373]

Another example from Moshe Florentin's study of Samaritan Hebrew poetry is here. This epithet of Moses is as old as fragments from the earliest Jewish sectarians. 4Q377 fragment 1, recto, column 2, lines 10-11, which, in the midst of a description of the mediation of the Law at Mount Sinai, describes Moses the man of God speaking as an angel from his mouth. In Samaritan thought as well, "Moses not only was assimilated to the angels; it is stated that he actually attained angelic nature or mode of being." That is to say, he was made into "a divine or angelic being." In a hymn by Marqah, Moses is described as "the Elohim who is from mankind," giving him a divine name shared by angels. Also, as noted above in Chapter Three, in a Samaritan ketubah Moses is called "the priest of the angels," and Memar Marqah 4.6 likewise describes Moses, "who dwelt among the angels in the Sanctuary of the Unseen," as "a holy priest in two sanctuaries." Marriage contracts (of the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, but probably preserving older tradition) call Moses "the teacher of the living (beings), and the priest of the angels."

While Marqe only survives in Aramaic and Arabic, we find Jacob and Moses identified by this title in the Memar Marqe, MacDonald translation:

Quote:

The righteous one, who was from Isaac, He taught in the valley of the Yabbok when he stood with His man,176 and he touched the hollow of his thigh (Gen. xxxii. 25). (p. 79)

Blessed is our Lord who magnifies His beloved and cares for them in all their activity. It behoves us to walk in the ways of life and not depart from the True One, but to observe the command of Moses, His Man. (p. 149)

Always God extends His abundant goodness and grace, but Israel are provocative. God says, "That I may consume" (Ex. xxxii. 10; Targ.), but Moses His Man prays and says, " Turn from thy fierce wrath" (Ex. xxxii. 12; Targ.). By reason of his prayer God repents of all the affliction which threatened to take place. Praised be the Merciful One whose mercies are hidden from His servants, who guards them when they are repentant and for their sake preserves their children, that He may teach them of His grace, that they may walk in obedience to His will. Let us believe in Him and in Moses His prophet, and let us bow down before Him and testify, saying, "There is only one God." (p. 167)

I think the most important barrier for 'mythicism' to overcome is explaining how 'Jesus' could be a wholly divine being when angels and people didn't share appellations ('Michael,' 'Gabriel,' 'Raphael' were used by people until much later. If indeed the name of the Christian god was original Hebrew 'Isho' = 'His Man' we can finally explain for instance how the Samaritan woman in John 4 'knew' that Jesus was the one they were waiting for. The Samaritan expectation is developed around a 're-appearance' of Moses. The idea is at the core of many Christian passages as Meeks has already noted.

outhouse · 06-09-2013, 08:22 PM

Wasn't Yehoshua a more Galilean Aramaic influenced version?

stephan huller · 06-09-2013, 08:48 PM

I think this is the original mythicist understanding (even if I have to use this hated term). The Marcionites - and all Christian sectarians who arose from the original Israelite mystery cult - understood that a pre-existent being called 'His Man' or 'the Man of God' (anthropos theou) came as the heavenly high priest to Judea at the time of the Passion.

stephan huller · 06-09-2013, 08:56 PM

Of course I am envisioning that Jesus = Isho developed from the Palestinian equivalent of the mystery cult of Philo of Alexandria. In that tradition we see mankind expected to start a progress to perfection whereby (a) they begin accepting God's power of judgment (= kurios) (b) then like Jacob they learn to accept God's beneficent power (= theos) before (c) learning to accept seeing the Father as both Lord and God.

