Paul was against the anti-Christian euhemerizers of the his time

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Paul was against the anti-Christian euhemerizers of the his time

Post by Giuseppe »

In the eyes of Paul, the "scandal of the cross" is nothing other than the popularization of the mystery of the cross in terms of human events:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

(1 Cor 1:18-19)

Paul is essentially denying that the crucifixion could be known as a historical event (by presumed "intelligent" knowers). So who were scandalized for the crucifixion were the same people who believed (wrongly) that Paul had in mind an earthly crucifixion. Their presumed "wisdom" is "destroyed" and "frustrated" by the simple reality: objectively, they couldn't find earthly evidence of the crucified Christ of which Paul was talking.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Paul was against the anti-Christian euhemerizers of the his time

Post by Giuseppe »

Something as:

1) the crucifixion is a scandal because it was a Roman crucifixion
2) but the crucifixion was not a Roman crucifixion but a cosmic crucifixion (between heaven and earth).
3) therefore: the crucifixion was not a scandal.


Curiously, the rending of veil (in the Temple) in Mark is also the rending of the darkness in the heaven. It relates to the rending of heaven at the baptism. So the spiritual Christ does enter by a rending of heaven and does exit by another rending of heaven. These two rendings of heaven were probably meant to form a celestial cross.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Paul was against the anti-Christian euhemerizers of the his time

Post by lsayre »

Is it possible that 1 Cor 1:18-19 is merely a later flashback (or reflection) through which to justify the cross related beliefs of those Christians who are being saved from persecution (likely the proto-orthodox faction), as opposed to the beliefs of those Christians who are being fed into persecution (likely any faction seen by the proto-orthodox as heretics)?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Paul was against the anti-Christian euhemerizers of the his time

Post by Giuseppe »

So Paul was against an excessive popularization of the gospel of the cross. In the sense that in the his intention the Gospel had to be preached to outsiders, but avoiding, possibly, the risk that the outsiders could be moved, according to the Christian propaganda itself, to suspect a Roman crucifixion where there was really not a Roman crucifixion.

When "Mark" sat on the table, he was aware of having to make a virtue of necessity:

More and more outsiders were suspecting a Roman crucifixion (but without real evidence for it)…

...so a Roman crucifixion had to be claimed, officially, by the same Christian!

And the Mark's invention limited itself to confirm what were already the ill-concealed suspicions of the outsiders.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Paul was against the anti-Christian euhemerizers of the his time

Post by Giuseppe »

lsayre wrote: Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:26 am Is it possible that 1 Cor 1:18-19 is merely a later flashback (or reflection) through which to justify the cross related beliefs of those Christians who are being saved from persecution (likely the proto-orthodox faction), as opposed to the beliefs of those Christians who are being fed into persecution (likely any faction seen by the proto-orthodox as heretics)?
Something as:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing [the self-proclaimed Gnostics], but to us [the proto-Catholics] who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise
[i.e. so-called Gnostics];
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”


MY ANSWER:
It is not possible, because shortly after ,in 1 Cor 2:6-8, Paul claims an esoteric gnosis in opposition to these same ''wise'' and ''intelligent'' enemies, so the gnosis of the latter had to be necessarily a popular form of banal knowledge (one worthy of the stupid hoi polloi). Hence I call it a popularization of the mystery of the cross in terms of human events, since no serious people (for the time, unless they were very intelligent people in the modern sense of the term) woud have derided and mocked the religious idea of a celestial crucifixion of a god.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Paul was against the anti-Christian euhemerizers of the his time

Post by Giuseppe »

So the anti-Christian euhemerizers were introducing :
in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall,

(Romans 9:33)

...since they were scandalized by what themselves were inventing: a vulgarization in mere human events of the mystery of the cross.

Paul assumes that the Galatians were scandalized by this scandal "put in Zion", also:

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.

(Gal 3:1-2)


They interpreted falsely the myth (or the rite) as the real Roman crucifixion of a seditious, and in this sense they were scandalized and were abandoning Paul.

