The Clementines Explain the Early Appeal of Christianity

[davidmartin]

you see that the Clementines preaches a pre-existing concept, Jesus is not needed but he is somehow roped into it, he doesn't matter - the pre-existing concept is all that matters. So then, what do we see? That there is some big thing going on around Jesus sure there is therefore every man and his dog wishes to assimilate this into their pre-existing ideas to promote them because everyone is talking about it, but what did the Jesus movement originally teach - something different most likely. A spirituality apart from what was later joined to it, this isn't hard to conclude when the Clementines betray little or no knowledge of Jesus himself yet are ostensibly based upon him. This also is to be expected so the existence of the Clementines is completely to be expected and no surprise in the least.

[Ben C. Smith]

you see that the Clementines preaches a pre-existing concept, Jesus is not needed but he is somehow roped into it, he doesn't matter - the pre-existing concept is all that matters. So then, what do we see? That there is some big thing going on around Jesus sure there is therefore every man and his dog wishes to assimilate this into their pre-existing ideas to promote them because everyone is talking about it, but what did the Jesus movement originally teach - something different most likely.

Yes, exactly so. Once a religion or philosophy became at least somewhat established it was fair game to be parasitized by other schools of thought. The Romans apparently did this to Mithras and to other Eastern cults and movements. The Christians did it to Judaism and later to the Greek philosophers. Some of the Nag Hammadi texts did it both to Judaism and to Christianity. The movers and shakers of the older, parasitized religion or philosophy become the spokespersons for the newer, parasitizing religion or philosophy.

[billd89]

That there is some big thing going on around Jesus sure there is therefore every man and his dog wishes to assimilate this into their pre-existing ideas to promote them because everyone is talking about it, but what did the Jesus movement originally teach - something different most likely.

Isn't it the other way around though?

There WAS something big going on around the Christ concept, perhaps a generation earlier (c.30 AD). Then, in that pre-existent heterodox culture, a crisis or major collapse occurs, c.38-73 AD. At which point -over a few decades and within 2 generations- the later Jesus folks swoop in to overtake the failing (Melchizedek) Logos/Christ heterodoxy, in whichever key towns of Greece/Turkey. IMO, the only real question is where the Christ Myth started, its timeline and spread.

By implication, 'Apollos' (viz., leading preachers) would know all about the 'Christ' development from Alexandria (c.35-45 AD) and he adopted the specific Jesus bit from Aquila & Priscilla in Corinth some years later (c.50 AD). In other words, if Apollos knew about baptism as (Johannine?) salvation and other major Christ concepts, the specific 'Jesus adaptation' isn't such a big thing, is it? It's a minor variation - and for awhile (25 years?), it's basically one competing (Palestinian) sect among other (early/incipient/proto-gnostic) Christianities/Chrestianities in the Diaspora zone. (I mean, prior to c.125 AD.) Then the Jesus cult evolves into multiple interpretations (75-175 AD). --When Orthodoxy is imposed, the winner (re-) writes history, torches all contradictory narratives.-- That's the simplest explanation for the first 100 years of 'Christianity' and all that was disappeared in the following centuries - just my two cents.

I suppose the Clementines preserve broader traces of the 'more Jewish' rabbinical battles against the 'less Jewish' (Melchizedek/)Metatron synagogues in the Lebanon area. And I would accept 'Simon Magus' is a fig-leaf for Paul and other 'Great Power' Minim: conflation, as some scholars have long argued. The Clementines are a hot mess!