I suspect Nietzsche is taking certain biblical ideas, ignoring evidence to the contrary, and then overstating these ideas and then attributing them to a shadowy priestly class behind the text and then taking liberties in describing the social context of those shadowy priests, as if they were writing against a noble and proud aristocracy. — BitconnectCarlos

Everything Nietzsche details in his genealogy essay 1 can be found in the Old Testament. In Genesis alone at that.

That God confuses the languages of Good and Evil, and that the powerful who enslave shall be the damned etc etc, the cunning of these slaves, like Abram fucking over Pharoah because he was a coward to admit his marriage etc etc...

A lot can be found in the OT and even more can be interpreted. And the job is considerably easier if you ignore content that contradicts your thesis.

Nothing to contradict though.

God damns anyone with power over the Jew...
Genesis Chapter 15 line 13-15

Virtue ethics = cruelty is virtuous. Need one say more?

Obviously doesn't know a damn thing about repressed instincts which cause for the greatest spasmodic explosions of compulsion in which one cannot control themselves.

Cruelty when practiced in moderation tempers its most destructive elements...

This has been part of psychology for the last 200 years at least... how you're blind to it just shows you're not very educated on the human condition.

That's always the problem with dogmatists... too obstinate to see beyond what was issued to them.

Yahweh is the Supreme Cruelty... hence why those who dont follow the equation of Jesus will remain under God's angry judgements, John 3:17... Most of Nietzsche's main points in philosophy and psychology is more or less a copy to the equation of Jesus' Glad Tidings.

What do you think Nietzsche would make of the great nobility, wealth and grandeur of King David and Solomon? Or how it is written "How beautiful are your tents, O Jacob; how lovely are your homes, O Israel!" (Num. 24:5).

Yet beautiful Saul is replaced by ruddy David. So beauty is recognized as not a good method for choosing a king. David is also the smallest of his brothers and the least impressive. There you go. The hatred of beauty.

The etymology of Arya is "the rich and powerful" ...
The Mitanni kingdom, with its Indo-Aryan aristocracy, adopted Hurrian language and culture, and they were known for their chariot warfare, which was also used (the culture of Arya) by the Babylonian Empire...

Who held the Jews captive, and were damned by God—Genesis 15:13-15

Thus...

Human history would be too fatuous for anything were it not for the cleverness imported into it by the weak—take at once the most important instance. All the world's efforts against the "aristocrats," the "mighty," the "masters," the "holders of power," are negligible by comparison with what has been accomplished against those classes by the Jews—the Jews, that priestly nation which eventually realised that the one method of effecting satisfaction on its enemies and tyrants was by means of a radical transvaluation of values, which was at the same time an act of the cleverest revenge. Yet the method was only appropriate to a nation of priests, to a nation of the most jealously nursed priestly revengefulness. It was the Jews who, in opposition to the aristocratic equation (good = aristocratic = beautiful = happy = loved by the gods), dared with a terrifying logic to suggest the contrary equation, and indeed to maintain with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred of weakness) this contrary equation, namely, "the wretched are alone the good; the poor, the weak, the lowly, are alone the good; the suffering, the needy, the sick, the loathsome, are the only ones who are pious, the only ones who are blessed, for them alone is salvation—but you, on the other hand, you aristocrats, you men of power, you are to all eternity the evil, the horrible, the covetous, the insatiate, the godless; eternally also shall you be the unblessed, the cursed, the damned!" — Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals § 7, First Essay

Who cares it's a completely moot tanget and red herring from the fact of Genesis 15:13-15 That God damns anyone with power over the Jew, this shows their logic in hating those more powerful than them... this places the emphasis on the weaker type.

You take Nietzsche's meaning to be "all Jews are weak slaves," or something like that due to some reason, of which there are many you're doing so for.

"the wretched are alone the good; the poor, the weak, the lowly, are alone the good; the suffering, the needy, the sick, the loathsome, are the only ones who are pious, the only ones who are blessed, for them alone is salvation — Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals § 7, First Essay

Not at all Jewish, but closer to the message of the gospels. Some Christians do consider Jesus as "peak Judaism" though so it could fit. But are there are too many strong, rich, and proud Jews who are loved and respected for this to be the case. Wealth is often seen as divine blessing.

but you, on the other hand, you aristocrats, you men of power, you are to all eternity the evil, the horrible, the covetous, the insatiate, the godless; eternally also shall you be the unblessed, the cursed, the damned! — Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals § 7, First Essay

Godless and hedonistic men of power do get a bad rap, but that's because they're godless and hedonistic, not because they're wealthy.

