Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by John2 »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri May 15, 2020 10:18 pm
I knew you were going to bring up your Ten Commandments argument,
Steve it's hardly my idea. It's a well attested Jewish position. https://books.google.com/books?id=WAGK8 ... ew&f=false
I don't have original ideas or insights. It's all from the sources.

The Ten Commandments argument that you espouse, I don't buy it for the reason i gave above.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

But you're denying ancient sources not me just to make clear. And with regards to a distinction between the 10 commandments and the law written on the authority of Moses - does it make any sense that Moses would have revealed a law governing sacrifices in a middle of the desert? Yes there is the silly story of the desert tabernacle and massive amounts of livestock but give me a break. The founder of Christianity must have found this puzzling too. So too the heavenly Torah ignores circumcision not surprising given that Egyptians already practiced it. One would also expect vegetarianism in a religion founded in a desert.
“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
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by John2 »

Secret Alias wrote: Sat May 16, 2020 12:05 pm But you're denying ancient sources not me just to make clear.

I'm denying that Jesus promotes a Ten Commandments-only Torah in the synoptic gospels.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

But certain arguments - like the teaching on divorce - reflect an anti-Mosaic perspective.
“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: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

And to make clear as I said earlier it has been noted that there are certain parallels between the rich man who comes before Jesus in chapter 10 and the rich youth in Secret Mark who follows. Both are rich, in the former Jesus loves the man, in the latter the youth loves Jesus. But the prediction at the end of the section can be seen as an allusion to the (brother-making) ritual follows in Secret Mark:
But Christ is the fulfilment of the law for righteousness to every one that believes; and not as a slave making slaves, but (as a son making) sons, and (a brother making) brethren, and (an heir making) fellow-heirs, who perform the Father's will (οὐχὶ δὲ δούλους ποιῶν ὡς δοῦλος, ἀλλὰ καὶ υἱοὺς καὶ ἀδελφοὺς καὶ συγκληρονό μους τοὺς ἐπιτελοῦντας τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός).
which is generally argued to be a reference to the baptism reference in Romans

The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

Clement seems to blend Romans 8:14 - 17 with certain passages of the gospel where Jesus speaks of being a fellow-heir and a brother:

Romans 8.17 εἰ δὲ τέκνα, καὶ κληρονόμοι· κληρονόμοι μὲν θεοῦ, συγκληρονόμοι δὲ Χριστοῦ, εἴπερ συμπάσχομεν ἵνα καὶ συνδοξασθῶμεν.

• συγκληρονόμος (Protr. 113.5 [p. 80 l. 11]) [All]
• συγκληρονόμον (Protr. 115.4 [p. 81 l. 25]) [All]
• συμποτικὰς (Protr. 115.4 [p. 184 l. 10] BP1) [All]
• συγκληρονόμους (Strom. 2.134.2 [p. 187 l. 10] BP1) [All]
• + from 8.18 εἴπερ συμπάσχομεν, ἵνα καὶ συνδοξασθῶμεν, ὡς συγκληρονόμοι Χριστοῦ (Strom. 4.45.6 [p. 269 l. 3] BP1) [Ad]
• συγκληρονόμους υἱοὺς καὶ φίλους. ἀδελφοί μου γάρ, φησὶν ὁ κύριος, καὶ συγκληρονόμοι οἱ ποιοῦντες τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός μου. (Ecl. 20.3 [p. 142 l. 13]) [All – Also C Mt. 12.50]
• οὐχὶ δὲ δούλους ποιῶν ὡς δοῦλος, ἀλλὰ καὶ υἱοὺς καὶ ἀδελφοὺς καὶ συγκληρονόμους τοὺς ἐπιτελοῦντας τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός. (Quis div. 9.2 [p. 165 l. 22] BP1) [All – Also Mt. 12.50]
• τέκνον αὐτοῦ γνήσιον καὶ κληρονόμον (Quis div. 36.2 [p. 183 l. 25] BP1) [All – Also 1 Tim. 1.2; Tit. 1.4]

So in Ecologue 19 and 20:
XIX. Advancing from faith and fear to knowledge, man knows how to say Lord, Lord; but not as His slave, he has learned to say, Our Father. [4] Having set free the spirit of bondage, which produces fear, and advanced by love to adoption, he now reverences from love Him whom he feared before. For he no longer abstains from what he ought to abstain from out of fear, but out of love clings to the commandments. "The Spirit itself," it is said, "beareth witness when we cry, Abba, Father."