Quote:

Therefore he is exhibited as the Lord of the foolish, holding over them the terrors appropriate to him as Ruler. But of those who are making progress he is described as God in the Scriptures, as in the present passage, 'I am thy God', or 'I am thy God, increase and multiply' [Gen. 35: 11]. And in the case of those who are perfect he is both Lord and God, as in the Decalogue, 'I am thy Lord God' [Exod. 20: 2], and in another passage, 'The Lord God of your fathers' [Deut. 4:1], for he thinks it is right for the wicked man to be subject to him as his Lord, so that being in a state of awe and groaning he should be afraid of his Master; that the man who is making progress should receive benefits from him as God so that by means of these benefits he should arrive at perfection; that the perfect man should be guided by him as Lord and receive benefits from him as God. For by means of the one he endures without lapsing, and by means of the other he is wholly a man of God. This is shown best of all in Moses' case. 'This is the blessing', we read, 'which Moses, the man of God, gave' [Deut. 33: 1]. Oh! Of what an all-lovely and sacred exchange is he found worthy, to give himself in return for God's providential care. But do not suppose that God becomes man's in the same way that man becomes God's, for as a man he is God's as his possession, whereas God becomes man's to be his glory and helper, whom he boasts in and from whom he receives assistance. If, then, you wish to have God as the inheritance of your mind, work first of all to become an inheritance worthy of him to receive, and you will achieve that if you avoid all acts of folly which are your own handiwork and the result of free-will.

But we should not forget either that the statement, 'I am thy God', is made by a certain figurative misuse of language rather than with strict propriety, for the nature of the Existent, in so far as he is the Existent is not relative to anything else. He is full of himself and is sufficient for himself, and it was so both before the creation of the world and will be after it. He cannot change or alter, having no need of any other thing or being whatever, so that while all things are his, he, properly speaking, does not belong to anyone or anything. But the Powers which he has extended into the created order to be of benefit to the world he has constructed are sometimes referred to as being in a certain sense relative: for instance his kingly and beneficial Powers, for as King he is the King of someone and as a benefactor he is the benefactor of someone, while the king's subject and (29) the receiver of the benefit is wholly distinct from him. Akin to these Powers is the creative Power which is called God, because by means of this Power the Father, who is the begetter and Artificer of all things, made the whole universe, so that 'I am thy God' is equivalent in meaning to 'I am the Maker and Artificer." And the greatest gift we can receive is to have him for our Architect, who is also the Architect of the whole world, for he did not make the soul of the wicked man, since wickedness involves hostility to God, and he was not acting on his own when he made the intermediate soul, since, according to Moses the sacred historian, such a soul was liable, like wax, to receive the divergent impressions of good and evil.

(23) both Lord and God: Philo regards the passage from Exodus which he has cited as proof that God is both the Lord of the foolish, of whom he is the awe-inspiring Sovereign, and God of those who are making progress in their lives, the earnest strivers. Gen. 35:11 as well as the words I am thy God, supports this. But, for the perfect God is both Lord and God, and for proof of this Philo turns to the Decalogue (Exod. 20: 2) and Deut. 4: 1 in particular. God, then, is Lord and God of mankind, but especially is he the good man's God.
(24) wholly a man of God: this is what the perfect man can become, for while the wicked are subject to God as Lord and face him with awe and fear, the man who is striving to make progress is helped by the kindnesses of God to reach perfection, while the perfect man, both guided by God as his Lord and helped by him as his God, remains, on the one hand, free from lapses, and, on the other, becomes a man of God (anthropos theou). Progress towards a state in which God is man's God is more rapidly made by him who perseveres in living as God's man.
(25) Moses' case: Philo claims that what he has been saying about God is best demonstrated in Moses' case, for Scripture (Deut. 33:1) refers to a blessing given by Moses, the man of God (anthropos theou). Philo comments on the glorious and holy exchange which took place when, in return for God's protecting care, Moses gave himself to God. That is what it means to be a man of God. Philo means his readers to appreciate that anyone who dedicates his life to God can receive in return his protecting care (theiapronoia). God becomes a man's God when a man becomes God's man. [http://books.google.com/books?id=QZg...rn%22&f=false]

stephan huller · 06-09-2013, 09:05 PM

The argument over whether Jesus was like Moses is found at its fullest in the Acts of Archelaus:

Quote:

43. I shall speak now with the utmost brevity of the veil of Moses and the ministration of death. For I do not think that these things at least can introduce very much to the disparagement of the law. The text in question, then, proceeds thus: “But if the ministration of death, engraven in letters on the stones, was made in glory, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away; ” and so on. Well, this passage at any rate acknowledges the existence of a glory on the countenance of Moses, and that surely is a fact favourable to our position. And even although it is to be done away. and although there is a veil in the reading of the same, that does not annoy me or disturb me, provided there be glory in it still. Neither is it the case, that whatever is to be done away is reduced thereby under all manner of circumstances to a condition of dishonour. For when the Scripture speaks of glory, it shows us also that it had cognizance of differences in glory. Thus it says: “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differs from another star in glory.” Although, then, the sun has a greater glory than the moon, it does not follow that the moon is thereby reduced to a condition of dishonour. And even thus, too, although my Lord Jesus Christ excels Moses in glory, as the lord excels the servant, it does not follow from this that the glory of Moses is to be scorned. For in this way, too, we are able to satisfy our hearers, as the nature of the word itself carries the conviction with it in that we affirm what we allege on the authority of the Scriptures themselves, or verily make the proof of our statements all the clearer also by illustrations taken from them. Thus, although a person kindles a lamp in the night-time, after the sun has once risen he has no further need of the paltry light of his lamp, on account of that effulgence of the sun which sends forth its rays all the world over; and yet, for all that, the man does not throw his lamp contemptuously away, as if it were something absolutely antagonistic to the sun; but rather, when he has once found out its use, he will keep it with all the greater carefulness. Precisely in this way, then, the law of Moses served as a sort of guardian to the people, like the tamp, until the true Sun, who is our Saviour, should arise, even as the apostle also says to us: “And Christ shall give you light.” We must look, however, to what is said further on: “Their minds were blinded: for until this day remains the same veil in the reading of the Old Testament; it is untaken away, because it is done away in Christ. For even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit.” What, then, is meant by this? Is Moses present with us even unto this day? Is it the case that he has never slept, that he has never gone to his rest, that he has never departed this life? How is it that this phrase “unto this day” is used here? Well, only mark the veil, which is placed, where he says it is placed, on their hearts in their reading. This, therefore, is the word of censure upon the children of Israel, because they read Moses and yet do not understand him, and refuse to turn to the Lord; for it is He that was prophesied of by Moses as about to come. This, then, is the veil which was placed upon the face of Moses, and this also is his testament; for he says in the law: “A prince shall not be wanting from Judah, nor a leader from his thighs, until He come whose he is; and He will be the expectation of the nations: who shall bind His foal unto the vine, and His ass's colt unto the choice vine; He shall wash His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes; His eyes shall be suffused with wine, and His teeth white with milk; ”and so on. Moreover, he indicated who He was, and whence He was to come. For he said: “The Lord God will raise up unto you, a Prophet from among your brethren, like me: unto Him hearken.” Now it is plain that this cannot be understood to have been said of Jesus the son of Nun. For there is nothing of this circumcision found in him. After him, too, there have still been kings from Judah; and consequently this prophecy is far from being applicable to him. And this is the veil which is on Moses; for it was not, as some among the unlearned perhaps fancy, any piece of linen cloth, or any skin that covered his face. But the apostle also takes care to make this plain to us, when he tells us that the veil is put on in the reading of the Old Testament, inasmuch as they who are called Israel from olden time still look for the coming of Christ, and perceive not that the princes have been wanting from Judah, and the leaders from his thighs; as even at present we see them in subjection to kings and princes, and paying tribute to these, without having any power left to them either of judgment or of punishment, such as Judah certainly had, for after he had condemned Thamar, he was able also to justify her. “But you will also see your life hang (in doubt) before your eyes.”

