Apostle Paul

[Tabula Rasa]

So.... if you could go back in history and stop just one man, who would it be?

 

 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, I apologize in advance for the following, as it is very cruel and mean spirited.

 

Are you Saul of Tarsus?

 

Yes.

 

Click click, BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM!

 

I shouldn't think things like that,but the worlds suffered untold misery because of that bastard Paul.

 

Edit: Despite what I've written, I wouldn't kill anyone unless it was life or death. If I really had a time machine, I'd do whatever I could to discredit him and make sure Christianity faded into obscurity.

[Deva]

Paul's preaching was rejected by Jews, thats why he went to the Gentiles. Constantine built and supposedly dedicated his church he built to the Disciples and Jesus, not mentioning Paul. I still don't think Paul had any influence in Constantine's Christian life. I think it was the standard church that Peter set up, and had branched up. From my studies, the meat of the new Jesus based religion was through the Catholics, later expounded on by Paul.

 

You are right about Paul making it acceptable to the Gentiles. It has been a long time since I studied this subject. I still doubt this religion would have spread without Paul.

[Kuroikaze]

You are right about Paul making it acceptable to the Gentiles. It has been a long time since I studied this subject. I still doubt this religion would have spread without Paul.

 

Yeah, I think this is the point. Paul's version was rejected by any Jew's who were not strongly Hellenistic already.

 

Of all the early versions of Christianity pretty much all of them relied heavily on Pauline theology with the exception of the Ebonites who believed you needed to be Jewish to be Christian. For obvious reasons (ahem....Circumcision) It was unlikely that the Ebonite version would ever become a major player. Note here that some scholars believe the apostle Peter was actually from the Ebonite sect, based on certain things Paul says about Peter in his writings. Acts, which is written much later, tries to smooth over these differences and make it look like Paul and Peter were pals. Its not certain, but it is a valid interpretation of the information we have.

 

Its hard to believe that Christianity would have ever made such an impact without Paul's writings, or at least a theology similar to it.

[Antlerman]

- no priests

 

I'm still thinking on the rest of your response. But, no priests? Did they not have 'church', and priests before, during Paul's ministry. What about Peter?

It' so interesting how what we have today before us as Christianity is imagined to have come into being as the myth of its origins we all grew up with tells us. I would say it's more than just possible, that there is evidence to show us, that Christianity was not a religion started by a man named Jesus, that the earliest groups were more students of a teacher who was far more a cynic philosopher than some sort of messiah starting a new religion in his own name.

 

It's the earliest groups who followed the counter-culture instructions of this cynic-sage who morphed themselves into a community, writing rules of conduct for the group amongst themselves and in their dealings with others in a sayings collection attributed to the name of their teacher. "Jesus said," was a process of attribution, to speak as their master would, a common practice back then. None of these sayings of the community had anything to do with a sin sacrifice, salvation, god on earth messiah type religion.

 

They were likely composed of Jews with some gentiles in the mix in the more ethnic cross-roads area of Galilee, which contrary to myth was not some backwards rural farming region but a more progressive regional mix of Jewish and Hellenized people, more seperated from the whole southern regions where Jerusalem and the temple where more traditional Jews lived. This was not a religion. It was much more a counter-culture social movement; not some Jewish religious reform movement. There's no talk of that in the earliest layers of its writings. Social movements are not new religions, and as such have no priests. A priest for what?

 

If Paul had never existed, it would be unlikely you would have any of the narrative gospels. There wouldn't be a story of an earthly Jesus to a heavenly Christ story arch. There would have been no need. There wouldn't have been any Christ cults in order to create a story that supported the Jesus movements with their sayings collections along with those who practiced a mystery religion of the Christ. No Gospel of Mark, and subsequently no Matthew or Luke, or John either, since it takes that basic story and spices it with gnostic tones.

