show_no_mercy

The Ebionites didn't believe that. They still followed Torah laws.

Petergdi

Yes, but it is a perfectly ordinary word. Paul is not making a pun on his own name there, but calling himself least of the aposltes and unworthy because he perscuted God's congregation. Calling himself least doesn't stop him from claiming the same status as the other apostles. If someone interpolated this as a put down it is strange that they didn't do anything about the parts of the letter where he insists on his status - so I don't think that is what is going on.

Peter.

Petergdi

The Ebionites sure as anything knew that the Rabbis of mainstream Judaism regarded them as apostates from the law. Just because they look to have been very frum to us does not mean that the Pharisees and their successors regarded them as observant - they plainly didn't.

Peter.

hefdaddy42

How did you arrive at this theory?

Why this insistence on "influence"? Why must any of the Gospels be "influenced" by Paul, or vice versa? If the history of the early church tells us anything, it is that there were many different viewpoints on Jesus. Even the canonical Gospels have different themes and represent different viewpoints amongst themselves.

I don't even know how to respond to this.

Of course, but I've seen no evidence that this is fiction (or at least completely fiction).

No, not really. I have no idea why such a thing MUST be expected. Again, there were many different early Christianities. Pauline Christianity was definitely one, but it just as definitely was not the only one (which he even makes clear in his letters).

Again, I'm not sure what kind of "influence" you are expecting here.

The fact that the Gospel of Luke and Acts was attributed to a companion of Paul doesn't make it true. I certainly don't see anything to indicate that in the text itself.

It obviously contradicts YOUR expectations. But I don't understand your expectations.

I think it is more unrealistic to think that the Roman Empire was "flooded" with Pauline theology. But, even if it were so, it makes perfect sense to depend on earlier sources that use materials handed down from people who actually knew Jesus when telling the story of Jesus, rather than depending on someone who never met the man.

Basically, all your "problems" are solved if you abandon your a priori proposal that Jesus and his disciples are fictional creations of the Gospel writers.

aa5874

I once believed Jesus existed so my proposals are NOT a priori at all.

It is the complete opposite.

I have abandoned all my a priori beliefs about Jesus and have used the existing information supplied by the NT, the church writings and other writings of antiquity to come to the realisation that Jesus of the NT, and the disciples are backdated fiction and that Paul is a post ascension fiction writer.

I have no a priori beliefs about Jesus.

I have solved my problems with Jesus. He was backdated fiction based on the evidence,

A PRIORI beliefs that Jesus existed without evidence can cause a lot of problems. Some people it would appear believe Jesus existed almost from birth, possibly similar to their a priori belief in Santa.

Solo

The best one could say is that the passage contradicts the other two passages in Paul where he talks of his former career:

Gal 1:13-16 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it; and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood,

Phl 3:6 ...as to zeal a persecutor of the church, as to righteousness under the law blameless.

In Galatians, Paul says nothing about displeasing God by persecuting his church. Quite to the contrary, Paul says God was "pleased" to reveal Jesus to him , which again is consistent with Paul ascent to heavens in 2 Cor 12. (Compare that to the scary, traumatic comeuppance of Saul on the road to Damascus). The formula in Phillipians confirms Paul's pride in his Pharisee background. He did not feel at all diminished by it or a mark of an inferior character as posted in 1 Cor 15, or Acts for that matter.

So, I read the 'ho elakhistos' in the passage as crossreferencing Matt 5:19, in which Jesus appears to be condemning the Pauline teaching on law.

....he says, he is 'unfit to be called an apostle', which strikes me as really bizzare and un-Pauline considering that Paul saw himself appointed by God himself and not men. In whose eyes was Paul an unfit apostle ? In his own eyes ? In the eyes of the super apostles of 2 Cor 11:5 ? Did God tell Paul he is to set up apostolic ranking by the order in which Jesus appeared to his faithful, as the estimate of their endowment in charis ?

1 Cor 15:10 was to reconcile the fake to the real Paul. But it will not withstand scrutiny, IMHO.

Jiri

Petergdi

I think you are getting the wrong end of things. Paul isn't taking being zealous for the traditions of his fathers as some kind of real merit on his part. (The tradition of the elders can make void the word of God.) God "revealing his son in me" was not due to God being pleased with Paul, but rather that it pleased God to do so. Thus the echo of Jeremiah 1:5 and Isaiah 49:1 when Paul says that he was set apart from the womb.

Your quotation from Phillipians is cut short. Verse 7 says that "those things which were a gain to me, I count as a loss because of Christ."


But it only appears to be about Paul if you decide to read the gospel after the manner of a 19th century German crypto-atheist theologian. In the context in which it appears it is plainly about the scribes and the Pharisees who accuse Jesus of negating the law, but who Jesus says are guilty of teaching people not to obey God in the small things. The small things are not cultivating hatreds and not cultivating the lusts that can lead to thoughts of adultery and so forth.


Yes. In his own eyes he is unfit. Paul is very sure of his own calling and authority, but he isn't some kind of monster who has always been perfect and is sure that he deserves to be God's mouthpiece. In the tradition of the Prophets, he is God's mouthpiece even though he is unfit.

Peter.

show_no_mercy

The Pharisees regarded them as "heretical" for accepting Jesus as the messiah. And during the Bar Kochba revolt especially for not recognizing the messiah claims of Simon bar Kochba. The Ebionites weren't apostates from the law since they still followed the law. The only difference between the Pharisees and the Ebionites was accepting Jesus' messiah-hood.

Unless you can produce some evidence that the Ebionites weren't following the Law...

dog-on

Loomis, you have made some pretty astute observations, imo.

In light of my view regarding how the Paulines fit into the later orthodoxy, I believe you are actually on to something.

aa5874

But Jesus did not even exist and there was no person called named "least" telling people to break the Law.

And further "Paul" was originally called Saul in the Acts of the Apostles.

So, what about people whose name mean "most" or "more" and tell others to break the Law, like you think "Paul" did, will the passage apply to them also?

Why do you assume "least" can only refer to Paul?

What does "the least of the commandments" mean?

The Pauline commandments?

Based on the passage, your earthly name is irrelevant, the passage refers to ANYONE.

You will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven, not on earth.

Whether a person on earth was called Saul, Paul, Gaul, Taul, Faul or Maul, the very least or the very most, only in the kingdom of heaven would "least" be applicable.

You think God speaks Greek in the kingdom of heaven.