The First Century Void

[vorlon13]

BTDT


and it's less fun than you imagine . . .

[Secular Elf]

It was the proto-Orthodox Pauline Christianity that eventually won as the official religion of the Roman Empire under Constantine, and Marcion's work Antithesis which started the development of the Christian canon that developed into the Bible.

Well how it seems to me is that Paul and people around him invented Jesus à la L. Ron Hubbard. And why do I think that? Because Paul said it himself repeatedly. He constantly claimed that he has received his knowledge directly from Jesus. Meaning no apostles and no actual Jesus, no oral tradition, that it all came down from heaven direct to his ear, either via another vision of his Christ or the Lord God himself; like

Galatians 1:11-12   I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:15-16  But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.

Even more Hubbardian is in 1 Corinthians 9:14 Paul says "the Lord" commands that preachers like him should be supported financially - let's face it it's business for him.

Or 1 Peter where writer identifies himself as an "apostle" and not a "disciple" of Jesus Christ, meaning those who made careful search and inquiry into the Hebrew scriptures in order to get the answers from the "Spirit of Christ within them". So not witnesses or somebody who knew somebody who knew somebody who knew Jesus:

1 Peter, 1:10-12 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours made careful search and inquiry, inquiring about the person or time that the Spirit of Christ within them indicated, when it testified in advance to the sufferings destined for Christ and the subsequent glory. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in regard to the things that have now been announced to you through those who brought you good news by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven - things into which angels long to look!

Considering that Paul's writings date before the gospels, writer of Mark reverse-engineered a cosmic savior deity from Paul into a flesh-and-blood man on earth doing a sloppy job. Because he made numerous geographical mistakes among other mistakes of Roman law, Hebrew law etc.
Then the other writers of Gospels simply plagiarize Mark with some re-writes so that Mark's story becomes increasingly improved in Matthew and Luke; and by the time John's story is written, Jesus has become a cosmic deity from the very creation of the universe who strides around Judea fearlessly declaring to all that he is God almighty made flesh.

That seems to me a credible explanation of how a Jesus figure may have been inserted into Early Christianity. I think that if Jesus existed, he may have been just a rabbi that tried to reform Second Temple Judaism and was not intending on starting a new religion. As I said before, it would be as equally credible that Jesus may be made up, as the mythicists posit.

By the way, I consulted my essay, and there are a few corrections I need to make to my earlier comments. That third group of Jewish Christians that I could not remember before was the Elkasites. The three main groups of them were Ebionites, Nazarenes, and Elkasites.

Their Christologies: the Ebionites were Adoptionists: They viewed Jesus as being adopted by God after his baptism, their belief was that Jesus was not divine. The Nazarenes viewed Jesus as the Messiah that all Jews had been looking for and that he was divine. And the Elkasites viewed Jesus as metaphysical (my memory again!).

It was the Nazarenes in Antioch who gave the religion its name by also being called Christians.

The date of the actual split of Christianity from Judaism is 135 CE.

As far as actual literature the Christians had a bunch of them, many of them gnostic in theology. The earliest grouping of Christian literature was by Marcion, who rejected the Torah and for the first time grouped books together which would become the New Testament, in his Gospel of Marcion, or as the Marcionites called it, the Gospel of
the Lord. Tatian the Assyrian put together the Diatessaron, which was formed sometime between 160 and 175 CE, which combined the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) into a single narrative of Jesus' life. The Diatessaron was written in Syriac and it was sacred to the Syrian Church.

[Minimalist]

[RoadRunner79]

It was the proto-Orthodox Pauline Christianity that eventually won as the official religion of the Roman Empire under Constantine, and Marcion's work Antithesis which started the development of the Christian canon that developed into the Bible.

Well how it seems to me is that Paul and people around him invented Jesus à la L. Ron Hubbard. And why do I think that? Because Paul said it himself repeatedly. He constantly claimed that he has received his knowledge directly from Jesus. Meaning no apostles and no actual Jesus, no oral tradition, that it all came down from heaven direct to his ear, either via another vision of his Christ or the Lord God himself; like

Galatians 1:11-12   I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:15-16  But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.

Even more Hubbardian is in 1 Corinthians 9:14 Paul says "the Lord" commands that preachers like him should be supported financially - let's face it it's business for him.

Or 1 Peter where writer identifies himself as an "apostle" and not a "disciple" of Jesus Christ, meaning those who made careful search and inquiry into the Hebrew scriptures in order to get the answers from the "Spirit of Christ within them". So not witnesses or somebody who knew somebody who knew somebody who knew Jesus:

1 Peter, 1:10-12 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours made careful search and inquiry, inquiring about the person or time that the Spirit of Christ within them indicated, when it testified in advance to the sufferings destined for Christ and the subsequent glory. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in regard to the things that have now been announced to you through those who brought you good news by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven - things into which angels long to look!

Considering that Paul's writings date before the gospels, writer of Mark reverse-engineered a cosmic savior deity from Paul into a flesh-and-blood man on earth doing a sloppy job. Because he made numerous geographical mistakes among other mistakes of Roman law, Hebrew law etc.
Then the other writers of Gospels simply plagiarize Mark with some re-writes so that Mark's story becomes increasingly improved in Matthew and Luke; and by the time John's story is written, Jesus has become a cosmic deity from the very creation of the universe who strides around Judea fearlessly declaring to all that he is God almighty made flesh.

I think that there are some flaws in your logic, or at least; you are neglecting a lot of information in your conclusion.  Paul was persecuting the Church and those who followed Jesus, prior to being a leader among them.  The Apostle Paul wrote to churches, that he didn't found.  He met with Peter and James in Jerusalem and confirmed for each other that they where teaching the same Gospel.  We also see that the early church accepted Paul, in teaching the same Gospel and tradition that they where taught.

So what you are doing either intentionally or in ignorance is taking parts of what was said out of context for a self serving purpose.   Even the verse you cited about money, (if you read it) goes on to say, that Paul abstained from taking anything from them.  That he presented the Gospel free of charge.

[Minimalist]

Well how it seems to me is that Paul and people around him invented Jesus à la L. Ron Hubbard.

More likely that "paul" was invented.... in the same manner as mohammed was invented to be allah's mouthpiece.

[vorlon13]

still, isn't it odd, Jesus never rebuked His 12 disciples and gave them a zinger about His 13th disciple who was going to clean house on the first 12 ??

[Minimalist]

Not really much sillier than the story they tell.

[Fake Messiah]

BTDT


and it's less fun than you imagine . . .

You know I always reckoned that gays look into Catholic clergy practices to spice up their sex life, like dressing up as cardinals and then checking themselves to see if they are guys. Or even inspirations from the Gospels: like one is Jesus and other is his Boy Toy from Mark: "Come on hurry, blow me the Judas is coming to kiss me."

So what you are doing either intentionally or in ignorance is taking parts of what was said out of context for a self serving purpose.

No, you are deluded Scientologist ignoramus.

Paul was persecuting the Church and those who followed Jesus, prior to being a leader among them.

Paul actually never seemed to stop persecuting other religions/ Churches that I guess could be named False Christianities. I mean they were other religions that were similar to his "Christianity". His way of doing was to assimilate other religion's customs (which were mostly Hellenistic mystery cults) and claim that he invented it. Like "Lord's Supper". Paul claims that Lord told him about this custom, he thinks no one would know any of this if he didn't share what his Lord whispered to his ear. Yet Paul is riffing off motifs from other places, like in Genesis 14:18 where priest-king Melchizedek, like Christ, also takes bread and wine and offers a blessing. Also by Paul's time, communion rituals involving bread and a cup of wine or water had long been a staple feature of the pagan mystery faiths found throughout the Mediterranean world.
Paul was very aware of this, so what does he do? He simply calls other regions that do this "fakes" 1 Corinthians 10:21 "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons."
This is far from the only thing that Paul rips-off, because for starters the honorary title of the cult gods in the mysteries was Kyrios, "Lord" - the exact same word used in the NT for Jesus; Paul called himself the "father" of his converts, just as leaders of the Isis cult; his declaration of brotherhood is also present in the other Hellenistic mystery religions; in his letters his doctrines are called mysteries etc. and they are all proclaimed fakes and inventions of the devil, something that Christians today still hold to other religions and religions that brought Christianity.

