maryhelena

The NT Paul is not only reflecting the life of Josephus - that NT figure is also reflecting the life of the gospel JC.


Table 6.1: Jesus and Paul: Some Examples (Page 107) The Mystery of Acts: Richard Pervo

Jesus	Paul
1. "Passion Predictions"	1. "Passion Predictions"
Luke 9:22	Acts 20:23-25
Luke 9:34	Acts 21:4
Luke 18:31	Acts 21:11-13
2. Farewell Address	2. Farewell Address
Luke 22:14-38	Acts 20:17-35
3. Ressurrection: Sadducees Oppose	3. Ressurrection: Sadducees Oppose
Luke 20:27-39	Acts 23:6-10
4. Staff of High Priest Slap Jesus	4. Staff of High Priest Slap Paul
Luke 22:63-64	Acts 23:1-2
5. Four "Trial" of Jesus	5. Four "Trials" of Paul
A. Sanhedrin: Luke 22:66-71	A. Sanhedrin: Acts 22:30-23:10
B. Roman Governor (Pilate) Luke 23:1-5	B. Roman Governor (Felix) 24:1-22
C. Herodian King (Antipas) Luke 23:6-12	C. Herodian King (Agrippa) 26
D. Roman Governor (Pilate) Luke 23:13-25	D. Roman Governor (Festus) 25:6-12
6. Declarations of Innocence	6. Declarations of Innocence
Pilate: Luke 23:14 (cf.23:4,22)	Lysias (Tribune) Acts 23:29
Herod: Luke 23:14	Festus: Acts 25:25
Centurian: Luke 23:47	Agrippa: Acts 26:31
7. Mob Demands Execution	7. Mob Demands Execution
Luke 23:18	Acts 22:22

The Mystery of Acts: Richard Pervo (or via: amazon.co.uk)

tanya

brilliant.

:thumbs:

aa5874

The argument that Paul existed is NOT evidence that Paul wrote the Epistles which is PRECISELY what is shown in Acts of the Apostles.

The author of Acts wrote about Paul as if he did exist yet made no mention of Paul as a Letter writer.

George Washington did Exist but he may not have cut down a Cherry Tree.

Josephus Existed but he did NOT write the TF.

It is wholly absurd and illogical to assume Paul wrote letters to Churches merely because it is believed he existed when it has already been deduced that some of the letters were written when Paul was supposedly ALREADY DEAD.

Chili

Paul is the Efficient Cause for the eternal throne on which the Pope is seated, who so cannot be historal but are just proclamations made to be the antagonist that moves the world within it's scope of reference.

Paul is like the Tree itself in motion that we call Christian. He so is the voice from heaven that moves the world and is not moved by it, as spoken from the seat of heaven (TOL) and makes no apology for that.

He so is their Genesis 2 who was introduced in John 1 as John, here now in the Universal designated as spokesman for the Church speaking with authority as Lord God in Christendom throuhout eternity.

jakejonesiv

There is a lot more to the Simon-Paul connection than meets the eye at first glance.

First, let me make clear that I do not necessarily regard Simon as a historical person. In this perhaps I depart just a bit from R.Price and H.Detering. Maybe he was, but nothing depends on it. I think it more likely that he (and thus Paul also) was a reverse euhemerized god.

Robert Price suggested in a previous book that an earlier salvation cult centered on Paul had merged and assimilated with other similar salvation cults. It could be that “Jesus” originally was used in the generic meaning of its root, simply Savior. Thus the competing salvation cults were preaching alternate saviors, in other words “another Jesus.” We find traces of this in 1 Corinthians 1:12 “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.” The competing mysteries assimilated under the name of Jesus Christ, and the alternate saviors --including Paul-- were demoted to Apostles.


But have we gone nearly far enough? There is evidence to suggest that Simon lies behind the figures not only of Paul, but Jesus and Peter also. Justin Martyr was a native of Samaria. Justin’s opinion should be given weight because he would have known of the legendary Simon of Samaria from his youth. (And if Justin did misidentify the statue of the Sabine deity Semo Sancus, it just enforces how ubiquitous Simon was in the Samaria of Justin's youth).

In 1 Apology 26, Justin wrote that Simon was a Samaritan from the village of Gitta, and dated him to the reign of Claudius Caesar, about 41-54 CE.. Justin noted that almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god. This makes Simon a very powerful rival to Jesus, both dated to very nearly the same time and geographical area. Justin wrote of the rival religion, “And I despised the wicked and deceitful doctrine of Simon of my own nation. And if you give this book your authority, we will expose him before all, that, if possible, they may be converted.” Justin Martyr, 2 Apology 15.

Indeed, Samaria lies closer to Jerusalem that Galilee! Is it possible that there is an identity here, a common starting point for Catholic Jesus and Gnostic Simon?

If so, does Simon have priority? In the case of the concept of the Trinity, he does. The earliest unambiguous mention of the concept of the Trinity goes back, not to Jesus, but to Simon Magus. Perhaps “Jesus” should be viewed as a title, i.e. SAVIOR that could equally be applied to gods of various salvation sects.

“He taught that it was himself who appeared among the Jews as the Son, but descended in Samaria as the Father while he came to other nations in the character of the Holy Spirit.” AH 1.23.1. This would a modalist view of the Trinity.


Justin Martyr made mention of Marcion (ie. First Apology LVIII), and Simon (First Apology, XXVI) but no words about the alleged Paul. It appears these are two names for the same individual.

Ireneus indicates that Marcion developed his doctrines from earlier "heretical" sources. In Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:13:1, it is stated that the Marconites believed that Paul alone knew the truth, and that to him the mystery was manifested by revelation. In Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:27:1-2 it is stated that Cerdo derived his system from the followers of Simon,and Marcion of Pontus succeeded him, and developed his doctrine. So did the Marconites develop their doctrine from Paul or Simon? It seems likely that the legendary figure in the Pauline Epistles came to be known as "Paul" (the Small) to his friends and "Simon" (the Great) to his enemies.


Considering the connection between Paul and Simon the Samaritan, please see See chapter "The Doppelgänger: Paul and Simon" page 142, _The Falsified Paul_, by H.Detering http://www.radikalkritik.de/FabricatedJHC.pdf


There are many apparent overlaps between Peter, Paul, Simon and Jesus. St. Peter battles the "anti-Simon" in Acts 8:9 ff and in the apocryphal Acts of Peter. The newly named and catholicized St Paul battles his evil doppelganger the Magician in Acts 13. The shadow of Simon even lurks behind Jesus in Mark 15:21.

This establishes clearly that Simon was worshipped as a salvation sect god, with significant overlaps with Jesus. If Paul was really the mask of Simon, shouldn’t we also find relics of his deity? Indeed, we do. It has been noted many times by Earl Doherty and others that there is scant trace of the Gospel Jesus to be found in the Pauline epistles. But what is not often noticed is that gospel motifs do appear in the PE, but they are not applied to Jesus, but to the person of Paul!

Paul had many of the attributes of divinity, including being the *Father* of believers, who are his *beloved sons* whom he has *begotten* whom he calls to *follow me*. (1 Cor. 4:14-16. cf Mark 1:11, 17; Psalm 2:7, Acts 13:33, Heb 1:5; 5:5). We find hints that Paul had died and been resurrected (2 Cor. 1:8-10). He is "absent in body but present in spirit" (1 Cor. 5:3). To be "absent from the body" is to be "present with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:8).
The *spirit* of Paul has the authority to judge a man and deliver him to Satan for the destruction of his flesh. 1 Cor. 5:4-5. Just as Jesus will have a future coming (1 Cor. 4:5) also will Paul (1 Cor. 4:19).
There is even a concern and an apology for the delay of Paul’s parousia, 2 Corinthians 12.
14: Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you…
20: For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would…
21: And lest, when I come again…
Note the similarity to the Son of Man saying in Lk 18:8.

Paul is a co-reddeeemer with Christ. Col 1:24.

Nor should we overlook one final and very significant parallel between Simon and Paul. Both taught the doctine of justification by grace, without works. "For men are saved through his [Simon's] grace, and not on account of their own righteous actions." (AH 1.23.3..)

That is almost identical to Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

No one else had this signature Pauine doctrine. “those … who… believe on Simon and Helen, and that they do whatsoever they please, as persons free; for they allege that they are saved by grace.” Hyppolitus: Refutation of All Heresies, chapter 14.

“those … who… believe on Simon and Helen, and that they do whatsoever they please, as persons free; for they allege that they are saved by grace.” Hyppolitus: Refutation of All Heresies, chapter 14. (For other ties between Simon Magus and Paul, please see note 3.)

The earliest unambiguous mention of the concept of the Trinity (see note 4) goes back, not to Jesus, but to Simon Magus. “He taught that it was himself who appeared among the Jews as the Son, but descended in Samaria as the Father while he came to other nations in the character of the Holy Spirit.” AH 1.23.1. This would a modalist view of the Trinity.

Through Helen, his first thought, Simon had the idea of making the angels and archangels by whom the world itself was made. AH 1.23.7. The angels held Helen captive, and Christ (=Simon) came to restore Helen and offer salvation to all through his knowledge. (cf Epipahes Pan 1.2.21). Simon appeared as a man, but was not a man and did not suffer. AH 1.23.3. A remnant of Simon’s story may lie behind the figure of Simon the Cyrene in Mark’s gospel.

Hippolytus, “Refutation of All Heresies” states that Simon wrote a book entitled “Apophasis megale” (Great Revelation). Hippolytus describes a doctrine of creation and emanations that provided Valentinius with his starting point. Hippolytus knew that Simon was believed to be Christ by his followers, thus he included an apologetic story that Simon had himself buried alive, but did not rise in three days, in an attempt to refute their claim.
 
Simon’s successor was Menander, who lived in the late first century-early second century. He was a Samaritan of the village of Capparetaea. (Justin Apol 1.26.4). Justin describes Menander as a demon possessed magician. Please remember the same charges were leveled against Jesus in Luke 11:15. Menander taught (his own) immortality. Irenaeus 1.23.5. A first Power (i.e Simon) had sent Menander to be the savior of human kind.

As with Simon, Menander taught that the world had been created by angels who had been brought forth by Ennoia. By his “magic” Menander had conquered the angels. “His disciples received resurrection through baptism into him, and they can no longer die, but remain without growing old and immortal.” Epiphanius, Pan. 22.2.1-4.

Simon’s consort was the former prostitute Helen. “and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute…” 1 Apol 26. This is very similar to the charges made in some circles regarding Jesus and Mary Magdalene. But in the case of Simon, the identification of Helen is probably based on a misunderstanding and a literalization of Gnostic myth wherein the Unknown Father generates numerous emanations, including Wisdom (Sophia). This is indicated by Justin, who went on to write, concerning Helen, “they say is the first thought generated by him.” We read further the clearly mythical background in Irenaeus. (See note 2).


The use of epinoia (thought) in Acts 8:22 is a veiled reference to Helen. Simon’s attempt to curry favor for money is paralleled by Paul’s taking up collections for the Jerusalem church, and Marcion’s gift of of 200,000 sesterces to the Roman church. Simon’s money was rejected, as was Marcion’s when he was excommunicated by Rome in 144 CE.

Justin, who lived at the same time as Marcion, wrote that his teachings were universal throughout the empire, "Marcion ... has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies." Yet even Justin admitted that Marcion was a Christian. "All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians." Apology 1.58.

Jake Jones IV

stephan huller

in favor of the universality of the name Paul is that the synagogue at deir Ali was built by a Marcionite with this name.

against the idea is that the Catholic tradition preserves that Paul was not the apostle's original name.

IMO Simon is the best alternative to Saul

jakejonesiv

I am just reporting what is in R.Price's book. This may be a bridge too far even for me. The alternate explanation I like better: King Saul (of the tribe of Benjamin) persecuted David (1 Samuel 18:11), thus Saul is imagined to have persecuted Jesus (Acts 9:4). That's the origin of Paul being of the tribe of Benjamin IMO. Just more midrash.

stephan huller

Price identified me as arguing for the Paul = Simon formula. not sure if it was here

jakejonesiv

Could you post or link to it here, in this thread?

Jake

James The Least

I think that's the best guess. Once the evangelists had "discovered" that Jesus was David, they developed the logical secondary mythology of Paul being King Saul, of the tribe of Benjamin, persecutor of David.

There is no history anywhere here, just cleverly devised fables, as "Peter" said.