jakejonesiv

Hi Sheshbazzar,

OK, I will take a shot at it. Something like this is of course going to be a bit speculative, so please bear with me. And I have turned off both AA and Mountain Man because I don't have time for derailment into their tenditious theories. It is not that they do not deserve to have their points discussed, (well Pete does, aa has a reading disorder) but every thread seems to get hihjacked, as undoubtably will this also, but others can reply to them, not me.

Ok, with that preamble, I will take a shot at the question, was Paul the mask of Simon Magus?

But first we must dispense with the idea that Paul was originally someone named Saul. That is a fiction, and is asserted only in Acts, nowhere else.

In Acts chapter 9, the tale of how Saul was converted on the road to Damascus is related. Many people incorrectly assume that this is when Saul's name was changed to Paul. But this is incorrect. The Saul character retains his old name for four more chapters!

As late as Acts chapter 13, Saul still doesn't have his new name, Paul. Saul, Bar-Nabas, and John meet a magician named Bar-Jesus, the son of Jesus (13:6). The irony is too thick to cut with a knife. Of course, this magician must be labeled a false prophet (13:6).

The author of Acts immediately wishes to confuse the fact the magican was known as the Son of Jesus by changing his name to Elymas (13:8), and claiming that is what Bar-Jesus meant all along. It makes no sense and has lead to many variants in the extant manuscripts.

Bar-Jesus/Elymas was with the proconsul Sergius Paulus. This is the first time in Acts we encounter a Paul, and it isn't Saul. But is soon as Sergius Paul is introduced, within two verses, Saul takes his name! "Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence .... But Saul, also known as Paul..." Acts 13:7,9.

This is the old switcheroo. Sergius Paulus loses his name (he is merely the proconsul in 13:12), and henceforth the apostle is known by his familiar name, Paul! How blatant can you get?

Now that the Catholic Saint Paul, has fully been revealed by gaining his rightful name, sort of like Batman getting his first bat suit. He is now ready to battle the Magus, the arch heretic whom he calls "... son of the devil, you enemy of all that is right, full of every sort of deceit and fraud" Acts 13:10.

But there is something the author of Acts cannot hide; the new Paul is battling his evil doppelganger, his mirror image.

Paul continues in 13:10, "will you not stop twisting the straight paths of the Lord?" But wait, in Acts 9:11 it is Saul who is on Straight Street; now Elymas Bar-Jesus the Magician who is on Straight Street, and he is making it crooked.

The magician (is he son of Jesus or son of the Devil?) is struck blind for a time, just like the presumed Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus.

"Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him to Damascus. For three days he was unable to see..." Acts 9:8-9. "You will be blind, and unable to see the sun for a time." Immediately a dark mist fell upon him, and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand" Acts 13:11.

This story is the twin to Simon Peter's confrontation with a near identical Magician, the anti-Simon, Simon Magus. Acts 8:9-24. (In Acts, Peter and Paul are like the Double Mint Twins).

Who then is this son of Jesus, Elymas the magician? The closest one can find is Josephus Antiquities 20.7.2, which mentions a Jewish magician on Cyprus named "Atomos". But variants of this text give Simon as the magician's name.

Hermann Detering in "The Falsified Paul", pages 164-165 commented that when referring to a person, "Atomos" in Greek and "Paul" in Latin are equivalent.

Jake Jones IV


to be continued:

jakejonesiv

Hi Sheshbazzar,

Here is the continuation. Part 2 of 3. Cuckoo in the Jewish Nest

Next, we must dispense with the notion that Paul was a Jew in any normative or traditional sense of the word. There have always been those given to realize the cuckoo's egg in the Jewish nest.

In the gospel of Matthew we read the words attributed to Jesus, indicating the smallest letters of the Torah, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” This is in contradiction with Paul, “not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter [of the law] kills, but the spirit gives life” (2 Cor. 3:6)? How could a Jew write such a thing?

How could a real Jew spiritualize “But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” Does spiritual circumcision makes any sense in a Jewish setting?