XX. Now the Lord with His precious blood redeems us, freeing us from our old bitter masters, that is, our sins, on account of which the spiritual powers of wickedness ruled over us. Accordingly He leads us into the liberty of the Father, -- sons that are co-heirs and friends. "For," says the Lord, "they that do the will of my Father are my brethren and fellow-heirs." [6] "Call no man, therefore, father to yourselves on earth." [7] For it is masters that are on earth. But in heaven is the Father, of whom is the whole family, both in heaven and on earth. [8] For love rules willing hearts, but fear the unwilling. One kind of fear is base; but the other, leading us as a pedagogue to good, brings us to Christ, and is saving.
It seems to suggest that baptism was not only a rite to establish the initiates as sons and fellow-heirs but also brothers of each other and Christ.
“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: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

And if you really think about it. What are the consequences of ACTUALLY BELIEVING that the Father's image was impressed upon your person? Absolute equality. That's what. One individual would be understood - perhaps secretly - to be the EXACT SAME as another. The Father manifests himself in that individuals very person. And what effect would the presence of the Father was understood to have on those who had yet to be initiated into the Christian mystery among these Alexandrian Christians? Could Clement have understood 'the presence of the Father' not having an erotic effect on those who beheld it's glory?

Regan notes even in Platonism pederasty or homosexuality is not actually being condoned or promoted but rather the idea that beauty is godlike:
Socrates' conversation with Diotima emboldens him as the expert on love, not of desire but promoting love against abusive pederasty (Halperin, 1990; 177d). Perhaps, for Socrates the act of vocal transmission was most important and enabled an elevation from the physical act and actions of male suitors to warn men of the virtuous dangers of pleasure at another’s expense. Diotima asks “…the lover of beautiful has a desire, what is it that he desire?” (204d). Socrates answers that beauty is love and that can be found within philosophical analysis and wisdom through the symbolism of procreation of ideas and philosophy. Philosophy is a substitution for what love refers to. This suggestion of man not only as a “pleasure chaser” but a pro-creator of ideas also appears in Phaedrus where the spoken word immersed within the soul of the listener becomes metaphorically, like the speaker’s own son (278a6, Halperin, 1990).

There are clues to Diotima’s fictitious state with the same premises in Socrates conversation with Agathon and Diotima’s lessons on love (Halperin, 1990) and also found in Phaedrus (243d5-257a). Halperin (1990) suggests Diotima’s femininity is an illusion, a Socratic myth tailor made to give the assembled male audience an authoritative female voice from the past to impact on their view of women in the present. However, Socrates use of women for dramatic purposes may have been due to the cultural domination of males over women and this would have challange classical Greek mythology treatment of women as not being equal to men (Arkins, 1994). The use of Diotima’s femininity therefore, aimed to confront men’s notion of pederasty as being romantic and mutually beneficial (Halperin, 1990). In contrast, Greek writers’ portrayal of women effectively silenced them through male impersonation of the female form, instead allowed men to express themselves and their desires across the generations to each other (Arkins, 1994; Foley, 1992). However, the male imitation of a woman would suggest there was a power play between lover and his beloved, which Socrates aimed to illuminate in debate.

Taylor (2002) suggests Plato’s erotic mentoring role represents Socrates in Symposium (216d) being emotionally attracted to young, attractive and intelligent men (Charmides 155c-e, Gorgias, 481d). In Symposium Socrates is apparently not against pederasty or all other pleasures but instead extols the virtues of balance, self-control, mutual gratification and intellectual development (Gill, 1999). However, because of his age it is suggested that by not physically acting on his attraction, he instead sought to promote the younger man’s soul and afterlife through intellectual and moral development (Rowe, 2005). This intellectual activation is evident in Symposium when Socrates praises the reluctant Agathon as he presents a tragic-rhetorical view of love (194e-197e). In so doing, Socrates comes down to the very nature of what love means and does not mean in Athenian culture (Rowe, 2005), when speech turns to an unforced love being just, because mutually consenting love seeks similar qualities of both lover and beloved (196-7c).

