Was the Destruction of Jerusalem Proof of Jesus the God's Existence?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was the Destruction of Jerusalem Proof of Jesus the God's Existence?

Post by Secret Alias »

But what does 'historical reluctance' mean if in fact you change the original understanding? A perfect example, continuing with the Mitra-Yahweh parallels would be if a Persian was asked to forsake Ahura Mazda in favor of exclusive veneration of Mithra(s) the ruler of the world? This is exactly what I think happened in early Christianity with respect to Jesus. Ancient believers had a system which they must have believed was 'the true tradition' and then someone comes along and says 'you have it all wrong, here is how things are supposed to be.' The accusation would always be the same on the other side. You deny the ruler of the world, you deny the Creator. But the heretic was probably saying or thinking to himself 'who the fuck are you to tell me how to worship my god(s)?'
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was the Destruction of Jerusalem Proof of Jesus the God's Existence?

Post by Secret Alias »

Another example is Christians who don't understand why Jews just can't 'fit' Jesus Christ into their system. The logic goes something like this. We like Jews. We believe in the Jewish scriptures. Now why don't you return the favor and believe in our Jesus? Oh, you won't do that. You must hate Jesus.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was the Destruction of Jerusalem Proof of Jesus the God's Existence?

Post by Secret Alias »

Or a crude example from human relations.

Woman: You're handsome.
Man: Oh you think I'm handsome. Sleep with me.
Woman: I don't want to sleep with you, I am just saying you are attractive.
Man: Oh I get it you're a lesbian.

The fact that the Marcionites did not accept the Jewish god Yahweh as the Almighty might have had less to do with 'hating' the Jewish god than it did in terms of contradicting their established system and whom it placed or understood to be the Almighty.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was the Destruction of Jerusalem Proof of Jesus the God's Existence?

Post by Giuseppe »

We have evidence of Jewish-Christian sects (like the ebionites) who reduced Jesus to a human status precisely because they had to choose: to continue to be Jews (by adoring YHWH) or (AUT) continue to adore an archangel named Jesus.

These ebionites followers of only a merely human Jesus opted for a solution of compromise: YHWH rules and Jesus is only his prophet.

The proto-catholics were not satisfied with that timide solution. They wanted for themselves both the cult of YHWH and of the god Jesus. Their natural enemies were Jews, Gnostics and Ebionites.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Was the Destruction of Jerusalem Proof of Jesus the God's Existence?

Post by lsayre »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:52 am And the difficulty of the traditional understanding of Marcion and his 'stranger god' is that the irony of having the Jews condemn their own god is lost and surely irony is at work here. Why would the Jews be condemned for rejecting a god they had never heard of before or who had no connection to their religion? It doesn't make any sense and more importantly isn't a good ground out of which to develop an extremely popular myth. In order to gain popularity there had to be a punch line. The punch line surely was the Jews who claimed to be so pious and knowledgeable about god were really impious and ignorant. That gets a laugh, that works. But you lose that if there is no logical congruence which is the case if you introduce a wholly unheard of god who the Jews have no reason to know anything about.
Some day it would be great to see a dissertation, book, thesis, pier reviewed paper, ... from you with regard to Marcion(ism) and how/why it radically differs from the accepted viewpoint. I've been following and reading your stuff for years now, and to have it concisely delivered in a package would be great.

PS: I wish you would get back to spending more time on your own blog site, as well as being here.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was the Destruction of Jerusalem Proof of Jesus the God's Existence?

Post by Secret Alias »

The ur-text of Exodus found at Qumran, the Samaritan canon and the circle of R Ishmael makes clear there are two gods.
Someone came along (undoubtedly under Imperial influence) and said there is just one and his name is YHWH you should only venerate him. Ignore or change what is said in Exodus. The mountain top was heaven. Time and space bent. You can't understand the divinity. If you don't accept what we say we're going to make your life miserable.
Most people went along with this.
Some idiot witnessing this and deciding WTF I have nothing to lose said 'you are full of shit. Here is the text of Exodus. Look at the rest of the Pentateuch. There is clearly a god walking around interacting with men and women. Fuck you, this can't be God Almighty. You're full of shit.'
Heretic! Marcion!
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was the Destruction of Jerusalem Proof of Jesus the God's Existence?

Post by Secret Alias »

I wish you would get back to spending more time on your own blog site, as well as being here.
My main effort is to turn my scholastically oriented son into a La Liga football player not because I want him to do this but because he wants it and I don't want to turn him into me. Self-loathing as self-knowledge. Everything else is on the back burner. But thanks for the kind words.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was the Destruction of Jerusalem Proof of Jesus the God's Existence?

Post by Giuseppe »

According to you, the earliest Gospel was: the Jews don't recognize their same god and then they are punished.

But so the Jews have still the merit of a true knowledge of God even if only in the past.

The marcionophile (my) version of the earliest Gospel is the following:

The Jews never knew the true god and they were punished by their god.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was the Destruction of Jerusalem Proof of Jesus the God's Existence?

Post by Secret Alias »

But that makes no sense. How could the Jews be blamed for not knowing a god that was outside of their tradition? Who knew this god? No one you would claim. So why single out the Jews?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was the Destruction of Jerusalem Proof of Jesus the God's Existence?

Post by Giuseppe »

Because they take the role of blind puppets manipulated by their god. The hate was direct essentially against the god, not against his adorers.

Only in Catholic versions you have the hate directed against the Jews per se.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply