Sheshbazzar

Clivedurdle's question that followed about Gnostic influence drew my attention to some of the stranger statements made in the NT epistles, such as "Paul" writing;
How similar to the "Eyewitnesses" .... those who have attained THE THIRD and highest degree................ as "spectators" into "heavenly" mysteries.

In other words the foundational teaching was derived through a Gnostic MYSTERY mystical "spiritual" experience, wherein "THEOS" revealed "hidden" wisdom to the insider THIRD level, "THIRD heaven" initiates. They were not taught these things by men remembering or recalling actual historical events, but through mystical "spiritual" revelations.

No wonder then that "Paul", and the earliest church writers had almost nothing to say about any human rabbi named Jesus.
It was all a "spiritual" MYSTERY experience until well into the 2nd century when the church "cooked the books" inventing those stories that would at last make a physical JC to appear, and appear to have actually and physically lived before the cult began.

These "THIRD HEAVEN" hoi oligoi initiates could only be the core. For the religion to expand, and to prosper, it needed to recruit the hoi polli, the "common man", the "rubes", the minions of "foot soldiers" who would ignorantly "enslave" themselves to the support of the cult.

aa5874

But, why did the church "cook" Paul's writings and left Marcion's writings "uncooked"?

Why not "cook" Marcion and Paul?

I cannot find any of the writings of the writer Paul that are "uncooked".

And the writer Paul did not propagate a human only Jesus. The writer did write about a character that was betrayed on a certain night at the Last Supper, crucified, then died, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

The writer Paul may have specialised in hearing from and seeing the once the dead.

And I think the writer Paul was a member of the Church.

You know what century the Church was opened for membership?

angelo

Source: www.jesusneverexisted.com

Roger Pearse

There is no need to do so. You can go and get a copy of Crafer's book yourself, as I did, rather than using the digital version I created.

If anyone would like to do this, and report any differences between it and the version that I digitised, that would be helpful to everyone.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

LogicandReason

Nope...a real guy who believed in a myth.

Sheshbazzar

"Paul" is a foremost a creature and creation of the orthodox church, one that the church adopted and adapted to be the official mouth-piece talking-head sock-puppet for the orthodox church's views.

Paul, (the real Paul), likely wrote less than one-tenth of what the false-"Paul" church writers wrote in his name.
Its really not right to blame Paul (the real Paul) for all of the crap the church fabricated and is fraudulently passed off under the name Paul.

Marcion was the original gospel writer of the church, until his choice of version for his gospel caused him to be rejected by the orthodox majority.

He was however well known, and his views well known to both his followers and to the orthodox enemies he had made. Branded a heretic, and his writings heretical, they became off-limits to any further "cooking" by the re-writers of the orthodox christian church (I only say "further" because Marcion began composing his heresy while he was yet a church insider)

Much of what the orthodox "Gospels" do contain, was specifically written to counter Marcion's version, the orthodox "birth" and infancy stories had to be created to provide the necessary supporting documents to counter Marcion's teachings.


All Counter Marcion orthodox propaganda stories.
Paul (the real Paul) was a gnostic mystic Third degree member of the Eluesinian "chrestos" MYSTERY cultus, his "chrest" was a wholly spiritual conception, one that was only to be apprehended by "revelations" of the mysteries" (Gal 1:12, Rom 16:25, 1 Cr 2:10)
Paul (the real Paul) lived too early to have been a member of the "Christian Church" as it is now perceived.
But yes, he would have been a Curate of the curia of the kurake of ho' Krestus
Depends on what word is being used for "church", the old "kurake" ("circle of initiates") was pre-christian.
The original christian "church", and its church Fathers didn't teach about any "Jesus" the Jew.

Sheshbazzar

Perhaps a "real guy", but "his" "Letter" -IF- (and this is a real BIG "IF") he really wrote it all, was "doctored" by the latter church.

aa5874

All the information from the NT and church writings are about the fake 1st century Paul who preached of a Jesus who was betrayed, crucified, died, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

I hope you understand that Romans 16.25, Galations 1.12 and 1 Corinthians 2.10 are all part of the church crap.

Why do you think the fake Paul and the real Paul existed at the same time.

If the real Paul did not ever preach or believe in a betrayed and resurrected Jesus, and there were people that knew the real Paul, and knew what he preached or believed, only a spiritual Christ, don't you think it would have been just plain stupid to claim the real Paul preached about a resurrected Jesus?

I thnk the real Paul is the one who wrote about the fake first century Paul sometime after the writings of Justin Martyr.

The real Paul must have worked for the Church.

fatpie42

Dude, I think I need a few more details. This isn't sounding terribly plausible right now.

Two Pauls? Where do you get that from?

aa5874

You are not up to date?

Who wrote the Pastorals? Who wrote Romans? Who wrote 2 Thessalonians?

It has been deduced by Scholars that there were more than one person who used the name Paul in the letters with his name.