44. Now this word also has the veil. For up to the time of Herod they did appear to retain a kingdom in some sort; and it was by Augustus that the first enrolment took place among them, and that they began to pay tribute, and to be rated. Now it was also from the time when our Lord Jesus Christ began to be prophesied of and looked for that there began to be princes from Judah and leaders of the people; and these, again, failed just at the approach of His advent. If, then, the veil is taken away which is put on in that reading of theirs, they will understand the true virtue of the circumcision; and they will also discover that the generation of Him whom we preach, and His cross, and all the things that have happened in the history of our Lord, are those very matters which had been predicted of that Prophet. And I could wish, indeed, to examine every such passage of Scripture by itself, and to point out its import, as it is meet that it should be understood. But as it is another subject that is now urgent, these passages shall be discussed by us at some season of leisure. For at present, what I have already said may be sufficient for the purpose of showing, that it is not without reason that the veil is (said to be) put upon the heart of certain persons in the reading of the Old Testament. But those who turn to the Lord all have the veil taken away from them. What precise force all these things, however, may possess, I leave to the apprehension of those who have sound intelligence. Let us come now again to that word of Moses, in which he says: “The Lord your God shall raise up a Prophet unto you, of your brethren, like me.” In this saying I perceive a great prophecy delivered by the servant Moses, as by one cognizant that He who is to come is indeed to be possessed of greater authority than himself, and nevertheless is to suffer like things with him, and to show like signs and wonders. For there, Moses after his birth was placed by his mother in an ark, and exposed beside the banks of the river; here, our Lord Jesus Christ, after His birth by Mary His mother, was sent off in flight into Egypt through the instrumentality of an angel. There, Moses led forth his people from the midst of the Egyptians, and saved them; and here, Jesus, leading forth His people from the midst of the Pharisees, transferred them to an eternal salvation. There, Moses sought bread by prayer, and received it from heaven, in order that he might feed the people with it in the wilderness; here, my Lord Jesus by His own power satisfied with five loaves five thousand men in the wilderness. There, Moses when he was tried was set upon the mountain and fasted forty days; and here, my Lord Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness when He was tempted of the devil, and fasted in like manner forty days. There, before the sight of Moses, all the first-born of the Egyptians perished on account of the treachery of Pharaoh; and here, at the time of the birth of Jesus, every male among the Jews suddenly perished by reason of the treachery of Herod. There, Moses prayed that Pharaoh and his people might be spared the plagues; and here, our Lord Jesus prayed that the Pharisees might be pardoned, when He said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” There, the countenance of Moses shone with the glory of the Lord, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look upon his face, on account of the glory of his countenance; and here, the Lord Jesus Christ shone like the sun, and His disciples were not able to look upon His face by reason of the glory of His countenance and the intense splendour of the light. There, Moses smote down with the sword those who had set up the calf; and here, the Lord Jesus said, “I came to send a sword upon the earth, and to set a man at variance with his neighbour,” and so on. There, Moses went without fear into the darkness of the clouds that carry water; and here, the Lord Jesus walked with all power upon the waters. There, Moses gave his commands to the sea; and here, the Lord Jesus, when he was on the sea, rose and gave His commands to the winds and the sea. There, Moses, when he was assailed, stretched forth his hands and fought against Amalek; and here, the Lord Jesus, when we were assailed and were perishing by the violence of that erring spirit who works now hi the just, stretched forth His hands upon the cross, and gave us salvation. But there are indeed many other matters of this kind which I must pass by, my dearly beloved Diodorus, as I am in haste to send veil this little book with all convenient speed; and these omissions of mine you will be able yourself to supply very easily by your own intelligence. Write me, however, an account of all that this servant of the adversary's cause may do hereafter. May the Omnipotent God preserve you whole insoul and in spirit!