 

Are you suggesting that the possible skepticism of unknown authors of these books was Paul? You initially went way past me there, but then 'I think', I understand your point. I am basing my hypothesis on most generally accepted knowledge. Even if they didn't write it, the Catholic movement set up by Peter was still present and large, by Constantine's time. I think whether scholars say it was written in 60AD or 100AD is irrelevant to the suggestion of Paul's lack of influence on Constantine; whom enabled Christianity to expand.

No, not that Mark or any other narrative Gospel was written by Paul, but that the author(s) of Mark wrote their narrative tale of Jesus as an attempt to create a story arch bridging the communities of the early Jesus movements with the mystical Christ cultists of Asia Minor where Paul carved out his role as minister. Paul never wrote of an earthly Jesus, and in fact would likely have been taken back at Mark's account of the destruction of the temple being caused by the Jews rejecting Jesus as messiah, as Mark suggests.

 

The rejection and vindication of Jesus as their teacher became blended with Paul's theology of martyrdom of the cosmic Christ into a story of their teacher destined to be crucified and resurrected. However, it doesn't end with the risen Christ. Mark's Gospel ends with these simple words, "and they were afraid", reflective of the community of Mark following the confusion and disarray of their area following the destruction of the temple.

 

Mathew and then Luke much later take Mark's narrative "account" and copy it into theirs, adding and elaborating upon it to fit their communities. Additionally they drew from a second document - the sayings document of "Q", which when extracted and examined reveal these early layers of the Jesus movements. It's said that where Matthew and Luke agree they're quoting Mark. When they disagree, is when it's their own stories.

 

So with that background, when I say if Paul hadn't existed with his cosmic Christ cults, would their be a Christian religion? Since Mark was written to bridge the groups of the Jesus movements and the Christ cults, would Mark have needed to be written? If not, it would mean Matthew and Luke couldn't have been written, nor that odd side Gospel of John. However... to speculate, it's doubtful Paul created the cults out of nothing, but merely came on the scene as a powerful, charismatic who jumped into them and started a bunch of churches in his name. But the cults, the ideas of the mystery-religion style cosmic Christ was something Paul seized upon. So there still may have be the impetus to create the narrative Gospel of Mark, regardless of Paul.

 

I still say Paul, if his writings never existed, and now ( since your input) say the Gospels where present and wrote by some other than Paul; Christianity would to the least still be existent? Agree?

Possibly, for the reasons I just stated. But the earliest layers of the Jesus movement can't be called Christian, as they had no Christ figure, no religious cults practices, etc. On the flip side, if Christianity had survived but not the early movements, what we would have would likely only be Paul's writings of this cosmic being, and no story of an earthly Jesus nor any of his his wisdom sayings. No "do unto others" stuff. Just Paul's Christ.

 

Just for giggles some time, try reading Paul imagining that he had no awareness of the story of the Gospel narratives. See what it looks like. Where are the teachings, the miracles, his earthly ministry, his mother, his father, etc? Hell, where's Jesus?

[Abiyoyo]

There's no talk of that in the earliest layers of its writings. Social movements are not new religions, and as such have no priests. A priest for what?

 

I must have missed something in your posts Antlerman. Earlier, I thought you were saying that the Gospels wouldn't exist because of Paul, then after reading this assume that you are either referring to early Church agenda, or environment of that time, including the split of Judaism because of Rome. I will have to read your posts again, but so far have you view as, ' it was all staged, formed for whichever agenda anyway' . Correct me if I'm wrong?

 

No, not that Mark or any other narrative Gospel was written by Paul, but that the author(s) of Mark wrote their narrative tale of Jesus as an attempt to create a story arch bridging the communities of the early Jesus movements with the mystical Christ cultists of Asia Minor where Paul carved out his role as minister. Paul never wrote of an earthly Jesus, and in fact would likely have been taken back at Mark's account of the destruction of the temple being caused by the Jews rejecting Jesus as messiah, as Mark suggests.