So also Paul, if he had in mind a Roman cruxifixion of Jesus, would be accordingly rightly scandalized like the Galatians. Paul himself would have considered the crucifixion as a "scandal" and a "folly" only if he was euhemerizing the Jesus's death just as the his anti-Christian enemies were doing (as effect of their false interpretation of the Christ myth).


What happened, then? The Judaizers started to share the same strategy of the anti-Christian enemies of Paul, against Paul in order to win the Paulines: they euhemerized Jesus's death, also. As reaction, the paulines had to accept, velim nolim, the historical error of the "scandal of the cross", i.e., the false belief that Jesus was crucified on the earth by the Romans (or by the Jews), even if they continued still to reject the circumcision and the Torah's observance.

The Judaizers became friends of the anti-Christian enemies of Paul, by sharing their efforts to euhemerize Jesus and represent his death as a "scandal for the Jews". In this way Paul's use of the cross as end of Torah could be neutralized in advance: the cross was really a "scandal" insofar it was really a Roman crucifixion, therefore the Torah is still valid, pace Paul.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Paul was against the anti-Christian euhemerizers of the his time

Post by Giuseppe »

This explains the brutal emphasis of Ignatius: "Jesus was really crucified under Pilate", etc. If Jesus was not crucified by Pilate, then the his crucifixion was not a scandal but a cosmic victory on the demons, and as such it represents the end of the Torah.

By introducing the embarrassment derived by false rumors about a Roman crucifixion (=the "rock of scandal put in Zion") of Jesus, the Judaizers could reply against Paul:

"the cross is really a scandal [=it was really a Roman crucifixion], therefore as such it can't destroy the Torah ".

Differently from the Judaizers, the proto-catholics accepted both the scandal of the cross and the end of the Torah. How? By claiming that the killers of Jesus were not really the Romans, but the "Jews".


In short:

1) for Paul, the cruxifixion was not a scandal, but a victory on the planetary Archons and the Torah.
2) for the Judaizers, the cruxificion was a scandal insofar it was a Roman crucifixion, so the Torah is still valid.
3) for the proto-Catholics, the crucifixion was a scandal insofar the "Jews" killed Jesus, so the Torah is not more valid.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Paul was against the anti-Christian euhemerizers of the his time

Post by Giuseppe »

This explains why Cephas was called "Peter": he is the "rock of Scandal put in Zion", since he abandoned Paul and accepted the false rumors of the Judaizers against Paul. These false rumors proclaimed that Jesus was crucified by Romans in Jerusalem, so the cross was a scandal, so Paul couldn't use the cross against the Torah.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Paul was against the anti-Christian euhemerizers of the his time

Post by Giuseppe »

5 steps:

1) For the original Pillars and for Paul, originally the celestial crucifixion of Jesus wasn't a scandal.

2) It was a scandal only for these not-Christians who believed (wrongly) that the Christians meant a Roman crucifixion.

3) But when Paul connected the crucifixion with the end of Torah, then, also for the Judaizers, the crucifixion, as preached by Paul, became really a scandal, even if a celestial crucifixion

4) the Judaizers conspired against Paul: if the crucifixion could be made a scandal (by making it a Roman crucifixion, as already the not-Christians believed), then Paul would have hesitated to be so proud of the preaching of the crucifixion, since he would have disturbed the authorities. If the paulines could be made embarrassed for the crucifixion before the authorities, then they would have esitated to brandish publicly the crucifixion as the end of the Torah.

5) the pauline "Mark" accepted the false rumors (by not-Christians and Judaizers) about an earthly crucifixion, but he did cast it as a real motive of embarrassment for the same Judaizers. The Jews crucified really Jesus, and the Judaizers abandoned Jesus.

So in a sense "Mark" was a real historian: he realized that the Judaizers promoted the false rumors about the Roman crucifixion of Jesus, in order to stop the Paul's anti-Torah preaching.

So Acts was right in a sense: Paul was really defamed by the Judaizers as preacher of a Jew crucified by Romans.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Paul was against the anti-Christian euhemerizers of the his time

Post by Giuseppe »

Acts 24:5 :
"We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect.

This is the only part of Acts to be historical. Jesus was euhemerized by anti-pauline defamation: the Jewish enemies of Paul accused falsely him of preaching a crucified seditious Christ.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply