Marcion and Thomas in all of Luke

[davidmartin]

what i find interesting is the gospel of John
in it, apparently Jesus is shown to claim divinity yet analysing statements made by Jesus one kind find a clear teaching that refutes that and has him saying that his followers can be just like him. these are opposite teachings found in the very same text. the easiest explanation i see is that John pulls together its sources with the later layer pushing his divinity the most
it's pretty easy to lift out what i take to be the earlier base, and when you do i think it aligns quite nicely with Thomas
if you want to say the epistles come after the gospels in one sense this is true - the Chrestian base teachings did predate the epistles
in other sense it isn't true - the gospels took a long time to develop and reach their final form - after the epistles
where, then, and can the gospels reflect an earlier opposition to Pauline style Christianity before being adopted by that Christianity? Sure they can

what all this permits is the chance to look into the 'black box', that original first type, the source of the whole thing. If it's not Pauline (contra apologists) and not normative Judaism (contra that theory) and not 100% mythical then the first century sources for that come down to:
Thomas, any base teachings found in the gospels, any base teachings found in the epistles and I say the the Odes
That's the 4 source texts there are
From these I think various reconstructions could be pulled out, probably 3 or 4
I suspect that the origins are still nothing much like anyone has imagined, and maybe will never be accurately reconstructed because we're all just guessing lol

[mlinssen]

Agreed, although we really should not talk about layered traditions: I agree that texts are revisions of other texts, just like Luke is a revision of *Ev - but introducing multiple revisions is uncalled for, as we've never found any, most certainly not early ones. Can Churchian censorship have been this total?

Take the content of Thomas, and repurpose that with the base idea in John, and basically you get Philip: people can become XRS when they get baptised and find the holy spirit in the process. Spiritual stuff, unsure whether John was platforming a religion or any combination of it, but yeah

Then add the anti-Judaism of *Ev and you get the Transfiguration, the making of the wineskin and patch, and many other rejections of Judaism that already lead up to the angle that Christianity will take: hijack Chrestianity and affix it to Judaism by reversing all of it: John B becomes the buddy of IS, Judaism his bed and bath, and almost all the nasty stuff gets pushed towards the Pharisees alone

Naturally, that leaves some things to be discussed by Paul, and that is the anti-Judaic behaviour of IS himself (either directly, or indirectly when he defends the behaviour of his disciples)

Now where do you see the Odes fit into that picture, or your picture?

[davidmartin]

Now where do you see the Odes fit into that picture, or your picture?

that's the problem i've been puzzling over

maybe they are a 'softening' of anything anti-Judaic, the principles found in Thomas are presented as a spiritualised form of Judaism. The Messiah is a spiritual one, circumcision, sacrifice, the sabbath, the torah are all spiritualised which means they are fulfilled 'in essence' without actually doing them. This isn't a million miles from Paul since they emphasise a kind of holiness or righteousness instead (but without any dualism between sin and salvation, no end-times cult stuff). It would seem the Odes are looking for gentile converts as well, and there was no dispute over gentile circumcision or if there was it came later and the 'James sect' if it existed was nothing to do with the original thing. More like.

The Odes do not leverage anything anti-Judaic nor is there any seperateness at all, no second covenant at all. They merely proclaim the start of the Messianic age as they see it, the end of war and the start of the paradisical new age of peace, led by the unnamed, vaguely described Messiah - who looks a lot like a personified aspect of God. He comes to earth in human form but may not actually be divine.. the Odes seem to suggest the Messiah himself had to be saved. That paradox of who the heck he is was not something Paul invented if these Odes pre-date him

This is all somewhat recognisable from the epistles but just like the gospels repurposed Thomas, so the epistles repurpose the Odes

Another difference with Paul is the Messiah in the Odes does not save through the sacrifice of the cross, he delivers the salvation and God does the saving which is fairly normal enough. There is cross worship in the Odes though, it's not denied in a gnostic fashion - just the key Pauline sacrificial atonement is absent, they never freaking heard of that because they had a system worked out already.

So I think, yeah, the Odes version of things could potentially exist in Isreal and would attract anyone not keen on fighting the Romans at that precise moment, the flip side of the coin to the Qumran style community but I doubt the Odes type of 'Christianity' would have been that popular, certainly a fringe sect that couldn't have existed for long in it's original form, but it doesn't have to.

Then along comes the gentile Christian gospel overturning the tables and going on a rampage, it doesn't bother trying to exist in Isreal and opposes Isreal, hates Isreal, it draws from this Odes heritage and reworks it like movies get a modern version of some old classic that lacks the charm of the original. How Thomas gets turned into the Odes is the work of the Odes community I guess, who are of course branded heretics for not getting 'with the program' in due course.

[mlinssen]

Now where do you see the Odes fit into that picture, or your picture?

that's the problem i've been puzzling over

maybe they are a 'softening' of anything anti-Judaic, the principles found in Thomas are presented as a spiritualised form of Judaism. The Messiah is a spiritual one, circumcision, sacrifice, the sabbath, the torah are all spiritualised which means they are fulfilled 'in essence' without actually doing them.

That's perfect really, and makes complete sense (1)

This isn't a million miles from Paul since they emphasise a kind of holiness or righteousness instead (but without any dualism between sin and salvation, no end-times cult stuff).

That's perfect really, and makes complete sense (2)

It would seem the Odes are looking for gentile converts as well, and there was no dispute over gentile circumcision or if there was it came later and the 'James sect' if it existed was nothing to do with the original thing. More like.