I was thinking of Job's interlocutors, the Disciples' questions at the opening of John 9 as to whether a man was born blind because he sinned or his parents, etc. The idea that good fortune is a reward and bad fortune a punishment shows up in the wisdom literature and the Psalms quite a bit too.

I would agree with you that it isn't a major theme promoted by Scripture. Indeed, Scripture often seems to argue directly against this view. I am just saying that, because Scripture feels the need to address this view, it must have been at least somewhat common.

And that only makes sense, it's hardly like American Protestants invented something totally new with the prosperity gospel. The idea that people's standing depends on their goodness has been common across a lot of cultures throughout history.

The idea that people's standing depends on their goodness has been common across a lot of cultures throughout history. — Count Timothy von Icarus

"Good" is always subject to the culture's table of values though. So you didn't really say much about an objective good.

Not at all Jewish, but closer to the message of the gospels. Some Christians do consider Jesus as "peak Judaism" though so it could fit. — BitconnectCarlos

People who haven't read the Bible obviously.

Godless and hedonistic men of power do get a bad rap, but that's because they're godless and hedonistic, not because they're wealthy. — BitconnectCarlos

Nietzsche clearly isn't talking about Hedonism. And your God can sucketh. It's all just a fable anyways. A fable that details the most bogus bullshit, like men living 900 years, and how everyone was incestuous in their culture. Which is funny considering humans were around long before the Israelites and thus they weren't just fucking their own sisters to birth all of humanity... that's a much much older tale that has nothing to do with the Jews.

lol, that reminds me, after I listened to the audiobook of Saint Gregory of Nyssa 's "The Life of Moses," (excellent quality BTW) the YouTube algorithm, in its infinite wisdom, decided that I was a prime target for ads by Messianic Jews that were obviously aimed at trying to convert other Jews to Messianic Judaism with the line: "nothing is more Jewish than Jesus!"

I'm going to go out on a limb though and say that 95+% of the audience listening to St. Gregory are Christians, and probably moreso traditional Christians, not Jews, but I could be wrong. Maybe it just sandwiched the key words: "Moses" and "Christ."

"nothing is more Jewish than Jesus!" — Count Timothy von Icarus

Duh, Jesus was a Jew, but he flat out rejects Judaism.

When was the last time either of you read the Gospels?

He came unto his own, and his own received him not... But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. John saw Jesus coming to him, and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world. — John, Chapter 1

Jesus was rejected by his own and he abolished the entire doctrine of sin, reward, and punishment of Judaism. Because Jesus assumes the right to new values, just as the Greek men of antiquity. Hence why Nietzsche vibes with Jesus.

Duh, Jesus was a Jew, but he flat out rejects Judaism. — DifferentiatingEgg

That would have been news to his followers! :lol: Many of his later interpreters, including Paul, could be read as doing that, but not Jesus himself. He evidently believed he was the fulfillment of all the messianic prophecies, and was always addressed as Rabbi or Teacher.

Oh, well, Paul doesn't give an account of the Life of Jesus Christ he gives his own doctrine... "Pauline Doctrine"

Jesus has his own equation.

Sin is the divorce of man from God (just as absurdity is the divorce of man from himself)

Nothing comes between Jesus and another, he loves all, and can bridge any divide, towards even to those who were his greatest enemies.

Paul's Doctrine has zero to do with the Glad Tidings of Jesus Christ.

You should probably read Foucault. Madness and Civilization if you want to understand a bit more on that.

After Port-Royal, men would have to wait two centuries—until Dostoievsky and Nietzsche—for Christ to regain the glory of his madness, for scandal to recover its power as revelation, for unreason to cease being merely the public shame of reason.