So like I said Paul always fought other religions or should I say "Christianities" because that term Christianity did not exist and it will not come in use until the 2nd century. Even Paul was said to be Nazorean. For instance one of the biggest rivals of early Christians was John the Baptist's cult. So the early Christians had to include him and very clumsily in the Gospels. He is mentioned in the all of the Gospels and sometimes they are first cousins, rivals, partners, strangers. Something similar what Muslims did with Jesus in Koran to win over Christians.

What was really happening? At that time it was fashionable for people looking into OT to make some sort of marriage between Hellenistic religions and Judaism. Even the OT ends with the book of Maccabees which is all about the clash between Jews and Greeks. There was the Septuagint being made which was the main factor in the Hellenization of Judaism. I mean Paul didn't invent everything from the scratch, just like Hubbard didn't invent elements in Scientology but simply took stuff like reincarnation and then proclaimed religions like Hinduism or Buddhism that believe in it for thousands of years as fakes. Was there people doing the similar like Paul, it seems so but according to him they were also fakes. So since he is proclaimed genuine it is logical to say that he invented Christianity.

Apostle Paul wrote to churches, that he didn't found

Some of Paul's letters are forgers. Some like Galatians is thought to be established by him. Or in the 1st Letter to the Corinthians, which is brought by one of his students, you can see they were more people who tended to those other religions. Paul calls them spiritual babies he entreats them, threatens them, shames them, cajoles them. He makes a feeble plea for his readers to just believe him although if the traditional picture of Paul were correct he should have had plentiful evidence to bring out here in support. Also Paul's Jesus is definitely not the one from the Gospels - Paul's J is just a celestial being who never lived on Earth which is not just in his description of Jesus but also exclusion of any of his biographical data, his parables, his teachings, apostles, family.

He met with Peter and James in Jerusalem and confirmed for each other that they where teaching the same Gospel.

If you look at Galatians, which is considered genuine Paul, Paul says the top three "pillars" of the Jerusalem church were named Cephas, James and John. Like Pontius Pilate or Caiaphas, these real people wind up as fictionalized characters in the Gospels, becoming Jesus' top three disciples: Peter, James and John. In fact, Paul only refers to a "Peter" once (Gal. 2:7-8), and it's still up for debate whether this is a scribal insertion, or if Paul meant Cephas, or a different person altogether (even ancient Christian scholars were confused over this). In any case, Paul certainly never tells us that Peter was a disciple of Jesus. Paul is quite paranoid about their group being "false believers," and brags he "did not submit to them even for a moment" (Gal. 2:4-5). Paul even accused "Peter" of being a hypocrite for not eating with uncircumcised Gentile Christians, which Mosaic law forbids and which is absurd because if Jesus existed then he would had settled these matters decades earlier. So Paul accepts them grudgingly as his own apostles and then Mark made them into Jesus'. Paul also accepted Apollos (apparently a follower of John the Baptist) and then he complains that believers have broken into factions: "What I mean is that each of you says, ‘I belong to Paul', or ‘I belong to Apollos', or ‘I belong to Cephas', or ‘I belong to Christ.' Has Christ been divided?"

So when you come to Luke and his book of "Acts" you encounter an action novel where he tried to bond two religions one from Jerusalem and the network of gentile believers so he quates Peter and Paul who were the the figureheads as one big happy family, and all on the same team. Sounds familiar?

[vorlon13]

BTDT


and it's less fun than you imagine . . .

You know I always reckoned that gays look into Catholic clergy practices to spice up their sex life, like dressing up as cardinals and then checking themselves to see if they are guys. Or even inspirations from the Gospels: like one is Jesus and other is his Boy Toy from Mark: "Come on hurry, blow me the Judas is coming to kiss me."




Reminds me of last trip to urologist, actually . . .

[Minimalist]

It's all well and good to assert that there are 7 authentic pauline epistles except we know they have been tampered with.

http://vridar.org/2017/05/26/why-many-in...ry-likely/

William Walker, Jr’s conclusion, then, is that

In short, it is my judgment that aspects of the literary history of the Pauline letters just mentioned, coupled with the widespread presence of interpolations in other ancient literature, makes it almost certain, simply on a priori grounds, that the Pauline letters now contain interpolations — indeed, many interpolations. (loc. ca 1658)

But, perhaps even worse....

https://www.umass.edu/wsp/alpha/texts/pa...tions.html

This notes the detected interpolations but the old adage "when one lie is detected a thousand must be suspected" comes into play.

Where does the "authentic" part come in?