In Agathon’s speech on how happy the gods are, he suggests the male god Eros is happiest because he is the most beautiful (195a) and he then goes onto extol Eros’s many virtues to reinforce the notion that aesthetic beauty is likened to being god-like. Socrates, in attempting to develop an alternative viewpoint then sets up Agathon firstly with gentle humour to incrementally identify the underlying premise behind each statement made (Gill, 1999). In the end Socrates eventually exposes Agathon’s inconsistent views and lack of wisdom about love through the type of non-sexualised and familial love, namely the love for a relative (199d).

For Socrates, the philosophical discourse was not only a pursuit of wisdom but also an erotic narrative of beauty (Halperin, 1992). The beauty or excellence of Socrates narratives paralleled his power as a “philosophical lover,” whose love for beautiful boys was only activated by stimulating their intellectual abilities. This overt lack of physicality of Socrates is intriguing, especially considering the cultural acceptance of male lovers in Athenian society (Bloch 2004). Perhaps Socrates was even playing devil’s advocate as he challenged those all around to be virtuous and good, including himself. For example, Socrates words appeared to enact the cherished memories of a lover suspended in time and the past re-presented in men’s speeches and eulogies (Halperin, 1992).

Through his oratory Socrates demonstrated a powerful potency to capture the attention of male listeners, and was drawn to boys with a flirtatious enthusiasm for discourse, rather than intercourse. In short, Socrates challenged pederasty’s lustful “…inciting and renewing the desire it gratifies…” through the voice of Diotima and re-enacting the issues of loss, regeneration, emptying and filling, the impulse of the narrator and as a sensory experience of procreation its effect on the reader (Halperin, 1992, p. 102). Hence, the regeneration and procreation of the narrative of desire ensures Socrates immortality in the afterlife (Halperin, 1990).
The question again has to be - IF Platonic Christians REALLY BELIEVED that the image or likeness of the Father had been impressed on to their mortal flesh at baptism and thus transformed their person, how could being in the presence of that divinity NOT BE conceived in someway as an erotic experience?
“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
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by John2 »

Secret Alias wrote: Sat May 16, 2020 2:01 pm But certain arguments - like the teaching on divorce - reflect an anti-Mosaic perspective.

In Matthew Jesus forbids divorce except for sexual immorality, which I think is a fair interpretation of ervat davar in Dt. 24:1.


Mt. 5:31-32 and 19:9:

“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Dt. 24:1:

When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency [ervat davar] in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house ...

And while Jesus frowns on divorce for any reason in Mark, he bases his opinion on Gen. 1:27 and 2:24 (10:6-8: "But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ "), which of course were also supposedly written by Moses. And by my reading Jesus doesn't necessarily forbid divorce here either, only remarrying after divorce, presumably while the first spouse is still alive, since he likens it to committing adultery.


Mk. 10:10-12:

When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

This is similar to the position in the Damascus Document (col. 4-5), which also cites Gen. 1:27:

They ... shall be caught in fornication twice by taking a second wife while the first is alive, whereas the principle of creation is, 'Male and female created He them.' Also, those who entered the Ark went in two by two.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

Steve I think this discussion belongs in a separate thread.
“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
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by John2 »

Secret Alias wrote: Sat May 16, 2020 5:01 pm Steve I think this discussion belongs in a separate thread.


That would be fine with me. You brought it up here though after my comments about the subject of this thread so I was responding to you:

But there is nothing in the 10 commandments. Christian attitudes tend to be shaped by the differences between God's Torah and Moses's Torah.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

I don't think you understand the concept here. Your citation of Deuteronomy was not from heaven (according to the sectarians). From Moses not God.
“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
Post Reply