gurugeorge

The phrase was Tertullian's, and means "apostle the heretics (presumably T means heretics contemporary with him) claim as theirs", i.e. claim as their founder, the apostle whom their Christianity comes from.

And what's your basis for accepting that as true?

Again, colour me confused. I have no idea what bearing this question has on what we are talking about. At the very least, the heretics in question would be the ones Tertullian was familiar with.

Of course, they're heretical, deviant, etc., from his point of view - but how do we know his point of view represents original Christianity as it really was (as opposed to how Tertullian though it was)?

But the Pauline writings were themselves used by Marcion, a heretic (from the point of view of orthodoxy), to shore up his own heretical (from the point of view of orthordoxy) position!!!

This is very confused. "Heretic" is a term of abuse used by orthodox writers. IOW, from the point of view of some orthodox writers, some types of Christianity were deviant from the original Christianity that they believed they (the orthodox) were the descendants of.

Are you simply going to take them at their word, without looking into it? Or do you want to know what really happened? Hey, maybe they were right - but maybe not.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere: yes, as I see it, they HAD to include the "Paul" writings, precisely because there must have been some Christians throughout the Empire who were familiar with them.

But IIRC biblical scholarship gives Acts a spread from 60 CE to about 150 CE (I take the later date because it neatly fits my theory ) - what's your basis for claiming different?

Sure, but biblical scholarship (apart from some of the Dutch Radicals) tells us that they existed before Eusebius. He had them ready to hand, he had no gaping hole to account for.

Why would you expect them to? - were they writing histories of Christianity like Eusebius? Besides, I've seen scholarly discussions that find traces of Pauline theology in gMark at least. And of course there's no reason why the gospels should use Acts or Paul - they're supposed to be, are presented as, eyewitness reports in their own right, of events prior to Acts, prior to "Paul"'s supposed revelations.

Sure, that's what they seem to do, and may or may not in fact do, depending on how these investigations turn out.

Sure, and Marcion was - a heretic, from their point of view.

Again, why should you expect there to be? (Especially if Justin Martyr is actually one of the earliest examples of a developing orthodoxy.)

Same question: would you expect him to, especially given that his writing contains one of the first clear examples of the standard orthodox creed?

On the contrary, it's famously the case that the gospel Jesus is detailed, but the Pauline Jesus rather sketchy.

Well, I've tried to struggle through your points again aa, but I have to say your thought process really baffles me. I see that you're an intelligent, thinking person, with a good command of the texts, but I don't get how you think you are responding to my points - what you are saying just seems non-responsive, and off on your own peculiar tangent; plus you seem to be cherry-picking what you accept from the orthodox story of origins, from the gospels, from late datings of certain writings, and inserting the AFS whenever it suits you. Sorry, but there just seems to be a fair bit of ad-hockery in what you are saying.

My position is quite simple: I look at biblical scholarship, and I take it as a point of policy to accept, until I discover strong evidence to the contrary (and sometimes I see there may be such in the Dutch Radicals and other outlier scholars, but I still prefer to stick to the standard stuff whenever I can), that the findings of biblical scholarship are arrived at largely honestly and soundly. I have no other realistic option, as I have no command of the original languages. Sure, there is highly likely to be some bias due to the fact that many scholars are believers, but I have to stick by a principle of charity of interpretation, and take it that they are doing their best to be objective (even though they may fail despite themselves, because of their biases). I accept standard dating spreads (and don't always pick the later ones).

On that basis, I accept that the "Paul" writings are the earliest we have.

And on that basis, it looks to me that the MJ idea is preferable to the HJ - but only just, and I can't be totally confident about it (and I've wavered sometimes when excellent writers like Ben Smith, spin and others here have given me counter-arguments).

gurugeorge

Why would I need that, when I have "Paul"'s writings themselves, which are fundamentally mystical and visionary? But if you want something that might also be similar, look at Hebrews.

Are these three sentences connected? I'm lumping them together here, because once again, I'm at a total loss as to what relevance you think they might have to what I'm saying.

Why do you think there had to be either orthodoxy or heresy at the (supposed early) time of Paul? All that comes later - in Walter Bauer's book, he looks at what the proto-orthodox (early 2nd century) are saying, and he finds that they're constantly whingeing and whining about WHAT THEY CALL "HERESY" being already established wherever they try to establish their ministries.

As I responded elsewhere, some writers think there is some "Pauline" theology in gMark. At the very least, he takes a dim view of the Jews and the apostles - they seem like idiots who are missing the point.

Yes, exactly - that's part of the reconciliation I'm talking about. Acts tries a balancing act: "Pauline" Christianity, which in the Epistles has a sketchily historical Jesus, is made to be reconciled with "Petrine" Christianity, with its more detailed, more heavily historicized biography, as found in the gospels.

