jakejonesiv

"Paul" thought he was the incarnation of the heavenly Christ.

Jake Jones IV

ynquirer

That sounds as if a great revelation were pending. Could you be as kind as to tell me exactly where does the author of at least one of the epistles now known as "Pauline" either straightforwardly say or more or less clearly suggest that he was the incarnation of the heavenly Christ?

jakejonesiv

Gal 2:20.

Jake Jones IV

ynquirer

Revised Standard Version:
20: I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

The first sentence (I have been crucified with Christ) gives a clue for the meaning, whether literal or metaphoric, of the whole verse. Since it is evident that the writer of Galatians was not crucified with Christ, the whole verse must be understood as a metaphor.

jakejonesiv

This is often interpreted figuratively, but it is likely to be literal. Paul had literally been crucified. It is Christ who is living in his flesh. The blurring of the god and the possessed is nearly complete.

The union of the two is so complete that later in Galatians, the author states that the crucifixion was portrayed in public performance (3:1) and that Paul bears the stigmata. "Henceforth let no man trouble me; for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus." (Galatians 6:17, cf 4:13).
Paul the Stigmatic*, Charles Ensminger .

Paul had himself nailed up on a cross before the Galatians. Paul's authority, to be received as Christ Jesus himself (4:14), derives from the marks of Jesus (Gal. 6:17b) he bears in his body; the wounds of crucifixion. “Paul” himself is the "incarnation" of the heavenly Jesus Christ; God, it is claimed, had chosen him thusly, to reveal Christ in him from the womb.

Jake Jones IV

current link for Paul the Stigmatic is here

ynquirer

Hi Jake Jones IV,

Please help me check whether or not I quite understand your theory.

You mean that Gal 2:20 must be interpreted literally, not figuratively. Thus, one “Paul”, the writer of the letter to the Galatians, pretended to be the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the Son of God – a mythical man in modern contemplation. Either before or during Paul’s preaching, he nails himself up on a cross, and allegedly Jesus Christ as a phantom, is crucified together with Paul in a sacrifice to redeem humankind; in other words, Paul’s flesh serves as a vehicle for Jesus Christ to suffer crucifixion. At the end of the day, Jesus Christ, the Son of God dies on the cross while Paul, the simple man survives crucifixion and gets his stigmata in hands and feet.

That doesn’t add up, not even for those VLIQ Galatians.

jakejonesiv

Hi ynquirer,

I think your question implies a linear progression that doesn't exist. These various characters, Peter, Paul, Jesus, JBAP etc. had become proxies in the battles between competing sects.

Burton Mack once remarked that the step wise development of Christianity has been throughly discredited.
I am going to suggest that these conflicts were the birth pangs of Christianity as we know it today. In other words, Christianity is a second century phenomenom; a merger of several previously separate traditions.

What came before? I think it was Earl Doherty who has quoted John Dillon's "“seething mass of sects and salvation cults.” (Sorry, I don't have the original citation at hand). Perhaps these included a pre-Christian "Joshua Messiah" cult that arose from an Alexandrian allegorical interpretation of the Septuagint. Perhaps another was simply a Jewish mystery cult. Maybe an old timey guy got himself crucified by the Romans. Hell, ten of thousands did. Hard to tell what the precedents are. The destruction of Jerusalem draws an almost impenatrable veil across the first seven decades of Judeah of the first century. The scattering of the Jews after the 135 CE Bar Kochba rebellion seals the deal. So much is lost that one can even imagine that Christianity started there.

Different groups believed different things. Some Doceticists believed that Jesus a phantom. The Adoptionists believed that Jesus was possessed by the Christ spirit. The Church Fathers didn't always clearly distinguish between the two. And if Bart Ehrman's analysis of 1 John on this point is correct, then all three groups (Doceticists, Adoptionists, and proto-orthodox) all existed at the same time in the same congregation!

So, if you are looking for a straight-forward logical story, sorry, you aren't going to find it. What we find is that there was no consensus at all about the nature of Jesus in the second century. (And I have so far left out most of the gnostic groups). Yes, it is tough to present a coherent story out of the tangle of myths, legends, and fabrications that stand at the beginning of Christian origins.

So rather than simplify, I will throw more fuel on the fire.

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 got 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? 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.