 

Mark is more likely written at a later date, than the rest. Right?And the writers of the Gospels were influenced by Paul writings. So you view it as an accumulation of stories formed together to make one point, that being Christ/God?

 

 

The rejection and vindication of Jesus as their teacher became blended with Paul's theology of martyrdom of the cosmic Christ into a story of their teacher destined to be crucified and resurrected. However, it doesn't end with the risen Christ. Mark's Gospel ends with these simple words, "and they were afraid", reflective of the community of Mark following the confusion and disarray of their area following the destruction of the temple.

 

Mathew and then Luke much later take Mark's narrative "account" and copy it into theirs, adding and elaborating upon it to fit their communities. Additionally they drew from a second document - the sayings document of "Q", which when extracted and examined reveal these early layers of the Jesus movements. It's said that where Matthew and Luke agree they're quoting Mark. When they disagree, is when it's their own stories.

 

So with that background, when I say if Paul hadn't existed with his cosmic Christ cults, would their be a Christian religion? Since Mark was written to bridge the groups of the Jesus movements and the Christ cults, would Mark have needed to be written? If not, it would mean Matthew and Luke couldn't have been written, nor that odd side Gospel of John. However... to speculate, it's doubtful Paul created the cults out of nothing, but merely came on the scene as a powerful, charismatic who jumped into them and started a bunch of churches in his name. But the cults, the ideas of the mystery-religion style cosmic Christ was something Paul seized upon. So there still may have be the impetus to create the narrative Gospel of Mark, regardless of Paul.

 

So, Paul possibly was the reason for the Jesus story as we see it today; but also possible that the cults believing Christ to be the Savior,etc infuenced the writings. Can you give me some info about the Q reference?

 

Possibly, for the reasons I just stated. But the earliest layers of the Jesus movement can't be called Christian, as they had no Christ figure, no religious cults practices, etc. On the flip side, if Christianity had survived but not the early movements, what we would have would likely only be Paul's writings of this cosmic being, and no story of an earthly Jesus nor any of his his wisdom sayings. No "do unto others" stuff. Just Paul's Christ.

Just for giggles some time, try reading Paul imagining that he had no awareness of the story of the Gospel narratives. See what it looks like. Where are the teachings, the miracles, his earthly ministry, his mother, his father, etc? Hell, where's Jesus?

 

 

So you view Christianity as mainly attributed to Paul, and without Paul, it would have just died out? If that's the case then, I have been viewing it in the opposite spectrum; which is probably why I have been having to reread your posts You are implying things from whichever material you derived it from, that obviously I haven't read?

 

My simple knowledge in Early Christianity was:

 

Peter was the main person to establish the church, of followers of Christ, even to Gentiles( Peter's vision).

Paul didn't have much luck with the Jews, since he had more of a agenda of 'the law is in Christ'; and went on his own way.

Peter and his church, was still present.

Nothing much was discussed, except circumcision; until the Counsel of Nicaea in 325AD, in which by then the Catholic sect under Peter's influence, was present and large.

 

What did I miss in your view?

[Abiyoyo]

Click click, BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM!

 

I shouldn't think things like that,but the worlds suffered untold misery because of that bastard Paul.

 

 

I would have used Duck tape.

[Antlerman]

I must have missed something in your posts Antlerman. Earlier, I thought you were saying that the Gospels wouldn't exist because of Paul, then after reading this assume that you are either referring to early Church agenda, or environment of that time, including the split of Judaism because of Rome. I will have to read your posts again, but so far have you view as, ' it was all staged, formed for whichever agenda anyway' . Correct me if I'm wrong?

Yes, you will have to reread it. I wouldn't use the word staged to describe it. In short, it was not a single thing, but many things that eventually became merged into a new mythology. The Jesus of the narrative Gospels blended several traditions, schools and cult ideas into a single story. None of it was a "deception", but rather the intellectual labors of mythmaking to support social agendas.

