The conclusion I've reached...

[rgprice]

So, after years of trying to come to position that held as close as possible to an orthodox understanding of the Christian scriptures, I just don't see that as possible anymore. I used to scoff at those who claimed that the Gospels were from the second century, but now it seems impossible that they aren't. Maybe Mark isn't, but that's the only one.

I think now essentially that Paul was a Gnostic (he claims his authority comes from revelation, what more needs be said?), that Marcion and the other 2nd century heretics had the most correct reading of Paul, and likely the only authentic copies of his letters. Paul clearly distinguished between God (the Most High God) and the Lord, a divine son of the Most High God. He was a second-godder, just as Marcion claimed. But Marcion was wrong that Paul was not an advocate of Judaism. He was. Paul's God and Lord were modeled on the Jewish scriptures, which distinguish between God and Lord. Paul's Lord is Yahweh, son of the Most High God.

Marcion had the first NT. He published Paul's letter collection. Matthew, Luke and John are all anti-Marcionite works written in the mid-second century.

Effectively, Christianity is founded upon a "misreading" of Paul, or more properly -- pro-monotheistic interpretations of Marcion's scriptures were concocted in order to combat the idea that there were two Gods, one of which was evil. The whole Catholic project was a matter of battling Marcionism in the defense of monotheism. I'm sure that many involved, especially later, were actual dupes who believed the writings of the anti-Marcionites, but somewhere along the way, conscious fraud was involved. There is just no way around it. I'd always kind of hoped it would be possible to show that it was all a matter of confusion, and no real intentional deception was involved, but I don't think that's the case anymore.

The heretics were the originators. The orthodoxy was reactionary. The Judeo-Platonic project for monotheism had already come too far by the time Marcion came on the scene to let it all get blown up by claims that the Creator God was evil. Catholicism was a matter of salvaging monotheism from the growing popularity of the Jesus cult by appropriating what was rapidly becoming the most popular religious text of the era, Marcion's New Testament.

[Charles Wilson]

The heretics were the originators. The orthodoxy was reactionary.

Well thought out, as usual, rgp.

Q: Do you think that the Heretics were then"Backdated" to show that the True Church had to overcome Satan's Initial Reaction to Jesus and His Church? That is, the Orthodoxy, having settled into their Dogma, now has to show that the Heretics, who are still around, were "actually" defeated years ago and that "God's Church" is Unified with the "True Message" (as it always was...)?

[MrMacSon]

Well thought out, as usual, rgp.

I agree. It's a salient, likely scenario.

Q: Do you think that the Heretics were then "Backdated" to show that the True Church had to overcome Satan's Initial Reaction to Jesus and His Church? That is, the Orthodoxy, having settled into their Dogma, now has to show that the Heretics, who are still around, were "actually" defeated years ago and that "God's Church" is Unified with the "True Message" (as it always was...)?

I don't think 'the Heretics' were "Backdated". I think what Irenaeus was trying to do was 'forward-date' the Heretics to portray them as reactionary - as having butchered orthodox writings - and to also infer the bulk of the orthodox writings especially the gospels- were older, when most if not all were unlikely to have been (a tactic that's worked for 1800 yrs)

[rgprice]

The heretics were the originators. The orthodoxy was reactionary.

Well thought out, as usual, rgp.

Q: Do you think that the Heretics were then"Backdated" to show that the True Church had to overcome Satan's Initial Reaction to Jesus and His Church? That is, the Orthodoxy, having settled into their Dogma, now has to show that the Heretics, who are still around, were "actually" defeated years ago and that "God's Church" is Unified with the "True Message" (as it always was...)?

I'm not sure about that, but I think that most of the apologists we read now truly believed that the other Gospels were written soon after the death of Jesus and that the copies of Paul's letter they read were authentic. I think there was a lot of genuine apologetics, but somewhere someone had to produce documents that they knew were fraudulent. That's no big shocker. In reality most of the religious literature of the time was fraudulent, by Jews, pagans and whomever else.

[Secret Alias]

was a Gnostic

Meaning what exactly?

[cora]

I agree with your all-over view, which I myself am propagating here since some time, although not getting the compliments you get.
You are only wrong about Paul. Yes, Paul was a gnostic, but Gnosticism is not some part of Judaism. I am afraid you don't know that Gnosticism is a separate religion from Greece (coming from Plato) with a separate god. Paul is not talking about "the most high", he is talking about "god the father" which is the gnostic god (taken in by the church as you know). The gnostic god has children, of whom the son (the Logos) and the Holy Spirit (Sophia)are the most important. Paul is talking about the son and about the Holy Spirit. Pure Gnosticism. Both taken in by the church to form the Trinity. Both having nothing to do with Judaism. For the Logos he had his own name: Isu Chrestos, which was forged into Jesus Christ later by the church.
Since the gnostic god is in the universe and does not move, the emphasis is on the Logos and the Spirit who do move. Paul calling IC the Lord, is competition to Jahweh who is called the Lord. Paul is not a jew, and is not at all fond of Judaism. In Galatians he tells them to more or less fuck off with their circumcision, and why not also with their entire law. No jew would ever speak like that about his religion. This is obvious and means that Paul is not a jew at all. Paul is against the jewish Law. He might even have hated Judaism.