The "epistle" to the Galatians was fortuitously discovered by Marcion (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.3.2). Pseudononymous or forged material is often preceded by an alleged discovery. Perhaps Marcion wrote it himself; it seems to have some autobiographical elements.

The story of Paul's alleged encounters with the pillars are arguably modeled on the historical Marcion's arrival in Rome. Marcion presents himself to the "pillars" of his time, the leaders of the church for approval. Marcion attempts to buy himself into the good graces of the Roman church with a gift of 200,000 sesterces (Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 30). This is a goodly sum, equivalent to several million dollars in today's currency.

Paul is alleged to do the same, bring money in the form of a collection from the Galatians to the church at Jerusalem (Gal 2:10, cf 1 Cor. 16:1). Indeed, even as Simon Magus is said to attempt to buy in with St. Peter (Acts 8:18). And like Marcion, Simon's money is returned with his rejection.

From the Falsified Paul by Dr. Hermann Detering. Please read the section The Doppelgänger: Paul and Simon beginning on Page 142.

Simon's connection to Jesus: It certainly seems that the same type of
mythic origins that were ascribed to Jesus in the "pre-Pauline" hymns
(such as Phil. 2) were also acribed to Simon.

(None of this is to suggest that Simon Magus was a real person. Like Jesus, maybe he was maybe he wasn't, we can't tell. )

Simon claimed to have appeared in Samaria as the Father, in Judea as
the Son, and among the heathen as the Holy Ghost, a manifestation of the Eternal. (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, 1.23.1).

For since the angels ruled the world ill because each one of them
coveted the principal power for himself, he (Simon Magus) had come to
amend matters, and had descended, transfigured and assimilated to
powers and principalities and angels, so that he might appear among
men to be a man, while yet he was not a man; and that thus he was
thought to have suffered in Judaea, when he had not suffered.
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer, 1:23:3.

It should be noted that even the gospels get a "Simon" involved in the crucifixion if Jesus. "And as they came out, they found a man of
Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross." Matt.
27:32.

"He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them." Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 1.24.4)

In The Second Treatise of the Great Seth, it is stated "They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance."


So the alleged deeds of Simon and Jesus are quite similar. There are also interesting connections to the alleged Paul. Paul also claimed to be crucified in Gal. 2:20.

We see hints here of an early rite in which others take the place of Jesus on the cross. There is so much overlap, it is hard to know where Jesus leaves off and Paul and Simon Magus take up. Or vice versa.

Jake Jones IV

Solo

Paul makes a full exposition of his schema in Romans 6. V6:6 should take care this theory of Paul's believing literally he was crucified with Jesus. He most certainly believed this to be true on the mystical plane.

Incidentally, the cognitive grasp of the depression process and depressive morbidity, as allegorical "death", is known to a number of cultures world over. The Japanese have a saying about someone indifferent to life's little pleasures: "he walks as one already dead". When Anjin in James Clavell's "Shogun" grieves way over the local level of tolerance in the loss of his Mariko, lord Toranaga asks him through an interpreter: "Are you dead ?"
When he receives a negative reply, he offers: "Then you should act as one who is alive!"

Again, the "marks of Jesus", or "death of Jesus" in Romans are simply variants of the "thorn in the flesh" Paul received from a certain party (in 2 Cor 12) as a consequence of his experience of the spirit. The wise ones do not take those pronouncements as evidence of other than psychic stigmata.

Jiri

ynquirer

Hi Jake Jones IV,

Great post, and very interesting link - Dietering's - indeed. I think your overall position is much clearer to me. I shall now attempt to make mine a little clearer as well.

If I knew of some Docetists that believed Simon of Cyrene to have taken on Jesus' cross and been nailed up on it in substitution for Jesus, so that the latter could lagh at his persecutors while the former died, I would say it is an odd yet consistent story. As Jesus the phantom could neither die nor even bleed, someone had to take his place so as to deceive those murderous Jews. Cool?

But if I know of some Galatians that witnessed a guy's having himself nailed up on a cross while pretending that a god was cruficified in the guy's flesh, so that the god died while the man survived, I'll say that no human being would understand the story. And if the answer is that the divine being did not die either, I would ask, what is the point of the crucifixion ceremony?