 

The notion of the Gospel history as you have it, that Jesus came on the scene, taught disciples, and revealed the full truth the them, is a myth. It was more a case of individual groups forming their own myths being collected together under a single story line - the narrative Gospel of Mark, which formed the base upon which Matthew and Luke composed their versions of it.

 

Mark is more likely written at a later date, than the rest. Right?And the writers of the Gospels were influenced by Paul writings. So you view it as an accumulation of stories formed together to make one point, that being Christ/God?

Mark is the earliest Gospel. This is what the vast majority of scholars agree upon, with some who still see Mathew as earliest because it reflect the basic story that traditional Christian holds out since the formation of orthodoxy.

 

I'm not too sure about saying the writers of the Gospels were influenced by Paul's writing. In fact Matthew downright would disagree with Paul.

 

What you are doing is taking an understanding of tradition handed down to you and reading it back into the texts. It's difficult to set aside those ideas we have. Hence, why when someone reads Paul, they always assume he's saying what he is with the narrative gospel story as a background understanding. After all, the Gospels are in the Bible before Paul, right? But Paul's writings were before the Gospels, so to assume what they say is what he understood is, well.... an assumption.

 

 

So, Paul possibly was the reason for the Jesus story as we see it today; but also possible that the cults believing Christ to be the Savior,etc infuenced the writings. Can you give me some info about the Q reference?

I'm correcting myself to say that the Chritos cults of Asia Minor are the reason that you the mystical elements of the narrative Gospel of Mark woven into the earthly ministry story of Jesus. It might not be correct to say some sort of narrative Gospel might not have been created if not for the Christ cults, as there were other movements, schools, and traditions as well under that name of Jesus that might have inspired the creation a single story line to tie them all together, but it would have had a very different tenor to it. It would have been likely even more apocalyptic that Mark already was, and certainly would have no mention of some resurrection or even a martyrdom role in his death.

 

Interesting to consider to be sure.

 

As far as Q, I'd recommend this book: The Lost Gospel

 

So you view Christianity as mainly attributed to Paul, and without Paul, it would have just died out? If that's the case then, I have been viewing it in the opposite spectrum; which is probably why I have been having to reread your posts You are implying things from whichever material you derived it from, that obviously I haven't read?

I would say the mystical elements of it derived from the Christ cults that got fused into the story created by Mark, which served as the basis for Matthew and Luke. Paul's writings reflect that community, but not necessarily that Mark, Matthew, Luke or even the odd Gospel of John relied on Paul.

 

My simple knowledge in Early Christianity was:

 

Peter was the main person to establish the church, of followers of Christ, even to Gentiles( Peter's vision).

Paul didn't have much luck with the Jews, since he had more of a agenda of 'the law is in Christ'; and went on his own way.

Peter and his church, was still present.

Nothing much was discussed, except circumcision; until the Counsel of Nicaea in 325AD, in which by then the Catholic sect under Peter's influence, was present and large.

 

What did I miss in your view?

That's the later Catholic version of it. However even as Protestants point out, Peter never went to Rome.

 

As far as nothing much discussed except circumcision until Nicaea, well this is entirely a myth. There was a proliferation of writings and schools and traditions. There is no such thing as "early Christianity". It is best described as "Early Christianites". One of those early Christianities were the proto-orthodox group who eventually won the day against the other views. But it certainly was no case of the Real Church fighting against impostors! Hardly the case. It was lots of groups emerged, including the proto-orthodox through no means more miraculous or God-driven than any of the others. They just happen to be the ones with the best survival skills for the environment, like any other animal that emerges through the process of natural evolution; not perfect, but just able enough to work and survive.

 

You have to ask yourself how other movements become religions in other cultures, then apply it to Christianity. It's only its own myths that create some mythical origins, such as you have recited. Buddha had lotus blossoms spring from his footsteps, and Jesus came to earth to start his church. Origin myths.

