Let's Have a Discussion About What is Authentic About Early Christianity OUTSIDE OF MARCION?

[MrMacSon]

Yes, ‘according to prophecies in the Jewish scriptures’ was a big part of the foundation of early orthodox Christianity, as Paul and Justin Martyr clearly say.

And there was Good versus Bad/Evil at play: especially Platonic Good
.

And ‘chrestus good’

[MrMacSon]

There’s also the issue of the role of existentialism: philosophizing about the nature of human and worldly existence in light of various creation accounts in Genesis (which Philo wrote a lot about), Greek lore, and likely newer accounts such as Sethian and other so-called gnostic accounts

[Secret Alias]

I think the short answer is that prior to the writing of the Gospels in the 2nd century

Modern bullshit

[Secret Alias]

Things dumb people say to sound smart to other dumb people pretending to be smart.

[Secret Alias]

Not knowing when the gospel was written is different than trying to sound authoritative without any real facts.

[Secret Alias]

Let me put it another way. People like Ken, real scholars, dig back into the past and determine that (a) the four gospels have some value because they are the oldest surviving gospels and (b) they testify to a historical Jesus who didn't fly and pass through people like the Jesus from the heretics. We have works from the Church Fathers that support (a) and (b). So we can create a world, real or imagined, where Christianity and the gospels develop from real historical events, events that are "eyewitnessed" by reasonable people. I would imagine that most of these real scholars take Acts to be historical in some sense. So from these bits and pieces we necessarily have to ignore the world view of heretics who knew that the gospel, Acts and the rest of this literature were historical forgeries. You can't have one without the other. It's not BECAUSE the evidence for the gospels is so persuasive THAT we know there is a historical Jesus who didn't fly or pass through people. And it's not BECAUSE we know there was a historical Jesus who didn't fly or pass through people THAT we trust Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. It's a little of both or as I put it BECAUSE we want to have a respectable field to study reasonable propositions (i.e. historical personages like Jesus, historical documents like the New Testament canon) THAT we agree to ignore the heresies. Why? Because no one wants to be the world's leading authority on Mexican wrestling movies. There's a respectability to Christianity in its orthodox form which doesn't appear in the heretical versions of the religion and a respectability to the study of traditional Christianity. I've been to the theological colleges. They are stately old buildings typically with impressive "vibes" about them. I used to spent A LOT OF TIME at St Michael's college back in the day before the internet. They had an amazing reference library which had restricted access.




The sections of the university devoted to studying comic books and 70s sitcoms aren't nearly as impressive.

(watch from 1:07)

[Peter Kirby]

What isn't fake in early Christianity. What is worth believing in, what is worth working with, accepting, in the sense of not fake, not falsified, not corrupting something earlier.

Some ideas:

(1) Hebrews. Perfect, heavenly sacrifice takes away sin, once and for all.

(2) Paul. Son of God accepted the penalty of the law for sin by his death to buy freedom from the law.

(3) John. Word made flesh. Sacrifice as Lamb of God takes away sin, once for all.

(4) Mark. Son of man chosen by the Spirit. Satan deceived, innocent died, eternal life bought with ransom.

Or, in the simplest of terms:

Hebrews = Sacrifice
John = Sacrifice + Incarnation
Paul = Ransom
Mark = Ransom + Possession

And then we have, again in the simplest of terms:

Ransom + Possession - Human = Ransom + Phantom [Evangelion]

These are three christologies: possession, phantom, incarnation. Three innovative (but not new) Christian beliefs modify each:

Christ's Law + Possession -> Ebionites
Christ's God + Phantom -> Marcionites
Christ's Gnosis + Incarnation -> Valentinians

Lastly, some Valentinians reject the ideas of Christ's Law, Christ's God, and Christ's Gnosis. They arrange everything to destroy them.

[Secret Alias]

Some ideas:

(1) Hebrews. Perfect, heavenly sacrifice takes away sin, once and for all.

And it could have been written while the temple was still standing yes. And Clement seems to know it was falsified by "Luke." Yes.

(2) Paul. Son of God accepted the penalty of the law for sin by his death to buy freedom from the law.

Whatever he was called. Yes.

(3) John. Word made flesh. Sacrifice as Lamb of God takes away sin, once for all.

Could be. I think John became the supposed "codifier" of the canon in this elaborate fiction.

(4) Mark. Son of man chosen by the Spirit. Satan deceived, innocent died, eternal life bought with ransom.

Sure. Something.

Or, in the simplest of terms:

Hebrews = Sacrifice
John = Sacrifice + Incarnation
Paul = Ransom
Mark = Ransom + Possession

And then we have, again in the simplest of terms:

Ransom + Possession - Human = Ransom + Phantom [Evangelion]

These are three christologies: possession, phantom, incarnation. Three innovative (but not new) Christian beliefs modify each:

Christ's Law + Possession -> Ebionites
Christ's God + Phantom -> Marcionites
Christ's Gnosis + Incarnation -> Valentinians

Lastly, some Valentinians reject the ideas of Christ's Law, Christ's God, and Christ's Gnosis. They arrange everything to destroy them.

[Secret Alias]

Sorry my wife was yelling at me for not paying attention to her (one millionth) discourse on her family.

[Peter Kirby]

Sorry my wife was yelling at me for not paying attention to her (one millionth) discourse on her family.

Been there, it happens.