aa5874

It is completely and utterly erroneous that the Pauline writings present a heavenly Jesus.

The Pauline writings present a Jesus as the son of God who became incarnate, was crucified, and then resurrected.

The Pauline writer "MET" Jesus after he was Resurrected.

Galatians 4:4 KJV Galatians 2:20 KJV Romans 10:9 KJV There is NO corroboration at all in the very NT Canon that any Pauline letter was composed before Acts of the Apostles was composed.

No author of the Canon was influenced by a single verse of the Pauline writings and multiple 2nd century Apologetic sources did NOT acknowledge the Pauline letters.

It is clear that Marcion did NOT use the Pauline letters as claimed by Hippolytus in "Refutation of All Heresies" and implied in Ephrem's "Against Marcion".

stephan huller

The thrust of the question is that I am trying to fit what the Church Fathers say about the heretics who believe that Jesus was supernatural into your interpretation of the Pauline epistles. We agree that the Church Fathers from Irenaeus (and possibly Polycarp) onward all thought Jesus was a god born of a virgin? We also agree that they used a canon of Pauline writings pretty much the same as the ones now in our possession?

I am just trying to fit what these 'Jesus the god born of a virgin' people say about the 'supernatural Jesus from heaven come down to earth' people in terms of your understanding of a group of supernatural Jesus believers who never came down to earth. Were the Marcionites a sect of the group who interpreted the text in the way you propose? Did the orthodox breakaway from the community you are proposing and the Marcionites from them? Just trying to get some second century grounding for the exegetical opinion your are positing? Is there a heretical group that comes closest to what you are proposing in terms of an interpretation of the Pauline epistles?

stephan huller

Another question. The Marcionites (and Clement of Alexandria cf. Strom 3.99) say that Paul had a written gospel and is citing from it in the Epistle to the Romans. The Marcionites say that he wrote the original gospel. The orthodox say that he did not have a written gospel nor did he author the gospel. Who is right?

tanya

BROKEN RECORD ALERT:

Where do the Marcionists write this? Can we have a link please?

END BROKEN RECORD ALERT

tanya

The answer to this question may or may not be useful in elaborating the history of the earliest christian church, but it is my opinion, that it is impossible to answer, absent links to the writings of both the Marcionists and the "orthodox"--- here referring to the group which eventually became both Orthodox and Catholic (and ultimately, Protestants as well).

stephan huller

Read a book

stephan huller

But your question yields yet another question for Earl Doherty. For the Marcionites (Origen Homilies on Luke) understood Paul to be the Paraclete of the gospel (John 14:16 etc). The same view appears in the Acts of Archelaus:

I would imagine again that you, Earl, interpret the concept of the Paraclete in traditional Catholic terms (i.e. a 'spirit' rather than an individual person). Nevertheless the Marcionite and neo-Marcionite interpretation of various passages in the Pauline epistles implies that they were understood to echo or even answer the statement of John 14:16 and others - i.e. that the apostle was saying that he was the Paraclete, the one prophesied by Jesus in a manner parallel to Marcion, Montanus, Mani and Mohammed. I am just trying to pin down where your understanding of Jesus fits into all of this. Clearly in order for Paul to have understood himself to have 'come after' Jesus, this spiritual Jesus must have appeared in historical time and space initially. My assumption would be then that you would argue consistently WITH the Catholics and against the heretics. In this case, that the Paraclete WAS NOT part of a prophesy about the coming of a man - a man who would come after Jesus - because Jesus never appeared on this earth in the first place.

aa5874

Happy New Year to you.

It is time for the "pussyfooting" on the Pauline writings to end.

1. ALL the Pauline writings were most likely composed AFTER c 180 CE.

The abundance of evidence against early Pauline writings can no longer be ignored as if they do not exist.

The Pauline writings do NOT represent the early Jesus cult--they represent ONLY the authors themselves.

There is no credible evidence that Marcion was alive when the Pauline letters were composed.

1. The author of Acts wrote NOTHING of the Pauline letters.

2. The author of Acts wrote NOTHING of the Pauline revealed Gospel of the Resurrected Jesus.

3. Acts of the Apostles was most likely composed in the 2nd century or later.

4. No book in the Canon used a single verse from the Pauline letters.

5. Up to c 150 CE Justin Martyr was was unaware of the Pauline letters and the Pauline revealed Gospel.

6. There are at least five Apologetic 2nd century writers who did NOT acknowledge the Pauline writings from c 117 CE to c 180 CE--Aristides, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras and Minucius Felix.

7. A 3rd century Apologetic writer Origen in "Against Celsus" Admitted that the 2nd century writer Celsus wrote NOTHING of Paul.

8. In a 3rd century Apologetic source, the "Philosophumena" attributed to Hippolytus , it is admitted that Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings.

9. It is ADMITTED by writers of the Church that the Pauline writer was still ALIVE AFTER gLuke was composed--Church History 6.25 and "Commentary on Matthew 1.

10. It is ADMITTED by an Apologetic source, the Muratorian Canon, that the Pauline writer was ALIVE AFTER Revelation by John was composed.

11. In "Against Marcion" by Ehphrem there is NO claim that Marcion mutilated the Pauline letters.

12. Letters between Paul and Seneca to place Paul before c 68 CE have been deduced to be forgeries.

13. The 1st writer, Irenaeus, to mention the Pauline writings, Acts of the Apostles and the Four Gospels is supposedly from c 180 CE.

14. Irenaeus completely destroyed the history of Paul in the Canon by arguing that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age under Claudius.

15. The Pauline writer could NOT have preached Christ Crucified in the time of King Aretas c 37-41 CE if Jesus was crucified c 46-51 CE.

Chili

I actually think that Paul lived the Gospel and knew firsthand, that so is 'other than the other' Gospel that was floating around. And those were many, all of them with tidbits of truth that they had torn from the whole, peddling those to believers wherein [self] gratification was like the pay of a sophist as 'look alike', but a philosopher was not.

Paul was the full meal and not just the cake, now looking down from above and saw the twelve courses that make up the full meal scatter, as if they were shepherds with sheep going in different directions, looking, now, but not seeing because parousia never was theirs. This same is true for James, who in essence returned to the Jews in twelve directions to help them bury the dead.

It so is that the gate of hell is wide and open to all, while the narrow gate is narrow, and that is what Paul was writing about. His aim was to expose the error he saw, that is real, even though he was not, or would not say, nor could he preside as Pope-in-the-know to signify that truth is prior to us.

In this sense is it crucial that Jesus was not real in our human sense, nor was Paul so he could be the Church that was built on Peter as rock.

The short form here is that a halo's are prior to us, or even a smile would not look good on a girl, and so after parousia we crown Her Queen of Heaven and Earth.

So no, Paul is not Paraclete as the paraclete is already with us and will be within us, and that could never be Paul, but is the woman in us who never was banned from Eden, but is the most enigmatic of all because She is the blood that crawls in our veins, also known as 'motherland' to us.

Interesting to add here is that the face of God shall never be seen (and is a disaster if the face of god is ever seen), nor that of Jesus, while Mary is always seen as 'a local' in the perfect image of mortal beauty.

Chili

That is because the Acts were like 'snake charmers' pandering fallacies to curious ears so they may be charmed by what they hear.

They so proved the need for Paul and provided his stage for Paul as responder in a platonic way, and not as a hawker himself.

The Acts were like evangelistic tent rallies, that we still know today, or again, I should say.