Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 10-14-2008, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Yeah he was co-opted. The majority of churches were "heretical" from the (relative latecomer) orthodox point of view, and mostly descended from Paul, or from other proto-gnostic "apostles" (for all of whom "Joshua Messiah" was simply this new Messiah-in-the-past idea). "Paul" was co-opted in order to bring him on board with the Roman attempt to unify and organize the movement; and he is split, in Acts, into the "good" Paul (who toes the orthodox party line - as Robert Price says in an interview, it's like the proto-orthodox were saying, "yeah, Paul, he was a great guy, look, he was one of us!") and the recalcitrant "Simon Magus", who remains the father of the "heretics", and represents those proto-Gnostics (turning into fully-fledged Gnostics by this stage), who refuse to throw their lot in with the Roman movement - but who yet has many of the same storyline characteristics given to "Paul" (the most blatant example being the attempted "Simony" of Paul with the Jerusalem people which is vividly re-painted as Simon Magus' "Simony" in the pseudo-Clementines).

There is no evidence whatsoever that "Paul "was co-opted.

Justin Martyr mentioned Simon Magus, never "Paul".

Justin mentioned Marcion, never "Paul".

Justin mentioned Miithra, never "Paul".

Justin mentioned Josephus, never "Paul".

Justin mentioned the apocalypse of John, never "Paul"

Justin quoted passages from the "Memoirs of the Apostles, he never mentioned Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts of the Apostles or "Paul".

Based on Justin, then, there are real indications that there was no person known as "Paul" upto the middle of the 2nd century.

Which is about the time Marcion presented the Apostolikon, or so I am told...

LogicandReason · 10-14-2008, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

Notice that Paul never quotes the Gospel Jesus, never cites progenitors, never assigns a location or specific time of Jesus’ death or resurrection, does not know the names of the twelve disciples, is ignorant as to a betrayer named Judas (conveniently a name that can later represent all Jews), and never cites any of the Gospel narratives later written by a person we identify as Mark. How could Paul know any of this and report it, as Mark’s creative writings, while laconic, are not written for another two decades? So Paul, following two decades of silence after the death of Jesus, becomes the chief architect of the mythology that becomes a major religion labeled as Christianity.

Which is one reason why it's just much simpler and easier to conclude that there was no Jesus as a person with twelve disciples and all the rest of that stuff, and that "Paul" was merely a peripheral member of a community that had a new messiah concept (Joshua Messiah) that put the Messiah in the past instead of the future.

IOW there was no "two decades", because nothing special happened 20 years before. There were just a bunch of people who started believing neither in a Messiah to come nor some Messiah claimant in the present, but a Messiah who had been, in some vague, recent-ish past, and in a highly spiritualized (non-military) form, with a "dying/rising" trope added.

It makes much more sense to see the "clothing" as being not a progressive mythologization of a man, but a progressive man-izing of a myth. Paul's version of the myth is just an earlier one that's not very conducive to manification, nor was there yet in "Paul's" time any particular drive to nail the cult figure to any particular time and place; later versions were more specific, more man-ized, and with the power of Roman organization and money, more successful.

I've argued the same my friend in the past...but if this was a total fiction why choose to tell the story about a man who was a criminal? Why have him die? I really think the silence after Jesus' death is the key to the story...nobody knew what to say as he turned out to be just a man. Then Paul comes along, with the knowledge to project this story back into the Jewish scriptures and we ar off to the races. But you have an argument.

LogicandReason · 10-14-2008, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There is no evidence whatsoever that "Paul "was co-opted.

Justin Martyr mentioned Simon Magus, never "Paul".

Justin mentioned Marcion, never "Paul".

Justin mentioned Miithra, never "Paul".

Justin mentioned Josephus, never "Paul".

Justin mentioned the apocalypse of John, never "Paul"

Justin quoted passages from the "Memoirs of the Apostles, he never mentioned Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts of the Apostles or "Paul".

Based on Justin, then, there are real indications that there was no person known as "Paul" upto the middle of the 2nd century.

Which is about the time Marcion presented the Apostolikon, or so I am told...

Excellent point.

It does not take much brainpower to see that Mark was a pro-Gentile document and Matthew pro-Jewish. Paul was everything that the church in Jerusalem (whatever fragment was actually there) was not. I posit that Peter, James and John were teaching Jesus' saying (could have been a Q) but had no explanation for Jesus' death. Paul creates it. The meetings described in Galatians is a story of collusion and franchising the idea.

dog-on · 10-14-2008, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Which is one reason why it's just much simpler and easier to conclude that there was no Jesus as a person with twelve disciples and all the rest of that stuff, and that "Paul" was merely a peripheral member of a community that had a new messiah concept (Joshua Messiah) that put the Messiah in the past instead of the future.

IOW there was no "two decades", because nothing special happened 20 years before. There were just a bunch of people who started believing neither in a Messiah to come nor some Messiah claimant in the present, but a Messiah who had been, in some vague, recent-ish past, and in a highly spiritualized (non-military) form, with a "dying/rising" trope added.

It makes much more sense to see the "clothing" as being not a progressive mythologization of a man, but a progressive man-izing of a myth. Paul's version of the myth is just an earlier one that's not very conducive to manification, nor was there yet in "Paul's" time any particular drive to nail the cult figure to any particular time and place; later versions were more specific, more man-ized, and with the power of Roman organization and money, more successful.

I've argued the same my friend in the past...but if this was a total fiction why choose to tell the story about a man who was a criminal? Why have him die? I really think the silence after Jesus' death is the key to the story...nobody knew what to say as he turned out to be just a man. Then Paul comes along, with the knowledge to project this story back into the Jewish scriptures and we ar off to the races. But you have an argument.

Where does Paul ever say he was a criminal?

LogicandReason · 10-14-2008, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

I've argued the same my friend in the past...but if this was a total fiction why choose to tell the story about a man who was a criminal? Why have him die? I really think the silence after Jesus' death is the key to the story...nobody knew what to say as he turned out to be just a man. Then Paul comes along, with the knowledge to project this story back into the Jewish scriptures and we are off to the races. But you have an argument.

Where does Paul ever say he was a criminal?

Good point...Paul only says he dies for our sins and describe these events in a cosmic, non-time. In deutero-Pauline Timothy there is a reference to Pilate and the Jews but this was written long after Paul and with probable knowledge of Mark's tale.

People forget all of the history Pilate created. He was an extreme brute recorded for his summary executions and harassment of the Jews (Josephus) and was recalled to Rome after slaughtering Samaritans (Tacitus). It would not have been hard to insert this guy into any "bad guy" role in a Jewish story.

aa5874 · 10-14-2008, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There is no evidence whatsoever that "Paul "was co-opted.

Justin Martyr mentioned Simon Magus, never "Paul".

Justin mentioned Marcion, never "Paul".

Justin mentioned Miithra, never "Paul".

Justin mentioned Josephus, never "Paul".

Justin mentioned the apocalypse of John, never "Paul"

Justin quoted passages from the "Memoirs of the Apostles, he never mentioned Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts of the Apostles or "Paul".

Based on Justin, then, there are real indications that there was no person known as "Paul" upto the middle of the 2nd century.

Which is about the time Marcion presented the Apostolikon, or so I am told...

But, the letter writers called Paul should have had over one hundred years of history in the "Church" before Marcion wrote anything.

These letter writers called Paul are supposed to be the fore-most and first evangelists and missionaries outside Judaea, yet Justin never acknowledged the Pauls in any of his writings.

Justin wrote about events from Simon Magus to Marcion, from the reign of Cladius to Antoninus Pius, he mentioned 1st century writers like Philo, Josephus and Apion, he wrote about the "memoirs of the apostles" and "Revelations, but never once referred to any Paul who was supposed to be the founder or co-founder of at least seven Churches and who was supposed to have travelled extensively all over the Roman Empire.

Based on Justin, the letter writers called Paul were unknown upto the middle of the 2nd century.

LogicandReason · 10-14-2008, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Which is about the time Marcion presented the Apostolikon, or so I am told...

But, the letter writers called Paul should have had over one hundred years of history in the "Church" before Marcion wrote anything.

These letter writers called Paul are supposed to be the fore-most and first evangelists and missionaries outside Judaea, yet Justin never acknowledged the Pauls in any of his writings.