[Abiyoyo]

If Paul had never existed, it would be unlikely you would have any of the narrative gospels. There wouldn't be a story of an earthly Jesus to a heavenly Christ story arch.

 

So, basically you're saying that if Paul wouldn't have existed, Jesus would be just another prophet, like Elijah for example; dividing Christianity into nothing but another Jewish sect? Like Muslim's Mohammad?

[Abiyoyo]

Mark is the earliest Gospel.

 

I thought that was disputed? or have I drank too much coffee today

[Antlerman]

If Paul had never existed, it would be unlikely you would have any of the narrative gospels. There wouldn't be a story of an earthly Jesus to a heavenly Christ story arch.

 

So, basically you're saying that if Paul wouldn't have existed, Jesus would be just another prophet, like Elijah for example; dividing Christianity into nothing but another Jewish sect? Like Muslim's Mohammad?

Not necessarily Paul, but the Christ Cults. Would Jesus then be a Jewish prophet? One layer of the tradition (Q2) had him being tied into the Jewish Epic as the bringer of judgment, so I could see that as a possible scenario. But in that layer they couldn't really be called Christians. A sect of Judaism, sure. I suppose.

 

 

Mark is the earliest Gospel.

 

I thought that was disputed? or have I drank too much coffee today

This is like saying Evolution is disputed so we shouldn't consider it as valid. There are some, a minority, who dispute it, but as I said above the vast majority accept Markan priority.

 

From Wiki regarding Markan Priority:

Markan priority is the hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark was the first written of the three Synoptic Gospels, and that the two other synoptic evangelists, Matthew and Luke, used Mark's Gospel as one of their sources.

The theory of Markan priority is today accepted by the majority of New Testament scholars who also hold that Matthew and Luke used a lost source of Jesus's sayings called Q

. Their conclusion is largely based upon an analysis of the language and content relationship between the various books.

 

Some scholars following Augustine say the Markan priority hypothesis is not consistent with internal evidence and with the testimony of the church fathers, under which the Gospel of Matthew is traditionally held to be the first written.

 

... as I said.

[Abiyoyo]

Not necessarily Paul, but the Christ Cults.

 

What do you think stimulated the Christ cults, if not Paul? Greeks?

[mwc]

I don't see Paul as the major player. Marcion was the major player. His "bible" and sect were important. Prior to him there is little to nothing from old Paul that matters. Even the quotes that are Pauline are largely questionable (though I wouldn't say entirely). After Marcion is when you see the large "response" and the xianity that is largely known today form. Not before. Paul is overblown. Anti-Marcionites (pick your poison on who you'd like them to be) are the one you most likely have your real problem with.

 

mwc

[Abiyoyo]

I don't see Paul as the major player. Marcion was the major player. His "bible" and sect were important. Prior to him there is little to nothing from old Paul that matters. Even the quotes that are Pauline are largely questionable (though I wouldn't say entirely). After Marcion is when you see the large "response" and the xianity that is largely known today form. Not before. Paul is overblown. Anti-Marcionites (pick your poison on who you'd like them to be) are the one you most likely have your real problem with.

mwc

 

That was my point to why I don't think Paul's writings influenced much; then Antlerman suggested Paul's influence on the Gospels, or Christ cults to have bearing on the 'point of' the Counsel of Nicaea. But, there is one common denominator, and that is the Roman Catholic sect. RCC gave Marcion a quick boot in the rear, because of the Gnostic views. Right? This, indicates the CC as powerful, even among all the Christ cults.

 

Do you think Paul's writings influenced Marcionism and Gnosticism; weighing Jesus divinity on Constantine I, and the First Counsel of Nicaea, making Jesus cosmic Christ, as said earlier? Or do you think it was developed on its own course?

 

I think it developed on its own. Arianism was the main topic for the Nicene Creed, in which the Catholics did not agree with. I think the divinity of Christ was already establish through the Catholics, as in the Nicene Creed conflict. Which already presumes Christ as supernatural, and thus making Him part of the trinity.