As you say the church took action. The church was jewish, it was all about Jahweh and the LXX. They made the gospel of Marcion disappear in the later canonical gospels. It has never been seen again after the churches of Marcion disappeared. They chose to keep the letters of Paul, but they forged them everywhere. So Paul was made jewish. Paul was made to be talking about a human being. Paul was made to speak favourably of Judaism. Paul was made quoting the OT. Paul was made to have seen the risen Jesus like a lot of other people. Paul was made to know Peter (which was Kephas)and James a brother of Jesus (who was just a James). ASO. That is all fake. All forgery. People working on this think that there is 30% forgery in Paul. So he was used, better abused. And yes, this was deliberate of course. Paul was placed back in time (he did not live then) and was used to confirm that Jesus was a living human being (which he was not).

What do you think of this contribution.
Cora.

[hakeem]

Effectively, Christianity is founded upon a "misreading" of Paul, or more properly -- pro-monotheistic interpretations of Marcion's scriptures were concocted in order to combat the idea that there were two Gods, one of which was evil. The whole Catholic project was a matter of battling Marcionism in the defense of monotheism. I'm sure that many involved, especially later, were actual dupes who believed the writings of the anti-Marcionites, but somewhere along the way, conscious fraud was involved. There is just no way around it. I'd always kind of hoped it would be possible to show that it was all a matter of confusion, and no real intentional deception was involved, but I don't think that's the case anymore.

I cannot see how anyone could read or mis-read Paul and come up with a story about Jesus of Nazareth and some Galilean fishermen. The NT Gospels especially gMark and gMathhew have virtually nothing whatsoever from or related to the teachings of the Pauline Epistles.

Even the post-resurrection visit by Jesus in gMatthew occurs in a mountain in Galilee a region never ever mentioned in all the Epistles.

The Synoptics are perfect examples of how writings would look when they utilise another source. We would see almost whole chapters copied word for word.

None of the authors of the Gospels look like they read or mis-read the Epistles.

It is in fact, the opposite. It was the Pauline writers who read the Gospels and falsely claimed they got the Gospel from Jesus after he was raised from the dead.

Who told Paul that Jesus was resurrected on the third day?

[MrMacSon]

I cannot see how anyone could read or mis-read Paul and come up with a story about Jesus of Nazareth and some Galilean fishermen. The NT Gospels especially gMark and gMathhew have virtually nothing whatsoever from or related to the teachings of the Pauline Epistles.

Various scholarly books would say disagree with you:

• David Oliver Smith, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul, 2011

• Tom Dykstra, Mark, Canonizer of Paul, 2012

• rg price Deciphering the Gospels, 2018

[Charles Wilson]

Who told Paul that Jesus was resurrected on the third day?

Hakeem, Hakeem, Hakeem...

"Who told...": Nicholas of Damascus, perhaps? A Zakkai-like figure mebbe?

"...Paul": Paul was not a real figure. He was based on Mucianus, who met Titus "On the Road to Damascus". That's what Acts is for, to present Mucianus and the 12th Legion to the Roman Cognoscenti and then hide them from the rest of the people.

"...That Jesus": Jesus is a created character, renamed from a Priest of Immer, of the Mishmarot Priesthood. This prolly goes back to Nick-o-D again.

"...was resurrected": The ingenious Inversion of Original Story-Line comes here. Herod will be sent packing on Tuesday Night/Wednesday, Passover 4 BCE on Bilgah's Watch and the Temple will be Rededicated on the Weekly Sabbath as Immer, " אמּר ", same word as "Lamb", rotates into Jerusalem. There is a lot of mischief built in here - "Passover" in Mark, f'rinstance. John corrects, supposedly ("It was an High Day" but even that has been finessed.). "Three days and three nights..."

"...on the third day": This doesn't even refer to a person. The Temple will be open - in a tent, if need be - when the Coup Leaders of Immer rotate in.

The True Service to God will be restored, the High Priest and the Priesthood will also be restored and Herod and the Romans will be gone.

I come to celebrate rgp and a very nice Post but I could not let that sentence go by uncommented. rgp has found a bit of peace and is to be congratulated. There are other possibilities under that shade tree as well.

CW

[Giuseppe]

I'd always kind of hoped it would be possible to show that it was all a matter of confusion, and no real intentional deception was involved, but I don't think that's the case anymore.

What comes very close to an "innocent confusion" is always the risk of a shift in time of the kind of Acts 5:36-37, but apart from that, also I can't see how the writers can be defended from the accusation of real intentional deception.