Why are such questions important? Well, the letter to the Galatians was and still is a tool to evangelize, and this entalied the expectation that the convert-to-be asked many questions; in especial, those types of questions - like, can a god be weaker than a simple man? - that ordinary people would no doubt ask. On that score, if the evangelizer says, "Ok, it is literal" he will meet serious trouble. If the evangelizer says, "It is figurative" the problem will be less so. And my point is, why should anyone write a text for evangelization purposes to be interpreted literally if such interpretation hardens the job of evangelization?

Now I realize that you as well as Dietering and Doherty stick to the notion of an esoteric use of the epistle. Say, one Simon called Magus, used to perform a mystery cult in which he was nailed up on a cross before his disciples; he pretended that a god was crucified with him. No one among the audience understood anything but they all experienced psychic transformation. Ok, that sounds plausible.

Simon Magus was utterly discredited, but one of his disciples, Cerdo by name, went on the mystery cult and still taught others, especially one Marcion of Pontus. Then, at least one synoptic gospel - Luke - was written. In it, one Simon of Cyrene was said to have taken on Jesus' cross to the Golgotha. Marcion thought that both characters - Simon of Cyrene and Jesus - easied for him the job to restore the reputation of the mystery cult. What if that Simon of Cyrene were said to have substituted for Jesus not only in the way to the Golgotha but on the cross as well? Once this was accepted, Marcion might reveal that Simon of Cyrene actually was Simon Magus and disclose the mystery of crucifixion as taught to him by his teachers. In support of this long-term goal, he forged a letter to the Galatians, purportedly written decades before by a fictitious "Paul,l" in which he described Simon's - and possibly Cerdo's, maybe his (Marcion's) own mystic experience.

I don't know whether this sketch could fit in your vision of the problem of "Paul." Please tell me if it does not.

My main objection is about evidence. Dietering's evidence is two-fold:

1) Clement, the 3rd bishop of Rome has Simon Magus speak Paul's words in Galatians, and

2) the church fathers mention Marcion in connection with Simon Magus (plus sometimes Cerdo) but never Paul, which is the source Marcion mentions numberless times.

Experience tells me that proving connections between so far unrelated characters is harder than the business seems at first glance.

Evidence No.2, for instance may simply depend on Paul's being a key symbol for the church, which no one within it wished to have mixed up with such heretics as Marcion, Cerdo and Simon Magus.

Evidence No.1 sounds stronger. My objection, however, is as follows. The letter to the Galatians was discovered by Marcion. There was, to be sure, a debate within the church as to whether is was authentic or a forgery. Clement the 3rd bishop of Rome was among those that deemed it to be a forgery. Still he was hesitant to say it in the open. He chose an indirect, less compromising way - he put some sentences of Galatians in the mouth of Simon Magus, as a mean to point at the docetic bias of the epistle.

jakejonesiv

The Jews didn't kill Jesus, they had never heard of him. No one could do that but Christians in their myths.

It is through the active participation in the secret rites and mysteries that the
cosmic drama is finally revealed.

The Pauline Christians imitated the entire cosmic drama of Christ's crucifixion death, burial, and resurrection.

Alfred Loisy (Les Mystères payens et le mystère chrétien, Paris, 1930) concluded that mythe et rite (myth and rite) correspond; adherents of the Greek Mysteries (e.g. The Eleusinian Mysteries) and Pauline Christianity both participated in cultic re-enactments of the core myths of the respective mysteries. This is a very important observation, and agrees with observations already made from examining the Pauline corpus itself.

Marcion's Docetic opinions were battled by Tertullian. It should be easy to refute a dead man, as he cannot answer, but Tertullian's argument is a failed Reductio ad Absurdum.

"Indeed, if it was not flesh (upon the cross), but a phantom of flesh (and a phantom is but spirit, and so the spirit breathed its own self out, and departed as it did so), no doubt the phantom departed, when the spirit which was the phantom departed: and so the phantom and the spirit disappeared together, and were nowhere to be seen. Nothing therefore remained upon the cross, nothing hung there, after "the giving up of the ghost;" Tertullian: Against Marcion Book. 4, chapter 42."

To which Marcion would have replied to Tertullian, if indeed he had such an opportunity, would have been, "of course". It is a conception of Jesus as existing in the spiritual world just outside our own, un ordre symbolique. Jesus interacts in our world, but not fully. Jesus is plain and comprehensible only to those of insight.

If find Tertullian's vision of Jesus vanishing away and leaving behind an empty cross is one of the most poweful existential visions I have encountered. Of course, Tertullian would never have agreed....


Jake Jones IV