Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

[Peter Kirby]

Clement seems to think that both Jews and Plato shared the expectation of the revelation of the ideal man.

I don't know the quote of Clement, but do consider the many references to the mystery religions' ideas being planted by demons, who knew about the one and only savior. So we don't have to go looking as far as Buddhism to find this kind of development. Apparently it took place in the mystery religions too.

[Clive]

The core claim of xianity is that the perfect man has come - God is with us.

Why did they feel able to claim that with such authority? A bloke wandering around Galilee and getting deaded is not sufficient in its explanatory power.

[Stephan Huller]

That's my problem Clive. A Platonist could not have believed that a human being could have been the perfect man. Only the perfect man could have been the perfect man

[Clive]

Maybe the usp of xianity is about the "glass darkly".

The scriptures, visions and possibly a mass hallucination - the 500 - were believed to be signs of the coming of the perfect man, yahweh's anointed saviour, who was going to usher in a new heaven and earth, getting rid of Plato's shadows.

The stories of a bloke in Nazareth are irrelevant detritus, washed up with the tide of the perfect man and his perfect heaven and earth.

[Secret Alias]

Back to work. I tried a different approach with Barnabas and looked for just the name 'Jesus' (rather than 'anthropos'). This is another bullseye. Here ΙΣ is certainly Eesh or Eeshu:

For thus saith the Lord; Moses, Moses, come down quickly; for thy people whom thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt hath done unlawfully. And Moses understood, and threw the two tables from his hands; and their covenant was broken in pieces, that the covenant of the beloved ΙΣ might be sealed unto our hearts in the hope which springeth from faith in Him.

That Ish or Ishu gave Moses the commandments is just as clear from the Pentateuch as Jacob wrestling with the ish or all the other examples cited by the Church Fathers. It is actually an example cited by the Church Fathers.

[Ulan]

One thing that I haven't seen you really attack, is that if someone consistently believed that philosophy, including (Middle) Platonism were an influence, then there would be an ideal form of Man. While many are antsy about seeing platonic influence in the New Testament for obvious reasons, it's plainly admitted to be in the background of a wide variety of non-biblical texts, both orthodox and heretical.

The description of the Jerusalem community in Acts, their divisions and their respective tasks is pretty much a copy from Plato's Politeia. For details see this post on Vridar.

It's not directly what you look for, but I guess it suggests Platonic influence. Also, some of the Bartimaeus explanations run in the same vein.

[Ulan]

The idea that you had to be living in a library like they currently do to make sense of all the literary allegory, symbolism and references is plainly stupid. This is when Christianity was effectively taken away from its original 'people.' There had to be a simple message that simple people could 'get.' Even the Eleusinian mysteries - attracting as they were 'the best' people - were not a tenth as complex as Neil and others imagine Christianity to be in their ever evolving (and expanding) model of Christian 'mythicism.'

To be fair, the idea behind some of these concepts is that some of the Christian texts worked on at least two different levels, one for the common people and one for those in the know. If you look at the many examples from Mark on this forum, the text provides an excellent example for this. Take those miracle stories. The miracle story, taken at face value, addresses the simple listener. And yet, if you look at the reactions of people that Mark describes, that's actually not what happens. It's even spelled out during the first expulsion of a demon that, what Mark is actually just describing here, is getting stupid ideas out of his listeners' minds. He's talking of powerful explanations.

I'm sure that people who think about gMark with these sophisticated ideas in mind, recognize that this may be some brilliant, but ultimately failed text. It was too sophisticated for its own good. The next interpreters already only understood some of it.

This all is not trying to argue against your ΙΣ idea. I find that one quite enticing, and it sounds logical in itself. It's also astounding how many hints you have collected so far. It's just that most of these hints are of the weak kind, and the real deal breaker is still missing.

[Ulan]

That Ish or Ishu gave Moses the commandments is just as clear from the Pentateuch as Jacob wrestling with the ish or all the other examples cited by the Church Fathers. It is actually an example cited by the Church Fathers.

Yup, I must admit that this is a much better explanation for "Jesus the rock" that guides Moses and Israel through the desert in Paul. Then again, what is the connection of Logos/Sophia and Ish?

[Clive]

Isn't this the deal breaker?

1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. 2And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband

The perfect man, the perfect woman, the perfect universe, no more sea, no more shadows and chaos.

[Secret Alias]

No it's not a deal breaker because a Marcionite had a very small set of accepted texts.