They are the earliest "Christian" writings we have. They could be the earliest "Christian" writings of any kind. However, I would say that the Pauline letters are not actually Christian at all. I think that what the earliest version of the Pauline letters described is not at all similar to what became "Christianity".davidmartin wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 5:27 amexcept the genuine epistles constantly claim and confirm (affirm) they are not the first or original membership of the group in questionI think Paul's genuine epistles were the first Christian writings
how can you say they are genuine and not also accept their claim that they are not the start of it?
how can they be the first Christian writings when they say that they are not the first Christians?
that is the elephant in the room with the the idea the epistles represent the first Christian writings when they admit they are not part of the original grouping of Christians and present a new revelation that wasn't known before the author revealed it
so, on what basis does one accept the claim of the epistles in regard to what they are saying one should believe and on the other ignore what they are saying as regard to their origins?
it's funny how the first Christian writings admit they are not in fact the original Christians and yet people seem ok with assuming they are the first Christian writings
1) I doubt it. Anyone who used any Gospel wasn't original I suspect.Were the Marcionites the keepers of the original Christian faith?
(1) Was their faith represented by the original Pauline epistles?
If so, where did the author of the original Pauline epistles get his ideas from?
(2) Was the Gospel they used the first written text with an extended story about Jesus?
If so, would the author of the original Pauline epistles have agreed with it?
(3) Was the original belief that there was no messianic prophecy about Jesus?
If so, then was any material considered to be messianic prophecy used to write the first Gospel?
(4) Was the original belief that there was another higher, good God above the creator god of the law?
If so, then do you believe that this was explained clearly in Paul and in the Gospel? If not, why not?
(5) Was the original belief that Jesus came down out of heaven to Palestine?
If so, why would this be so offensive to every other Christian, so that they rejected it and suppressed the story?
2) I doubt it, unless that Gospel was actually more like the Gospel of Mark than is generally recognized.
3) Probably. Rather, I think that originally there was just no idea about Jesus having fulfilled prophecy. I doubt that there was a stated claim that he didn't, just that prophecy had nothing to do with it. Prophecy came in with the Gospels.
4) That's the $64,000 question. I suspect that originally this was a mystery cult in which this was intentionally nebulous. It is pretty clear that there are three primary actors in the Pauline letters: God the Father, his Son Jesus, and the "Lord of this world".
God the Father's Son was given as a ransom to pay to free the souls of all mankind from the "Lord of this world." So the question is, who was the "Lord of this world"? I suspect that in the mystery religion the beliefs were flexible enough for different members to conceive of these figures differently. Some may have thought that Satan was the Lord of this world, some may have thought that the God of Abraham was the Lord of this world, some may even have thought that Jupiter was the Lord of this world, all within the same cult.
5) Not sure. We don't seem to have enough information. I'm not sure that there was originally any particular belief about exactly how or where the Son of God was handed over to the Lord of this world as a ransom.
It is my contention that most or all of what we call Christianity arose in reaction to reading of the Gospel(s). The big split is between pre-Gospel and post-Gospel worship of Jesus, and I suspect that there is almost no relationship between pre-Gospel Jesus worship and post-Gospel Christianity.
Its clear that orthodox Christianity comes entirely from the reading of the Gospels. In fact they railed against everyone who held beliefs that didn't come from the Gospels. But the Gospels are late. The mystery cult must have been first. And the first Gospel was only one allegorical interpretation of that person's understanding of Paul's teachings and the mystery cult. But that first story then set the template for everything else and once that first "Gospel" was produced that's the real thing that created "Christianity". Orthodox Christians only knew or worshiped the Jesus of the Gospels.
But this is what you're getting at. There seems to have been a pre-Gospel cult that worshiped God the Father and his Son Jesus, who was sacrificed to pay the price to free the souls of humanity from the Lord of this world. Yet, there seems to be effectively no knowledge of this pre-Gospel cult. The founders of orthodoxy effectively deny that any such cult existed, because for them, the Gospels are the foundation of their beliefs.