But at the very moment Christian reason rid itself of the madness that had so long been a part of itself, the madman, in his abolished reason, in the fury of his animality, received a singular power as a demonstration: it was as if scandal, driven out of that superhuman region where it related to God and where the Incarnation was manifested, reappeared, in the plenitude of its force and pregnant with a new lesson, in that region where man has a relation to nature and to his animality. The lesson’s point of application has shifted to the lower regions of madness. The Cross is no longer to be considered in its scandal; but it must not be forgotten that throughout his human life Christ honored madness, sanctified it as he sanctified infirmity cured, sin forgiven, poverty assured of eternal riches....
...Coming into this world, Christ agreed to take upon himself all the signs of the human condition and the very stigmata of fallen nature; from poverty to death, he followed the long road of the Passion, which was also the road of the passions, of wisdom forgotten, and of madness. — Foucault, Madness and Civilization

Nietzsche's Equation is Amor Fati, which Mirrors the Glad Tidings, and the Superman is made reality when you suffer the fool...

"Und mit ihnen an ihnen leidet"

I like a lot of Foucault but he wouldn't be my go-to guy for Jesus scholarship. Try Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by Reza Aslan, very well researched.

Have you read the Gospels? That's all I'm concerned with when it comes to Christ. How much is his work inclusive of the apostles? If it doesnt align with the equation of Christ's life, who cares?

Have you read the Gospels? — DifferentiatingEgg

Certainly. And have often preached them, though a philosophy forum isn't the place for that, IMO.

How much is his work inclusive of the apostles? — DifferentiatingEgg

Not quite sure what "inclusive of the apostles" would be. You can judge for yourself -- I found the book completely respectful of the Christian path, if that's what you mean.

Ah, you're trying to give me a historical account of a man...

I'm talking of the myth of the avatar of God, as the Bible frames him...

Christianity was prepared hundreds of years in advance of someone who took the name Jesus. The myth of Jesus was pre sime human taking the name Jesus Christ.

Please tell me you don't think some guy popped into existence and then Christianity was developed around HIM... when the concept of the Jewish Messiah was in the OT, some 1500+ years prior, that had radical sects devoted to the Messiah...

OK.

Bro lmao thats a fail at history. Judaism's myth prepared the legend of the Messiah well in advance.

Christianity catalyzed around the figure because the myth was already propagated far and wide.

Bro lmao thats a fail at history. — DifferentiatingEgg

Sorry, could you translate that? :wink:

Christianity catalyzed around the figure because the myth was already propagated far and wide. — DifferentiatingEgg

There were primative monasteries to Christianity which radical followers of Judaism would meet in on the Sabbath and worship: namely the Therapeutae.

The way to make something really stand out in history and to catalyze reality behind the words is to propagate ideas, (propaganda) then cause an event to Crystalize Public Opinion.

And Philo Judeaus' work Die Vita Contemplativa shows these groups and points to these monasteries to Christ that were in existence before the legendary figure of Christ reared head as a human.

And he lived during that period of time. Not some 2000 years afterwards looking back.

History always progresses linearly, it doesn't make leaps.

The man Jesus Christ was merely a man, not a God, and not the myth. He played a role in a real life dramatic TRAGEDY (as in the Greek art). The most brilliant Theater the world has seen: Jesus the Tragic Hero.

Though, I may pick up the book you recommend just to get a solid detailing of the Man, rather than the myth of the man, the myth of the Messiah, that existed 1500+ years before the man...

An interesting viewpoint.

The Therapeutae branched out of the Essenes.

And Philo Judeaus Hellenized much of the OT with Plato's teachings. So we can see the wish to overcome Greek and Roman values by this appropriation of values such that the stories share aspects of the Greek and Roman myths to make transition from one easier. The hero of Tragedy is always the Dionsysian Hero and this hero is always represented in the form of the Apollonian. Hence why Jesus shares so many traits with Dionsysus. Also why Christmas is actually Bacchanalia. Bacchus = Dionsysus. The very essence of the transvaluation of values.

There were primative monasteries to Christianity which radical followers of Judaism would meet in on the Sabbath and worship: namely the Therapeutae. — DifferentiatingEgg

Did they worship Jesus in these "monasteries?" Or were they just doing worship which others came to associate with Christian worship?

Yup.

Source? Philo, right? Show me the passage.