Meanwhile, "Simon Magus", who in the later Pseudo-Clementines (which may contain elements contemporary with Acts) has some peculiar similarities to stories we find elsewhere about "Paul" (even in Acts itself, but also in the Epistles), is made out to be a bad guy in Acts, almost like a Bizarro version of "Paul".

gurugeorge

Hehe, I know what you mean, I've had a few previous run-ins with aa myself. I kind of enjoy them, in a masochistic sort of way

aa5874

How can Paul corroborate himself? You suggested that original form of Christianity may have been mystical or visionary and I have questioned such a view and you refer back to the same questionable source.

The author and date of Hebrews is unknown. And is Hebrews heresy or mutilated orthodoxy?

What is first established is generally considered orthodox.

Now, you are placing Paul in the first century before the death of Nero, not the 2nd century, please show that it was already established that the original form of 1st century christianity was mystical or visionary.

It is suggested that gMark is first century and it does not appear that gMark's Jesus was mystical or visionary, and based on gMatthew and gLuke, gMark's Jesus appears orthodox.


Taking a dim view of the Jews and the apostles has nothing whatsoever to with the claim or the suggestion that the original form of Christianity was mystical or visionary.

When is Acts trying a balancing act? Is not Petrine Christianity before Pauline?

Now, the original form of Petrine Christianity, the original form of Christianity of the 1st bishop of Rome, Peter, the supposed apostle of Jesus predates the original form of the Pauline Christian WHO was converted by a bolt of lightning long after the first bishop of Rome was filled with the Holy Ghost and became multi-lingual.

There is no information whatsoever in antiquity to show that the original form of Christianity was mystical or visionary. The Christianity of the 1st bishop of Rome, Peter, predates Pauline Christianity.

gurugeorge

What is your basis for the claim that "Paul" is a questionable source?

Once again: biblical scholar seem to consider the "Pauline" writings to be the earliest written source we have. In that source, in its own words, the Christianity is visionary, and mystical. What is your problem with this? Do you have evidence to show that "Paul" is a much later invention? If you have such, please give it to me and stop spitting out sequences of gnomic sentences that seem to have no connection one with the other!

AFAIK, it's not any more unknown than many other NT texts - the consensus seems to be it's pretty early, roundabout, or shortly after "Paul".

Aaaargghhh!!!!!! What is the point of this question?

AFAICS those terms don't have this kind of weight or meaning yet (circa 50-70 CE). There are no "heretics" or "orthodox" at that point: there are some strong differences of opinion, but no evidence of an established "orthodoxy" placing itself in opposition to "heresy". So far as we can tell from "Paul", everyone concerned is Christian in their own and other Christians' eyes, followers of Christ, in one cult together, even if they have different opinions about things like circumcision, different gospels, differing views on the purport of Christ's advent, the theology, etc.

Says who? In the eyes of the orthodoxy of the early 2nd century (from Justin Martyr, say), they THINK they are first, their PROPAGANDA is that they are first, sure. But are they actually representative of what Christianity was when it started?

If yes, how do you know?

You've got it back-asswards: philological investigation concludes that the genuine Epistles of "Paul" are the earliest Christian scribblings we have. As amateurs who can't independently translate those writings, our best bit is to provisionally accept that. Therefore, if we want to know what the earliest forms of Christianity may have been like, "Paul" is the most likely source, in fact the only source, where we may even hope to find a clue.

And in that source, the Christianity is visionary and mystical. "Paul" speaks quite unequivocally of his own visionary experience, and describes what looks like a combination of inspiration from Scripture and visionary experience on the part of the Jerusalem people in 1Corinthians 15. (Later orthodox writing construes "appeared" as the physical seeing of an resurrected entity whom the apostles had previously known as a human being, but we are under no obligation to take that seriously yet, at this stage of the investigation. The word for "appeared" is used - apparently - in the Septuagint to denote self-revelation of the divine, particularly in Scripture, but also in visionary experience: "according to Scripture" means what it says on the tin, it means they got the sketchy biog of their Messiah from Scripture, as if someone were to say "according to the Times".)

Bracket what Acts says about "Paul" at this point, don't mix it in - Acts is early-to-mid-2nd century. There may be some nuggets of fact about him (I think there are), but let's just stick with what "Paul", the earliest recognized source, has to say for himself first (remember our "Jar in the Desert" argument?).

gMark I'm happy to place just post-Diaspora, as a Roman product of a fresh Jewish exile, and a "Pauline" Christian, with Stoic influence (hence the form of exemplary biography, a literary form introduced and popularised by the Stoics). The rest are a bit later - early 2nd century, with gJohn being possibly quite late into the 2nd century, although possibly based on earlier materials.

