Page 3 of 4
Re: Joshua 5:13-15 and Mark 16:8: midrash?
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:11 am
by Giuseppe
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:09 am
Let me get this straight. Your citation proves there is no difference between an ocean and a river? Is that what you are arguing? Is that what level this debate has degenerated into?
Precisely, if you assume that the
Naasseni - just as the
Terapeutes (another
coincidence!) - were doing ''allegorical exegesis'' of that previous literature.
Re: Joshua 5:13-15 and Mark 16:8: midrash?
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 7:06 am
by Secret Alias
But Joshua isn't a fundamental text and this speculation doesnt further any of the claims about the Therapeuts
Re: Joshua 5:13-15 and Mark 16:8: midrash?
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 7:59 am
by Giuseppe
Only from what I know until now (about Detering's view), there would be a Gnostic link between the
''Jordan/Red Sea/Ocean'' and the
''Jordan'' where the Gospel Jesus was baptized:
For no one who is under the Law will be able to look up to the truth, for they will not be able to serve two masters. For the defilement of the Law is manifest; but undefilement belongs to the light. The Law commands (one) to take a husband (or) to take a wife, and to beget, to multiply like the sand of the sea. But passion, which is a delight to them, constrains the souls of those who are begotten in this place, those who defile and those who are defiled, in order that the Law might be fulfilled through them. And they show that they are assisting the world; and they turn away from the light, who are unable to pass by the archon of darkness until they pay the last penny.
But the Son of Man came forth from Imperishability, being alien to defilement. He came to the world by the Jordan river, and immediately the Jordan turned back. And John bore witness to the descent of Jesus. For it is he who saw the power which came down upon the Jordan river; for he knew that the dominion of carnal procreation had come to an end. The Jordan river is the power of the body, that is, the senses of pleasures. The water of the Jordan is the desire for sexual intercourse. John is the archon of the womb.
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/testruth.html
Interesting the note about John as ''archon of the womb''.
I think that John was placed there (by the proto-catholics) as a mere historical confirmer of the historicity of Jesus. So the Gnostics could have allegorized him,
as anti-Catholic reaction, as the first Archon
the monitoring of which Christ was able to escape, the first time he came down to earth.
Re: Joshua 5:13-15 and Mark 16:8: midrash?
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:41 am
by Giuseppe
Strongly rooted in Jewish tradition, the Therapeutae venerated Moses above all, while closely related gnostic Christian groups such as the Peratae and Naasenes perpetuated traditions centered on Moses’ successor, Joshua. For these latter groups, Joshua/Jesus was the counterpart of Moses. The old cult of Moses was superseded and surpassed by the new, gnostic-Christian cult of Joshua-Jesus.
(my bold)
http://radikalkritik.de/die-gnostische- ... sus-kultes
It would be interesting to know
why just Joshua replaced Moses in the role of Divine Crosser.
Because it's a
fact that Joshua replaced Moses in that role, among the Naasenes and the Peratae.
The historicist answer is that the Naasenes were later gentile Christians influenced by
Eraclitus in doing so, and by historicist traditions about a historical Jesus coming from Judea.
Apart from a small section in Heraclitus where the doctrine of the flow of existence is enunciated, but not of the Gnostic doctrine of the ascent and salvation of the soul,
it is unlikely that different groups, like Therapeuti, Simonians, Peratae, Naasenes, and Mandei, have developed their interpretation of the Exodus on the poor base of Heraclitus.
So, which was the real source of that interpretation?
Re: Joshua 5:13-15 and Mark 16:8: midrash?
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:36 am
by Secret Alias
The old cult of Moses was superseded and surpassed by the new, gnostic-Christian cult of Joshua-Jesus.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THIS. Here's another claim with equal relevance:
The Therapeutae lived on the shores of Lake Maroetis where they invented pasta long before Marco Polo's visit to China.
There is no evidence WHATSOEVER for a Joshua or Jesus cult among the Therapeutae. Did Detering have a dream about this? Or maybe a visionary experience? The evidence just isn't there.
Re: Joshua 5:13-15 and Mark 16:8: midrash?
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:39 am
by Secret Alias
The evidence for Jesus possibly being related to Joshua in a pre-Christian cult rests solely on what is said about a Dosithean preference for Joshua in a 6th century report. But here again it is a reference to Joshua of Nun not a future 'Joshua.'
Re: Joshua 5:13-15 and Mark 16:8: midrash?
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:40 am
by Secret Alias
If this is a 'make shit up contest' sure you can make that shit up. But where is the evidence for any of this?
Re: Joshua 5:13-15 and Mark 16:8: midrash?
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:43 am
by Secret Alias
It would be interesting to know why just Joshua replaced Moses in the role of Divine Crosser.
Where? Who? When? What? You're having a shared world history with other like-minded mythicists that never existed. Is that good enough? Really? That's good all your want? Why not play Dungeons and Dragons instead?
Re: Joshua 5:13-15 and Mark 16:8: midrash?
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:58 am
by Giuseppe
1) Do you accept as historical reality the fact that the Terapeutae adored Moses as Divine Crosser?
2) Do you accept as historical reality the fact that the Naassenes adored Joshua as Divine Crosser?
3) Do you accept as historical reality the fact that to answer "yes" to the questions 1 and 2 above is not and cannot be a coincidence? And that therefore it is a fact that for some reason, the Naasenes placed Joshua where the Terapeutae had Moses (i.e. in the same role of Divine Crosser)?
If your answer is "no", then you are not honest intellectually.
Re: Joshua 5:13-15 and Mark 16:8: midrash?
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:35 am
by Secret Alias
1) Do you accept as historical reality the fact that the Terapeutae adored Moses as Divine Crosser?
I haven't seen any evidence. Be my guest.