arnoldo

Care to name those scholars who feel that Paul didn't write Romans or 2 Thessalonians? Hebrews, however doesn't specifically state who the author is according to the following source:

show_no_mercy

I'm pretty sure there are almost no NT scholars who doubt Romans. But 2 Thes. is doubted by quite a few and there's no "scholarly consensus" about its authenticity

Sheshbazzar

I don't think that the real Paul, and the fake "Paul's" existed at the same time.

I think the real "Paul" was a relatively minor and unknown gnostic philosopher who was dead and buried long before the 2nd century church commandeered (adopted)
his few actual writings, rewrote them, and proceeded to forge additional entire books in his name to counter the teachings of Marcion.

I don't think that the real Paul was anything at all like the "Paul" that was invented by the church, or that he had anything at all to do with the latter church's fascination with Judaism, or its creation of the fake Jewish rabbi "Jesus".

But this is simply a position of convenience as, as it provides a logical explanation for an orderly progression as myth got added onto myth till Christianity became a
full-fledged religion during the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE.

But I'm not dogmatic about the matter, I just consider it unlikely that the church invented the entire story, Paul, christ and all, without some actual antecedents to build on.

Not if the real Paul had been little more than an unknown nobody, who had died sometime way back, possibly even as far back as the 1st or 2nd century BCE.

If the real Paul was a insignificant and virtually unknown person, (prior to the 2nd century church "making him") There would be no reason for Justin Martyr, or any other early church father to be at all aware of him.
Remember, I am saying that at that time, his writings would not have been well known, or have even been considered as being "christian".

So my view is the ellipsis; I think the fake Paul is the 2nd century (Church) writer(s) who wrote lies about the life of the real Paul who had died so long before that he was forgotton by the hoi polli.

Not that this difference of opinion really matters with regards to the results, as we both are in agreement that the stories of Paul and the Gospels are nothing more than church fabricated fictions and lies.

mountainman

Good call Clive. The HJ heresey appears as a political reality in the fourth century since the HJ was embraced by the "christian emperors". The majesty of the imperial purple office was heavily conflated with the majesty (or otherwise) of the "Historical Jesus". The question is whether the HJ canon was first published in the empire before the rise of "christian emperors".

mountainman

Dear aa5875,

I am convinced that the fabrication of Justin Martyr is a fiction of men composed by wickedness in a later century. We have no evidence for this high-profile often-quoted "christian apologist" and prolifically opinionated author.

His title as "christian apologist" is self-defining. The christians had no evidence for themselves at some later century and therefore created a whole series of literary apololgies to cover over this embarrassment. Along with the literary apologies which were then forged, we have the consequences of identifying "historical apologists" who may never have existed.

Note the direct reference to "the Greeks". AKA "gentiles" in accordance to the nomenclature dreamt up by the authors of the new testament. The christian apologist is addressing the world of non-christians. It is very surprising the correlations between Justin and Constantine's Oration to the Saints which includes references to the same subject matter, but Constantine instead of citing greek authors who were philosophers who "predicted the historical jesus", instead cites Roman poets of the first century BCE who predicted the historical jesus. Constantine obviously preferred Roman poets over Greek philosophers. Either way, according to some reports, Constantine's "proof" (of the same subject matter of Justin Martyr: ie - prediction of the HJ) was a fraud twice over.

Best wishes,


Pete

aa5874

I find that the writings of Justin Martyr contradict those of Eusebius in Church History.

The extant writings of Justin Martyr contadict Ignatius, Clement, Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and other church writers.

I think Justin Martyr is one of the most important writers. It would seemed his writings somehow managed to have escape mutilation by the Church.

By the way, I don't think Eusebius acted alone.

aa5874

Well, it is the difference in opinions that I am interested in. I am not trying to start a religion where everybody must agree.

I really don't like theories where a character is said to be unknown but did exist but did not do anything. These type of characters do not need evidence at all.

It would seem to me that after the Jesus stories were around for some time and believed to be true and that it was discovered that there was no history of the apostles of Jesus after his ascension.

The absence of such history of the apostles is an indication that Jesus did not exist.

In order to fabricate an history for Jesus believers, Acts of the Apostles and the letters of Paul were manufactured.

If the letters of the writer Paul were really written very early, one would expect many variations of the Pauline letters, and many suprious letters to churches with the name Paul.

There many are variations of Jesus stories from birth, childhood and ascension, many variations of gospels of the apostles but virtually no variation of the letters to the church from the writer Paul.

The many variations of the Jesus stories virtually do not include the character Paul.

And the letters with the name Paul are found together, excluding the pastorals, as in P 46 dated to around the third century.

mountainman

google "eusebius" and "scriptoria"

From Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2007.06.41
Anthony Grafton, Megan Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006. Pp. xvi, 367.
ISBN 10: 0-674-02314-5. ISBN 13: 978-0-674-02134-7.

Reviewed by Scott Fitzgerald Johnson, Harvard University

Sheshbazzar

I consider it unlikely that the church invented the entire story, Paul, christ and all, without some actual antecedents to build on.

Once the writings of virtually all of the Early Church Fathers are eliminated as being entirely faked latter productions,
What remains to form any reasoned opinions about when, or how, the Christian religion came into being?
You are left with a big empty hole in what should be a naturaly chronological process, simply replacing what we have with an empty and undocumented void in the history of Christianity does nothing to explain what WAS happening during these first three centuries.
Certainly, we don't need accept the Christian version of how Christianity came into being. Yet tossing out everything,
How can we develop, or sensibly defend any other scenario if our only argument consist only of discrediting and the denial of those few sources we do have?
It appears that you do accept Justin Martyr's writing as being authentic, (mountanman says "Justin Martyr is a fiction of men composed by wickedness in a later century".)
The problem I have with both of these positions is the almost total neglect of any antecedents, Justin Martyr's writings reveal him to be a Christian, if there were no Christians before him, how then did he become one?
A Big Bang theory might be plausible for the creation of the universe, but hardly seems appropriate for the genesis of a religious movement.

My view is that the original Pauline gnostic writings weren't in any general circulation until the church leaders in their desperation to counter the Marcion, glommed onto them, extensively revised and interpolated them, and pressed them into the service of being the "authenticating" documents for the Orthodox views, and form of doctrine.
These ideas were already firmly established, and the schism of Marcion was a pressing matter, these Orthodox documents had to be produced very quickly to deal with this immediate church crisis.
There was no time for many variations or "spurious" (better, "unorthodox" letters to be developed)
But that it was a "rush job" is still evident in the blatant contradictions and "loose-ends" that ended up remaining within the texts.
Once they were released, there was no going back, else the Orthodox Church would be admitting to the making of errors, and that their official authenticating "Testement" documents were found even by themselves to be "wrong". This simply would not do. So they simply "stone-walled" it, as they still do to this day. Either making excuses, or changing the subject, but NOT the mistakes in the texts.
Exactly as it would be, if there were antecedent loosely associated Christian churches before Paul's writings were taken over and reworked by the church's authorities for their own purposes.
Christianity was not dependent upon Paul's writings, the writings came late and in response to the schism.

Of course they don't, the as the Christian "sayings" and legends didn't have any "Paul" associated with them.
And the Pseudo-Gospels that were fabricated latter were built around the NT idea that Paul only became involved after the Resurrection, to have included him within any "living Jesus story" would have immediately discredited the story.

There were many "Christianities" in the beginning, with widely divergent beliefs, most of the smaller sects were held in contempt and scorned, but were nonetheless tolerated. Marcion and his doctrines however, posed a real threat to the church, one that the orthodox church was unwilling to tolerate or compromise with at all.

mountainman

Dear Shesh and aa5864,

What about an historical antecedent to "Paul" as the historical Apollonius of Tyana, a philosopher, writer of many letters to important people of all levels, journeyer extraordinaire, and the author of many books (and is cited by Eusebius). The writings of Apollonius may have been preserved at or near the temple of Asclepius in Aegae, which became conspicuously non-existent c.324 CE.

We must not forget that the "church" only became conspicuous c.324 CE at which time there were many of raw materials of literature available, including the accounts of the wandering Persian holy man who was persecuted and killed, and his disciples persecuted in Persia and in the Roman empire. Mani happened before the state Roman church appeared "christian".


One possibility is that he was asserted to be one by Eusebius retrospectively. He is not known outside of Eusebius.

What about Ardashir in 224 CE in Persia? First came the state centralisation enforced by the army, then came the "one true canon and holy writ" by which to dispense justice to the new Sassanid Persia: Zoroastrianism. We must not forget that political motivations and religious movements have in the past been known to be conflated together.

The Nicaean Big Bang theory of christian origins is commensurate with all the available evidence and in fact explains the generation of heresies beyond Nicaea as the ramifications of a "new divinity". Constantine introduces, as Pontifex Maximus, a new and strange divinity - the historical jesus.

Was there a controversy over the deity (or otherwise) of the historical jesus?

Was Jesus a valid god?
Was he the same as god?
Did he have the same essence as god?
Was it exactly the same essence as god?
Or was it a similar essence to the essence of god?
These were perplexing issues for the fourth century theologians at Nicaea.

They were about to ratify a new and strange god and religious state.
Constantine required their signatures for some reason.
He wanted harmony in the empire and beyond.

His senior staff suggested that people vote
on the notion that the historical jesus was
for all intents and purposes not just
similar in essense to old customary god,
but was in fact the very very very same
essence of the very very one true true god.

(Permutations and combinations notwithstanding)

Arius went the way of "similar".
And the world groaned to find itself Arian....


homoiousios vs. homoousios

The terms homoiousios and homoousios mean
"similar essence" and "same essence."

They were part of a controversy in Christianity
during the 4th century when people disagreed over
the nature of Jesus Christ and his relationship to God.

According to those who adopted homoiousios,
Jesus was not the same as God but simply had a "similar essence."

According to those who argued for homoousios,
the doctrine which was eventually adopted as orthodoxy,
Jesus and God had the exact same essence.

All over one IOTA (from WIKI)

Common English phrase


Best wishes,


Pete