(btw, I do think there is some visionary material in gMark, but not much, and not as clearly as in "Paul")

No, but these traits are considered "Pauline" (they echo "Paul"'s view of the Jews and the apostles in the Epistles).

Probably around 130-150 CE.

Not unless you can point me to a "Peter" writing that's generally considered to be dated as early as the genuine Epistles.

The orthodox tradition says yes, but we are under no obligation to take them at their word. The real facts are precisely what we are looking for, not what later Christians thought, but what actually was the case, in those early days.

Again, if that's what we're interested in, then our best bet is to look at the writings reckoned by careful philological investigation to be the earliest - and that turns out to be the (so-called genuine) Epistles of "Paul". And that Christianity is visionary, ecstatic, mystical - for "Paul" and for his followers (where he give advice about how to handle prophecy, tongues, etc., in his churches).

aa5874

Are you implying that no-one has questioned the Pauline writings? Are you implying that the claims by the Church writers that a single person wrote all the Pauline Epistles have not been questioned?

Are you implying that all biblical scholars consider the Pauline writings to be the earliest?

Now, do you have evidence that the Pauline writings are the earliest? Please tell me of an external corroborative source for any Pauline Epistle with regards to the authorship and date of writing.

When the internal evidence is examined, there is really nothing mystical or visionary about Saul/Paul's Jesus. The character called Paul merely met Jesus the God/man, like any other believer today, (with the exception of the lightning bolt), after the God/man was crucified, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

It is not unusual for some Christians to claim the God/man Jesus revealed information to them. In the NT, a writer called John, had revelations about the God/man Jesus after the God/man was resurrected and ascended through the clouds.


Which "Paul"?

So, after all, the original form of Christianity may not have been mystical or visionary. You really have no idea.

By the way, do you believe every writing with the name Paul is truthful and contain no errors?


So, are you claiming that Judaism was heresy since the Jews expected a physical Christ and Paul preached another Christ, the God/man, who resurrected to save mankind from sin and ascended through the clouds?


But, you have just demonstrated that you may have things back-asswards.

Please tell me which "Paul" is your most likely and only source for the earliest form of Christianity.

No Pauline writer claimed that they were the earliest source or only source of Christianity.

You may have something back-asswards here. You don't have to independently translate every writing, I don't expect you to know every written language.

But, once you admit that Paul's Jesus was from Hebrew Scripture, then the original form of Christianity may not have been mystical or visionary but the expectation of a PHYSICAL Christ.

Are you promoting an inerrant "Paul"? Which "PAUL" must I stick with?

I MUST MIX ACTS at every single point, it is part of the canon of which the Pauline Epistles are a part.The author of ACTS of the APOSTLES dedicated over 15 chapters to Saul/Paul. No other NT writer, not even the Pauline writers, gave as much details about their own activities and conversion by lightning bolt/bright light/voice.

Paul's Christianity may appear mystical and visionary until you read Acts of the Apostles, it was a lightning bolt/ bright light that turned Saul/Paul around.

In Acts, Paul even told Roman officials about his lightning bolt or bright light experience.

The author of Acts de-mystified Saul/Paul.


But, are you not promoting ass-backwardness? You are implying that the date of a writing is the most significant factor to determine actual chronology of historical events.

The NT and Church writings internally place Peter, the 1st bishop of Rome, in Christ and preached Christ [/b] before[/b] Saul/Paul.

Well, if you are looking for information about Paul and Peter, MIX in ACTS. Which Pauline writer is inerrant?

Please tell me what external corroborative source was used in the "careful philological investigation" to determine "Paul" was the earliest when no Pauline writer claimed they were the earliest, even with Acts out of the mix.

dog-on

van Manen dates Paul to around 120. I think that may be too late.

(by Paul, I mean original Paul...)

driver8

The use of a flash of light from heaven, or lightning if you will, as a means of the gods communicating with man is seemingly standard issue for innumerable religions of this time frame, per my ongoing readings of Eliade Mircea. It is part of the transition from a relatively indifferent sky god into a more personified lightning god, who in many cases is the son of the sky god or a derivative thereof.

I do not have my copy of his Comparative Religions in front of me to provide the examples he has provided, though they are quite numerous and are widely found in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia. I am beginning to see widely repeated patterns that serve as a background to the development of the Christian trinity. These roles had been well-defined in numerous other religions for many centuries.

In this light, I see no reason to think Paul is anything other than fabrication intended to bring about the ultimate personification of an accessible "son of god" into a fully human form rather than an animal one. It was only to be expected.

show_no_mercy

I think the original Paul was around 40 CE. The Christianized (interpolated with a bunch of Christ/Jesus language) Paul is sometime after 70 CE; the interpolator using Hebrews as a model. The Catholic Paul is sometime after 140 CE.

dog-on

Why 40CE, any reason in particular?