45. On receipt of this letter, Diodorus made himself master of its contents, and then entered the lists against Manes. This he did too with such spirit, that he was commended greatly by all for the careful and satisfactory demonstration which he gave of the fact that there is a mutual relationship between the two testaments, and also between the two laws. Discovering also more arguments for himself he was able to bring forward many points of great pertinency and power against the man, and in defence of the truth. He also reasoned in a conclusive manner against his opponent on verbal grounds. For example, he argued with him in the following manner:— Did you say that the testaments are two? Well, then, say either that there are two old testaments, or that there are two new testaments. For you assert that there are two unbegottens belonging to the same time, or rather eternity: and if there are in this way two, there should be either two old testaments or two new testaments. If, however, you do not allow this, but affirm, on the contrary, that there is one old testament and that there is also another new restatement, that will only prove again that there is but one author for both; and the very sequence will show that the Old Testament belongs to Him to whom also the New Testament pertains. We may illustrate this by the case of a man who says to some other individual, Lease me your old house. For by such a mode of address does he not pronounce the man to be alsothe owner of a new house? Or, on the other hand, if he says to him, Show me your new house; does he not by that very word designate him also as the possessor of an old house? Then, again, this also is to be considered, that since there are two beings, having an unbegotten nature, it is also necessary from that to suppose each of them to have (what must be called) an old testament, and thus there will appear to be two old testaments; if indeed you affirm that both these beings are ancient, and both indeed without a beginning. But I have not learned doctrine like that; neither do the Scriptures contain it. You, however, who allege that the law of Moses comes from the prince of evil, and not from the good God, tell me who those were who withstood Moses to the face— I mean Jamnes and Mambres? For, every object that withstands, withstands not itself, but some other one, either better or worse; as Paul also gives us to understand when he writes in the following terms in his second Epistle to Timothy: “As Jamnes and Mambres withstood Moses, so have these also resisted the truth: men of corrupt mind, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly is manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.” Do you observe how he compares Jamnes and Mambres to men of corrupt mind, and reprobate concerning the faith.; while he likens Moses, on the other hand, to the truth? But the holy John, the greatest of the evangelists, also tells us of the giving and diffusing of grace for grace; for he indicates, indeed, that we have received the law of Moses out of the fullness of Christ, and he means that for that one grace this other grace has been made perfect in us through Jesus Christ. It was also to show this to be the case that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself spoke in these terms: Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuses you, even Moses, in whom you hope. For had you believed Moses, you would indeed have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if you believe not his writings, how shall you believe my words? And besides all these words, there are still many other passages that might be adduced both from the Apostle Paul and from the Gospels, by which we are able to prove that the old law belongs to no other one than that Lord to whom also the new testament appertains, and which it would suit us very well to set forth, and to make use of in a satisfactory manner. Now, however, the evening prevents us from doing so; for the day is drawing to its close, and it is right that we should now bring our disputation to an end. But an opportunity will be given you tomorrow to put questions to us on any points you are pleased to take up. And after these words they went their way.

stephan huller · 06-09-2013, 09:20 PM

Runia translation of the above-mentioned passage from Philo:

Quote:

For He determines that the worthless man should be ruled by Him as Lord and with awe and groaning feel the fear of the Master hanging over him, that the man of progress should be benefited by Him as God, so that through such acts of kindness he may reach perfection, and that the perfect man should be directed by Him as Lord and benefited by Him as God; for God remains wholly unalterable, while the perfect man is above all a man of God. 25. This is especially shown in the case of Moses. 'This', he says, 'is the blessing which Moses gave, the man of God.' What a splendid and holy exchange is he deemed worthy of, that instead of divine providence he should offer himself (as blessing)! 26. But do not think that being a man and a man of God amounts to the same: you are a man as God's possession, a man of God as a boast (for yourself) and an instrument of service (for others). So if you wish to have God as the portion of your mind, first you yourself become a portion worthy of him (Moses). This will happen if you abandon all handmade and arbitrary laws. [God and Man in Philo of Alexandria Journal of Theological Studies 39 Oxford Press]

aa5874 · 06-09-2013, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

...I think the most important barrier for 'mythicism' to overcome is explaining how 'Jesus' could be a wholly divine being when angels and people didn't share appellations ('Michael,' 'Gabriel,' 'Raphael' were used by people until much later. If indeed the name of the Christian god was original Hebrew 'Isho' = 'His Man' we can finally explain for instance how the Samaritan woman in John 4 'knew' that Jesus was the one they were waiting for. The Samaritan expectation is developed around a 're-appearance' of Moses. The idea is at the core of many Christian passages as Meeks has already noted.