 

I do have a question, especially to Antlerman. You said earlier,

If Paul had never existed, it would be unlikely you would have any of the narrative gospels. There wouldn't be a story of an earthly Jesus to a heavenly Christ story arch. There would have been no need. There wouldn't have been any Christ cults in order to create a story that supported the Jesus movements with their sayings collections along with those who practiced a mystery religion of the Christ

 

You suggested here that Paul was a major contributor toward Jesus as Christ; also saying that these Christ cults wouldn't even have existed without Paul's influence? Did I read that wrong?

 

Then you stated this.

Not necessarily Paul, but the Christ Cults.

 

?

[Antlerman]

I do have a question, especially to Antlerman. You said earlier,

If Paul had never existed, it would be unlikely you would have any of the narrative gospels. There wouldn't be a story of an earthly Jesus to a heavenly Christ story arch. There would have been no need. There wouldn't have been any Christ cults in order to create a story that supported the Jesus movements with their sayings collections along with those who practiced a mystery religion of the Christ

 

You suggested here that Paul was a major contributor toward Jesus as Christ; also saying that these Christ cults wouldn't even have existed without Paul's influence? Did I read that wrong?

 

Then you stated this.

Not necessarily Paul, but the Christ Cults.

 

?

You missed what I said above:

 

So, Paul possibly was the reason for the Jesus story as we see it today; but also possible that the cults believing Christ to be the Savior,etc infuenced the writings. Can you give me some info about the Q reference?

I'm correcting myself

to say that the Chritos cults of Asia Minor are the reason that you the mystical elements of the narrative Gospel of Mark woven into the earthly ministry story of Jesus. It might not be correct to say some sort of narrative Gospel might not have been created if not for the Christ cults, as there were other movements, schools, and traditions as well under that name of Jesus that might have inspired the creation a single story line to tie them all together, but it would have had a very different tenor to it. It would have been likely even more apocalyptic that Mark already was, and certainly would have no mention of some resurrection or even a martyrdom role in his death.

 

[Abiyoyo]

You missed what I said above:

 

So, Paul possibly was the reason for the Jesus story as we see it today; but also possible that the cults believing Christ to be the Savior,etc infuenced the writings. Can you give me some info about the Q reference?

I'm correcting myself

to say that the Chritos cults of Asia Minor are the reason that you the mystical elements of the narrative Gospel of Mark woven into the earthly ministry story of Jesus. It might not be correct to say some sort of narrative Gospel might not have been created if not for the Christ cults, as there were other movements, schools, and traditions as well under that name of Jesus that might have inspired the creation a single story line to tie them all together, but it would have had a very different tenor to it. It would have been likely even more apocalyptic that Mark already was, and certainly would have no mention of some resurrection or even a martyrdom role in his death.

 

 

Sorry

[Abiyoyo]

I don't see Paul as the major player. Marcion was the major player.

I'm correcting myself [/color]to say that the Chritos cults of Asia Minor are the reason that you the mystical elements of the narrative Gospel of Mark woven into the earthly ministry story of Jesus.

 

 

Do you think Paul's writings influenced Marcionism and Gnosticism; weighing Jesus divinity on Constantine I, and the First Counsel of Nicaea, making Jesus cosmic Christ, as said earlier? Or do you think it was developed on its own course?

[mwc]

That was my point to why I don't think Paul's writings influenced much; then Antlerman suggested Paul's influence on the Gospels, or Christ cults to have bearing on the 'point of' the Counsel of Nicaea. But, there is one common denominator, and that is the Roman Catholic sect. RCC gave Marcion a quick boot in the rear, because of the Gnostic views. Right? This, indicates the CC as powerful, even among all the Christ cults.

 

Do you think Paul's writings influenced Marcionism and Gnosticism; weighing Jesus divinity on Constantine I, and the First Counsel of Nicaea, making Jesus cosmic Christ, as said earlier? Or do you think it was developed on its own course?