Justin wrote about events from Simon Magus to Marcion, from the reign of Cladius to Antoninus Pius, he mentioned 1st century writers like Philo, Josephus and Apion, he wrote about the "memoirs of the apostles" and "Revelations, but never once referred to any Paul who was supposed to be the founder or co-founder of at least seven Churches and who was supposed to have travelled extensively all over the Roman Empire.

Based on Justin, Paul was unknown upto the middle of the 2nd century.

Absolutely great points. So who are all the Pauls? How and why do they become incorporated? Marcion? Is this the Gentile voice rejecting the Jews but incorporating Jewish prophesy?

andrewcriddle · 10-14-2008, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

People forget all of the history Pilate created. He was an extreme brute recorded for his summary executions and harassment of the Jews (Josephus) and was recalled to Rome after slaughtering Samaritans (Tacitus). It would not have been hard to insert this guy into any "bad guy" role in a Jewish story.

Actually the recall of Pilate to Rome after using lethal force on a Samaritan group is recorded in Josephus not Tacitus. josephus antiquities-18

Quote:

BUT the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together; but Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon file roads with a great band of horsemen and foot-men, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain.

But when this tumult was appeased, the Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, a man that had been consul, and who was now president of Syria, and accused Pilate of the murder of those that were killed; for that they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans, but to escape the violence of Pilate. So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the emperor to the accusations of the Jews. So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he durst not contradict; but before he could get to Rome Tiberius was dead.

Andrew Criddle

LogicandReason · 10-14-2008, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

People forget all of the history Pilate created. He was an extreme brute recorded for his summary executions and harassment of the Jews (Josephus) and was recalled to Rome after slaughtering Samaritans (Tacitus). It would not have been hard to insert this guy into any "bad guy" role in a Jewish story.

Actually the recall of Pilate to Rome after using lethal force on a Samaritan group is recorded in Josephus not Tacitus. josephus antiquities-18

Quote:

BUT the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together; but Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon file roads with a great band of horsemen and foot-men, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain.

But when this tumult was appeased, the Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, a man that had been consul, and who was now president of Syria, and accused Pilate of the murder of those that were killed; for that they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans, but to escape the violence of Pilate. So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the emperor to the accusations of the Jews. So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he durst not contradict; but before he could get to Rome Tiberius was dead.

Andrew Criddle

Thanks Andrew! Josephus tells us quite a bit about Pilate and his harassment of the Jews from the time he was assigned to Judea.

So making Pilate appear to be concerned or a good guy in the Gospels is laughable. He would not have taken 5 minutes to order a summary execution for a Jewish troublemaker during the Passover holidays.

I still say that Jesus' followers were simply dumbfounded when he was crucified and silent. The main writer of many we call Paul (responsible for Thessalonians, Galatians, Corinthians,Romans, Philemon, and Philippians) was the one who invented the "kerygma." He married Jewish Scripture to the Essene resurrection doctrines and elaborated that Jesus had to die for our sin. This facilitated the Gospels to come later.

aa5874 · 10-14-2008, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Actually the recall of Pilate to Rome after using lethal force on a Samaritan group is recorded in Josephus not Tacitus. josephus antiquities-18

Andrew Criddle

Thanks Andrew! Josephus tells us quite a bit about Pilate and his harassment of the Jews from the time he was assigned to Judea.

So making Pilate appear to be concerned or a good guy in the Gospels is laughable. He would not have taken 5 minutes to order a summary execution for a Jewish troublemaker during the Passover holidays.

I still say that Jesus' followers were simply dumbfounded when he was crucified and silent. The main writer of many we call Paul (responsible for Thessalonians, Galatians, Corinthians,Romans, Philemon, and Philippians) was the one who invented the "kerygma." He married Jewish Scripture to the Essene resurrection doctrines and elaborated that Jesus had to die for our sin. This facilitated the Gospels to come later.

But, in Church History, Eusebius claimed the letter writer called Paul was already familiar with the gospel of Luke. No Church writer ever claimed the writer Paul preceeded the Gospels.

Church History 3.4

Quote:

And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, "according to my Gospel".

The letters of the writers called Paul, based on Eusebius, appear to follow gLuke.

And again, based on Eusebius, Acts of the Apostles was written before the death of the letter writers called Paul, see Church History 2.22.6-7.

There is no evidence, even internally, that the letter writers called Paul wrote any letters before the gospels.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.