There is no barrier at all for mythicism to overcome when the very Jesus cult writers have themselves declared publicly in the Roman Empire that their Jesus was the Logos and God the Creator born of a Ghost and was a transfiguring water walker who was raised from the the dead on the third day after he was buried.

The Jesus cult writers vehemently argued that Jesus was God born of a Ghost.

What barrier does Ignatius' Jesus pose to mythicism? The Jesus of Ignatius was a Myth--Jesus was God conceived by a Ghost.
.
Ignatius' Ephesians

Quote:

For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.

What barrier does Tertullian's Jesus pose to mythicism?

The Jesus of Tertullian was a Myth--Jesus was God conceived by a Ghost.

On the Flesh of Christ

Quote:

...Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed, lest, if He were wholly the Son of a man, He should fail to be also the Son of God, and have nothing more than “a Solomon” or “a Jonas,” — as Ebion thought we ought to believe concerning Him. In order, therefore, that He who was already the Son of God— of God the Father's seed, that is to say, the Spirit— might also be the Son of man, He only wanted to assume flesh, of the flesh of man without the seed of a man; for the seed of a man was unnecessary for One who had the seed of God.

As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father.

Regardless of the name given to the Son of God in the NT the character was described as a Myth and without corroborative eyewitness.

stephan huller · 06-09-2013, 09:29 PM

Quote:

There is no barrier at all for mythicism to overcome when the very Jesus cult writers have themselves declared publicly in the Roman Empire that their Jesus was the Logos and God the Creator born of a Ghost and was a transfiguring water walker who was raised from the the dead on the third day after he was buried.

My point is that it is unlikely that a WHOLLY divine or an angelic being could have been identified with a human name like Jesus. Jacob was human before becoming divine = Israel. Moses was human before becoming divine etc.

stephan huller · 06-09-2013, 09:31 PM

Runia's interpretation of Moses the man of God is very different that Meeks. It is here http://www.scribd.com/doc/127072864/...d-Studies-1990

aa5874 · 06-09-2013, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

There is no barrier at all for mythicism to overcome when the very Jesus cult writers have themselves declared publicly in the Roman Empire that their Jesus was the Logos and God the Creator born of a Ghost and was a transfiguring water walker who was raised from the the dead on the third day after he was buried.

My point is that it is unlikely that a WHOLLY divine or an angelic being could have been identified with a human name like Jesus. Jacob was human before becoming divine = Israel. Moses was human before becoming divine etc.

Jacob is claimed to have a human father but a Ghost was publicly broadcast as the father of Jesus.

Myth Jesus is the complete opposite to Myth Jacob.

Myth Jesus was God the Creator and then became Flesh--See John 1.

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

06-09-2013, 08:22 PM	#2
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	Wasn't Yehoshua a more Galilean Aramaic influenced version?

06-09-2013, 08:48 PM	#3
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I think this is the original mythicist understanding (even if I have to use this hated term). The Marcionites - and all Christian sectarians who arose from the original Israelite mystery cult - understood that a pre-existent being called 'His Man' or 'the Man of God' (anthropos theou) came as the heavenly high priest to Judea at the time of the Passion.

06-09-2013, 09:31 PM	#9
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Runia's interpretation of Moses the man of God is very different that Meeks. It is here http://www.scribd.com/doc/127072864/...d-Studies-1990

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.