Did Paul influence these? That's a difficult question to answer. None of these sects operated in a vacuum. They all influenced one another. They all adopted things from the others when they absorbed the others. There was an ebb and flow. But texts like 1 Clement have Paul being mentioned. Could this have been forged or inserted later? Sure. But taken at face value this would mean that an orthodox author was "influenced" and recommended that others adopt Paul. Not much is said in the letter, however, so the extent is unknown.

 

Gnosticism is not a nice, neat, little category so it's even harder to comment on. It we're talking what Marcion taught then yes. His "bible" was just his G.Luke and Paul's letters. We're told he rewrote G.Luke to support his views but, what if, he had G.Luke v1.0? The rewrite being what we have now? Just like those who accused others of removing the nativity from G.Matthew (or was it G.Hebrews?). Most people added to sacred texts, or only did minor redactions, but rarely did they remove entire sections like a birth narrative. Odds are the nativity would have been added and not removed. So odds are Marcion wouldn't have removed so much from G.Luke but others would have added to it. And looking at G.Mark and G.Matthew it does look like G.Luke has had a bit tacked on with some of those changes awkwardly making their way back into the other two.

 

The same applies to Paul's letters. Did they influence Marcion? Seems that way. Did they influence others? Looks like it. How could they be adopted by both if they're so heavily adopted by a heretic? Perhaps we don't have untainted copies. Maybe little generic Paul got politicized along the way as party lines got drawn? Who knows.

 

The RCC's "quick boot to the rear" took a couple hundred years (if not a little longer) to finally work. Marcionites gave them a pretty good run for the money as I recall (but I'd have to check).

 

I think it developed on its own. Arianism was the main topic for the Nicene Creed, in which the Catholics did not agree with. I think the divinity of Christ was already establish through the Catholics, as in the Nicene Creed conflict. Which already presumes Christ as supernatural, and thus making Him part of the trinity.

It established what "stuff" (I do believe this is actually the best word to use too) this "jesus" was made out of. If he was a creation or not. If he was made of the same thing ("stuff") as the father "god." If he was not then what "stuff" was he made out of? Was it a lessor stuff? They determined it to be the same, or equal, stuff. So as the first eminence, and not an actual creation, the two were the same "stuff" and equal. It really has nothing to do with supernatural or not but simply the composition of the two entities themselves. If jesus were a creation it would make him a different thing, made of created matter, which is different stuff. If "god" could do anything surely he could make a created thing all-powerful and the like but it wouldn't be equal. It would be different. A lesser thing. So like an amoeba they sort of had "god" split from itself and thus jesus came to be so he could be the same stuff. The same, but separate, but equal.

 

mwc

[Kuroikaze]

Do you think Paul's writings influenced Marcionism and Gnosticism; weighing Jesus divinity on Constantine I, and the First Counsel of Nicaea, making Jesus cosmic Christ, as said earlier? Or do you think it was developed on its own course?

 

Marcionism was certainly influenced by Paul. How do we know this? Simply look at the books that Marcion took as canon. He took the book of luke and versions of Paul's writings which he edited. This was pretty much his entire canon. ( He liked Paul, but thought some there has been some rewriting of the letters by Jewish sources, so he edited out the parts he thought were Jewish interpolation.

 

As for the Gnostics...who the hell knows, scholars aren't even able to figure out quite what they believed. Since the Gnostics mostly mingled with other church groups, mostly the proto-orthodox, it is difficult to separate their beliefs from that of the church they were a part of, as they tended to use the same language of their church, but lace the language with double meanings.

[Kuroikaze]

The RCC's "quick boot to the rear" took a couple hundred years (if not a little longer) to finally work. Marcionites gave them a pretty good run for the money as I recall (but I'd have to check).