In the epistles attributed to Paul, we read of the Elementals of this world (Cosmos, gk.kosmou) which hold human beings in bondage. "Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements (stoicheia) of the Cosmos:" Galatians 4;3. "But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements (gk stoicheia), whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?" Galatians 4:9. Who are these elements, "which are by nature no gods" (Gal. 4:8), which the Galatians formerly worshipped? These "elements" are the spirits which inhabit the heavenly spheres.

We see that “Paul” denies that the Jewish law was given by God, but was given by angels (Gal. 3:19). The word of Angels are not to be trusted if they contradict Paul's gospel (Galatians 1:8), nor are they to be worshipped (Col. 2:18). Indeed, the Ten Commandments were "the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones." 2 Cor. 3:7. The Law itself was "against us and that stood opposed to us." Jesus "nailed it to the cross." Colossians 2:13-14.

"You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the Law, or by believing what you heard?" Galatians 3:1-5.

If one is to find the origin of Pauline Christianity, one must look for antinomian sources. As we shall see the priority of Paul is with Marcion.

Jake Jones IV

To be contiued ...

jakejonesiv

Hi Sheshbazzer,

Here is the continuation, Part 3 of 3. Slandering Marcion

Like any other sectarian group, the proto-catholics would lie if it were *in* their self interest. As the term “catholic” implies, one of their doctrines was the universality of the early church. To this end they strove mightily to create the myth of harmonious Christian origins. We would not expect the proto-catholics to lie *against* their self interest. They would not create doctrines that undercut their own and attribute them to a powerful rival such as Marcion. Thus we can be sure that they were telling the truth when they wrote that Marcion taught that Christianity was not connected to Judaism.

We know a great deal about Marcion from the Heresiologists. It is not a stretch to say we may know more about Marcion than any other second century Christian. Marcionism was such a grave threat to the proto-orthodox that most of the 2c-early 3c church fathers spent a great deal of time in attempts to refute his doctrines. For example, Tertullian wrote five books against him. Justin Martyr was contemporary with Marcion. 1 Apology 58, "...Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching ... preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son." We have the witnesses of Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Hippolytus, and Eznik. Celsus also knew of Marcion and used his writings to argue against Christianity. We should also note that the earliest extant church inscription is Marcionite and dates to 318 CE. We know of several other works against Marcion for which no extant text survive; Justin's Against Marcion; Rhodo, Against the Heresy of Marcion; Theophilus of Antioch, Against Marcion.


Marcion was also contemporary with Polycarp. There was an alleged meeting between Polycarp and Marcion that is historically possible, but perhaps "too good to be true" to accept uncritically. Marcion met Polycarp on one occasion, and said "Dost thou know me?" Polycarp allegedly replied, "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan."


Marcion was from Sinope in Pontus. Irenaeus AH 1.27.2; Tertullian AM 1.1. When Marcion emerged to the West, he carried letters of recommendation from his co-religionists in Pontus. (Latin prologue to the Gospel of John. Bauer, 91n33. cf Harnack, Evangelien-Prologe, pp. 6 f. [=325 and 334 f]. Also his Marcion, pp. 24, 11 * ff.


He was the son of a wealthy ship builder, and brought a donation of 200,000 sesterces to the Roman church. Marcion taught that Christianity was a completely new, unanticipated religion; the "Sudden Christ" (Suddenly a Son, suddenly Sent, and suddenly Christ! AM 3.2) from the "Unknown Father." Marcion brought with him a collection of ten Pauline epistles (the Apostilicon), and a gospel the Evangelion which was a substratum of Luke. Marcion also composed the Antithesis in which he attempted to prove that the God of Jesus, the Father, was not the same as the God of the Jews. This was done by juxtaposing OT passages along with NT from his canon. Some of the comparisons are hilarious and would surely have the proto-orthodox seeing red! Modern scholars might quibble with a few of Marcion’s observations, but these would be extremely hard to argue against in a debate setting. Harnack did a nice job recreating the "Antithesis." http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/adler/...ts/Marcion.pdf



The impact of Marcion was huge. He forced the emerging catholic church to define its canon and doctrines, largely in response against his. One gains the distinct impression, that if it were not for Marcion, the church fathers would have had much less reason to write.


Take a look at how enraged Tertullian would become at the mere mention of Marcion’s name.
"Nothing, however, in Pontus is so barbarous and sad as the fact that Marcion was born there, fouler than any Scythian, more roving than the waggon-life of the Sarmatian, more inhuman than the Massagete, more audacious than an Amazon, darker than the cloud, (of Pontus) colder than its winter, more brittle than its ice, more deceitful than the Ister, more craggy than Caucasus. Nay more, the true Prometheus, Almighty God, is mangled by Marcion's blasphemies. Marcion is more savage than even the beasts of that barbarous region. For what beaver was ever a greater emasculator than he who has abolished the nuptial bond? What Pontic mouse ever had such gnawing powers as he who has gnawed the Gospels to pieces?" Tertullian, AM 1.1. Now, I call that slander!


Marcion really hit a raw nerve with the proto-catholics, probably because he struck too close to home. He challenged the very basis of authority upon which the Roman church was built. Marcion was accepted for a time in Rome and a hearing was given to his doctrines before being rejected along with his money. But it is quite obvious that Marcion was representing an established alternate Christianity. The Marcionites rivaled the Catholics in most areas of the Roman Empire, and outnumbered them in many in the mid second century 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.



For the most part, Marcionite services were so similar to those of the proto-orthodox, that proto-orthodox Christians were warned to be careful not to attend a Marcionite service by mistake. (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechisms 18.26)


Marcion and his followers were in agreement with the Jews that there was absolutely no prophecy of Jesus in the Jewish scriptures. Marcion advocated a very literal reading of the Jewish scriptures that ruled out the allegorical and figurative methods by which the proto-catholics found types and prophecies of Jesus. (For example, Marcion's interpretation of Isaiah 7:14; 8:4 ruled out Jesus because his name was not Emmanuel and he was not warlike, AM 3.14-15).


As Tertullian phrased it, "Our heretic [Marcion] will now have the fullest opportunity of learning the clue of his errors along with the Jew himself, from whom he has borrowed his guidance in this discussion. Since, however, the blind leads the blind, they fall into the ditch together." AM 3.8.1. Who is the anti-Semite here? Tertullian!


Marcion taught that the Jews had their own Messiah, yet to come, but it was not Jesus. For this reason, Marcion with perhaps the aid of Valentinus wrote his own Psalms to be used in liturgy rather than the Davidic psalms of the OT. Marcion's version of Luke 23:2 was "We found this fellow [Jesus] perverting the nation and destroying the law and the prophets". The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. http://tinyurl.com/codxma The Judaic Christ would gather out of dispersion the people of Israel. AM 3.21. In this, he and the Jews agreed. Marcion advocated that Judaism and Christianity had nothing in common. The opponents of Marcion (and his legendary Apostle Paul) were not Jews, but Judaizers.

Irenaeus indicated that Marcion developed his doctrines from earlier "heretical" sources. In Irenaeus, AH 3:13:1, it is stated that the Marcionites believed that Paul alone knew the truth, and that to him the mystery was manifested by revelation. In Irenaeus, AH 1:27:1-2 it is stated that Cerdo got his system from the followers of Simon, and Marcion of Pontus succeeded him, and developed his doctrine. So did the Marcionites develop their doctrine from Paul or Simon? They seem equivalent.

To this we may add that Justin Martyr made mention of Marcion (ie. First Apology LVIII), and Simon (First Apology, XXVI) but no words about the alleged Paul. This suggests a connection between Paul and Simon. It is interesting that what is considered the most distinctive doctrine of Christianity, salvation by Grace, is attributed to only two sources, Simon and Paul. “For men are saved through his [Simon’s] grace, and not on account of their own righteous actions.” AH 1.23.3. “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. 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. “

The point is that only Paul and Simon, out of all the myriad persons in early Christianity, are credited with originating a gospel of salvation by faith and grace without works. On that basis alone, a connection between Paul and Simon of Samaria is not farfetched. Nor was the identity of Paul and Simon farfetched to certain early opponents of Paul. In the Pseudo-Clementines and Kerygmata Petri, Paul and Simon Magus are equivalent.

Jake Jones IV

aa5874

I DON'T really want to hear your BLANK SPECULATIVE "shots". I WANT to hear gurugeorge.

It is gurugeorge who made the claim that Simon Magus the magician and occultist was Paul and that Simon Magus was NICKNEMED "Paulos".

The gurugeorge MUST give it a SHOT.



Well, well, well. From the VERY START you ADMIT you DON'T really know what you are talking about.

I will DESTROY your SPECULATION immediately.

Is not that great? I did NOT ignore you at all and ANSWERED all your questions but NOW you are READY to SPECULATE about Simon Magus and Paul you have "TURNED me off".

Well, I won't "TURN you off", I will just SIMPLY destroy your SPECULATION since you have ALREADY implied that you REALLY don't know what you are talking about.

You are SPECULATING and have NO credible historical sources of antiquity for what you say about Paul and Saul.

You IMAGINE your own history. Once you DISCREDIT the author of Acts as a LIAR or FICTION writer then you MUST provide some other CREDIBLE source of antiquity for what you say about Paul and Saul.

Who made such an assumption? Who are these "many people"? Any how, the word "SAUL" is found in Acts 22 and Acts 26. Paul still used the name Saul when he related his fiction based blinding light story.

It is NOT unusual for a Jew to be the Son of Jesus. The name Jesus appears to be quite common in the 1st century.

There is NOTHING unusual if ELYMAS was the son of a man named Jesus.

And it makes PERFECT sense to use ELYMAS instead of Jesus to AVOID any confusion with Jesus who was the Son of the FATHER or the Son of GOD.


What a BIG JOKE!!!

Now, instead of Simon Magus was "Paul" called "Saul" you have NOW claimed "SAUL" was another person called Sergius Paulus" a DEPUTY of PAPHOS.

You have gone beyond MISINTERPRETATION to SPECULATIVE INVENTION.

Sergius Paulus was NOT described as a magician and occultist in Acts of the Apostles.

Please stop your nonsense. You have gone way beyond MISINTERPRETATION to BLATANT SPECULATIVE INVENTION.

I really don't want to hear any more of your STORY that you SPECULATED using sources that you have DISCREDITED.

Unless the Compilers of the Canon were COMPLETE IDIOTS I really don't expect that they would CANONISE the teachings of KNOWN magician and occultists.

Please give gurugeorge a SHOT because you don't make sense.

Your argument is NOT even from SILENCE but from IMAGINATION.

This thread is about "Argument from Silence".

By the way, the gurugeorge may remain silent on Simon Magus/Paulos/Saul/Sergius Paulus/ Paul/Atomos since he probably has NO "shots" to take.

dog-on

Yup, Jake, that is the name of that tune.

Nice!

avi

Thank you Jake, well done. Good job, superb writing style, very clear.

I enjoyed reading your arguments. As you point out, some of it is speculative, but then, isn't MOST of the ancient biblical literature interpretation speculative, given the mediocre state of most of our extant papyrus documents?

If Paul is the character mentioned by Justin Martyr, of course, that would be in harmony with the orthodox belief that Paul preceded the gospels.

I tend to favor the hypothesis, contrarily, that suggests elaboration of the Pauline corpus AFTER the four gospels, so I would not hope to learn that Justin Martyr elaborates Pauline doctrines or text.

yes, very thin evidence, one way or the other regarding Pauline epistles...

Thanks again, Jake, well done.

avi

jakejonesiv

Thanks avi and dog-on,

I really didn't expect a whole thread, so I will take the opportunity to post a few related observations.

If Paul really was a Hebrew, and Israelite, and a descendant of Abraham (2 Cor. 11:22), was really circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee" (Phillipians 3:5), and in his "previous way of life intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it" (Gal 1:13) on behalf of the Jewish authorities, how could he be unknown?? How could Paul intensely persecute the church without high level authority, like the High Priest? (cf. Acts 9:1-2).

If this Paul with high level connections turned renegade and started undermining Torah, how could he be unknown? Someone was even portraying Paul as a student of Rabbi Gamaliel I! Why do we have no mention of him in the Rabbinical writings?

It sounds to me like some later group was trying to give Paul a false background.


Let's take a look at one illustrative passage.

The argument in Gal 3:16, seed (singular) vs. seeds (plural) is contrived. In Hebrew “zera,” can mean either a collective or a singular. Whoever the “Paul” was who wrote this (and please remember the Pauline epistles each have multiple authors/redactors) he does not correspond with a first century Paul who was “A Hebrew of the Hebrews.” (Hebraioi eisin kagO 2 Cor. 11:22). Such a person would surely know the argument was bogus.

We find that the author was depending solely on the Septuagint, the Jewish scriptures in Greek as used by the Church. The key word is spermatic. “kai eneuloghqhsontai en tw spermati sou panta ta eqnh ths ghs anqc wn uphkousas ths emhs fwnhs” Genesis 22:18 LXX. http://spindleworks.com/Septuagint/Genesis.htm

OK, at this point we have established the likelihood that the author of Gal. 3:16 knew only Greek, and not Hebrew. Not only this, Judaism and Christianity are viewed as completely separate religions, competing over the rights to the Jewish scriptures—something that could not have occurred in the 50’s CE.

The next question, was this in Marcion’s version of Galatians? The answer is clearly no. Tertullian AM 5.3.11. The next question is did Marcion cut it out, or did the proto-orthodox add it? Let me make a point here; The spiritual and literary legacy of Israel was being stolen by the church and applied to itself by a faulty linguistic argument! Marcion didn’t need this, but the catholic church did. The canonical version of Paul is garbled, most likely purposefully, on these points to obscure the intention of the original author.

So if the original version of Galatians did not contain 3:16 (and of course this is open to ongoing discussion), where did it come from? It is pure catholic theologumenon of the mid second century CE, as we see from Justin “Dialogue with Trypho” 119.

My conclusion is that the author of Gal. 3:16 was a mid to late second century proto-orthodox churchman. He took the argument from Justin and his ilk and made so bold to insert it into the marcionite version of Galatians.

Jake Jones IV

dog-on

Again, right on, Jake.

aa5874

You mean that jakejonesiv SPECULATED WELL.

This is most bizarre.

The posts by jakejonesiv are perfect examples of MUMBO-JUMBO.

Up to now he has NOT shown that Simon Magus was Paul.

In Acts of the Apostles 8 Simon the Magician was CONVERTED BEFORE Paul and was NOT blinded by a BRIGHT LIGHT. And further, in the same Acts 8, Simon the magician regarded himself as some kind of God or power of God BEFORE he was CONVERTED.

Paul in ACTS was NOT described as a MAGICIAN at any time BEFORE he was BLINDED by a bright LIGHT. "Paul" was a PERSECUTOR of the Christians in Acts.

In the PAULINE writings "PAUL" did NOT ever claim he was a magician BEFORE he started to preach the FAITH.

"PAUL" was a PHARISEE who ATTEMPTED to DESTROY the Christian Faith.

But, the MUMBO-JUMBO of jakejonesiv is highlighted even further when BOTH Simon the Magician and Saul the persecutor are mentioned in the SAME chapter 8 of ACTS.

In the very START of the Acts 8, Saul is described as ENGAGING a GREAT Persecution of the Church in JERUSALEM, and ENTERING houses and placing Christians in PRISONS.

In the Same ACTS 8, While PAUL was PERSECUTING the Church in Jerusalem we learn that Simon was PERFORMING MAGIC TRICKS in SAMARIA.

Philip left for Samaria during the persecution in Jerusalem by Saul and Met Simon the magician in SAMARIA.

LOOK at ACTS 8. Simon the magician in Acts 8 could NOT be "Saul/Paul".

Saul/Paul was in JERUSALEM ENTERING into HOUSES while at the same time Simon the magician was in SAMARIA performing MAGIC TRICKS in ACTS 8

I do want anymore of the MUMBO-JUMBO of jakejonesiv.

I want to hear from the gurugeorge.

Littlejohn

«..that 'Paul' was really Simon Magus...»

In a way it's just so ... However, things are much more complex than you can imagine. That this is so, it is evidenced by the elapsed 2000 years, circa, without that anyone exegete was able to solve the 'mystery'. (or patristic colossal deception!)

To get to the historical truth, we need an appropriate exegetical 'key' by reading, without which you do not go anywhere ... I was able to find it for a mere fluke


Greetings


Littlejohn

.