 

 

Truth be told it took much longer than that. Marcionism was still alive in well in places outside of the catholic churches reach until at least the 9th or 10th century. (mostly northern Africa if I remember) There are writings from Catholic leaders, as late as this, warning people who traveled to be careful if they stopped at a christian church to worship on a Sunday, as they might enter only to find the church full of Marcionite heretics.

[mwc]

Marcionism was certainly influenced by Paul. How do we know this? Simply look at the books that Marcion took as canon. He took the book of luke and versions of Paul's writings which he edited. This was pretty much his entire canon. ( He liked Paul, but thought some there has been some rewriting of the letters by Jewish sources, so he edited out the parts he thought were Jewish interpolation.

As I tried to point out...how do we know this is the case exactly? The Marcionite texts are gone and so our sources are the orthodoxy. Why can't it be the other way around? The Marcionites had the unaltered (or largely unaltered) versions and then the orthodoxy came along with their contra-Marcionite texts and claimed their versions of the texts were the one true versions when they were, in fact, the altered versions? With some texts it might be noticeable but with others no one, that I'm aware of, quoted them to a large enough extent prior to all this to really say that the Marcionite versions were corrupted to any extent over the others (simply the accusation is what allows for this along with the obvious Marcionite beliefs but it seems to beg the question of where would he get such extreme beliefs and how could he support them with the existing texts by simply removing Jewish references...it seems that something is missing from this little game of connect the dots).

 

mwc

[Abiyoyo]

As I tried to point out...how do we know this is the case exactly? The Marcionite texts are gone and so our sources are the orthodoxy. Why can't it be the other way around? The Marcionites had the unaltered (or largely unaltered) versions and then the orthodoxy came along with their contra-Marcionite texts and claimed their versions of the texts were the one true versions when they were, in fact, the altered versions

 

That's what I was thinking. If they had the originals. Constantine ordered everything burned having to do with the 'losing side', as to the 'swift kick in the rear), CC supposedly excommunicated him around 140 AD.

[Antlerman]

Not necessarily Paul, but the Christ Cults.

 

What do you think stimulated the Christ cults, if not Paul? Greeks?

Paul would have seized upon an existing cult and become part of it, furthering it through his promotion of it, but he didn't create it. What stimulated the Christ cults would have been the Jesus movements social response to their surroundings in that area, seeking to validate themselves to both the Jewish traditions and Greek mystery religions. By placing the founding figure of their flavor of the Jesus movements in a mythic sphere, they could more easily defend themselves, giving themselves credibility following this "anointed Jesus"; Christos Jesus (it wasn't until Mark where Christ became associated with "the messiah") who had been placed within the Jewish epic, but just beyond the reach of the scrutiny of critics in some cosmic plane.

 

To the displaced peoples of Asia Minor and other areas who had created their mystery religions in efforts to keep alive their old national gods from their homelands, it would also have been appealing as a way to take their popular forms of religious practice and blend it with this popular social movement, again giving it credibility through familiarity. Additionally the Greek ideal of martyrdom for a cause was quite popular, and Jesus' death being imagined as a martyrdom for their truth offered validation of it, plus popular appeal.

 

Neither Jesus nor Paul started these beliefs and practices. They were tailor fit to the people who wore them. The people of that society made them into what they became, just as all the other flavors of the Jesus movement became something different elsewhere, such as gnostics, Jewish-Christians, cults of the dead, ascetics, spiritualists, etc. What Paul did was take these views and imagined them in creative ways within the traditions. He became a part of that mythmaking process.

 

The real struggle within this Christos cult would be between the Greek and Jewish sensiblities, and hence the blending and morphing of the traditions into the mythic realm, "a circumcision of the heart"; "spiritual children of Abraham", etc. In other words, Paul helped them take the form of Jesus movement which tied itself to the Jewish epic, and transform it withing a mystical story in the fashion of the mystery religions of their surrounding society. It adapted itself to its social situation. Jesus became the cosmic Christ.