That's perfect really, and makes complete sense (1, 3)

The Odes do not leverage anything anti-Judaic nor is there any seperateness at all, no second covenant at all.

That's perfect really, and makes complete sense (4)

They merely proclaim the start of the Messianic age as they see it, the end of war and the start of the paradisical new age of peace, led by the unnamed, vaguely described Messiah - who looks a lot like a personified aspect of God.

That's perfect really, and makes complete sense (1)

He comes to earth in human form but may not actually be divine.. the Odes seem to suggest the Messiah himself had to be saved. That paradox of who the heck he is was not something Paul invented if these Odes pre-date him

It's never about who invented what, it always is about who gives something that final twist in that very direction (1). Paul only had that problem becuase Christianity revived the dead IS in order to be able to repurpose him - which they never really dared to exploit beyond the silly post-resurrection moments. But inventing the resurrection forced them to turn IS into a man, as there's nothing miraculous about a god surviving death. Yet they needed a divinity for their religion - and they really kicked themselves in the balls with all their tinkering and twisting & turning (5)

This is all somewhat recognisable from the epistles but just like the gospels repurposed Thomas, so the epistles repurpose the Odes

Another difference with Paul is the Messiah in the Odes does not save through the sacrifice of the cross, he delivers the salvation and God does the saving which is fairly normal enough.

That's perfect really, and makes complete sense (1, 5)

There is cross worship in the Odes though, it's not denied in a gnostic fashion - just the key Pauline sacrificial atonement is absent, they never freaking heard of that because they had a system worked out already.

Cross or stauros?! We really cannot translate stauros for anything else, I feel

So I think, yeah, the Odes version of things could potentially exist in Isreal and would attract anyone not keen on fighting the Romans at that precise moment, the flip side of the coin to the Qumran style community but I doubt the Odes type of 'Christianity' would have been that popular, certainly a fringe sect that couldn't have existed for long in it's original form, but it doesn't have to.

Here is where I disagree completely: what I describe here is my interpretation of your Odes, and I think it is very sexy: it is lazy Judaism, as well as lazy Chrestianity. If you and I get full medals for this, it is a very attractive way of not having to bother with essential questions. But all that depends on the acceptance of it by our environment - yet one thing is for sure: this simply is (1)

Then along comes the gentile Christian gospel overturning the tables and going on a rampage, it doesn't bother trying to exist in Isreal and opposes Isreal, hates Isreal, it draws from this Odes heritage and reworks it like movies get a modern version of some old classic that lacks the charm of the original. How Thomas gets turned into the Odes is the work of the Odes community I guess, who are of course branded heretics for not getting 'with the program' in due course.

Let me just describe a gradual and gentile evolution, over time, and then you try to match these numbers here to those above, okay?

1. The Odes is located after Chrestianity came to be hijacked by Christianity, and it precedes Philip unless there's talk of a virgin birth: yet it is written by outsiders to both Chrestianity and Judaism, I think: there is no fighting for or against either of the two, there's only talk of blending one into the other. Basically, the spiritual new and the Judaic old gets combined, and one applied into the context of the other. It's mere symbols being exchanged

2. What Paul introduced is endebtment, the guilt trip, full-blown dualisation. Christianity pulls the age-old trick of giving you two very bad choices to pick from, making sure that their preferred choice is the better option - we usually call that psychopathic behaviour, extortion, manipulation, but the essence here is that Paul forced a choice onto people, and he continues the line that Matthew started (and that sometimes shines through in his editorial work in Luke): carrot and the stick. The Odes are at the point where they merely continue after exchanging the symbols: pureness from Chrestianity ('holy' really is the wrong word, inherited via the fact that most if not all Coptic sources to the Coptic Dictionary are xtian), and righteousness from Judaism. On a superficial level there are merely core aspects, medals to be earned, pole positions to be attained

3. The clash is still absent, there are no contradictions: if you stay at a distance then all's well, and all of us on this forum would and do agree to the same set of core and base values: basic honesty, politeness, all that jazz - on a conceptual level almost everyone always agrees; it's when the details are discussed that discord arises

4. The clash has come and all of it has now become an either-or scenario, and supersessionism is a fact. This is the "you're with us or against us" moment where the dynamics are at their highest

5. Christianity has redefined most if not everything, and now needs massive volumes of apologetics to fix all the contradictions, and to make their lies seem credible. The cross is invented, Tanakh gets falsified in order to fulfil their "prophecies", and so forth

Last remark: you cannot have your pre-Christianity exist in anything Judaic or Jewish, that may be a burning desire but it is silly as shit. Please mansplain to me how all this came to converge from something Judaic (or "Israelite" ) into the hilariously fake and false pseudo-Messianism that we find in the NT

[mlinssen]

If you and I get full medals for this, it is a very attractive way of not having to bother with essential questions

Very cryptic, I now see: this meant the following

Let's suppose that you and join this religion, and that the religion is acknowledged, value, respected - at a scale that satisfies our innate insecurity. Then we'd be very happy, wouldn't we? We'd have sold our souls for a very low price, and handed over full responsibility for our spiritual and mental well-being to something really benign

In other words: this would surely be a money maker

[davidmartin]

ah the details, you knew it was coming, the Magdalene theory enters at this point to date the Odes correctly to the 50's/60's

When I saw the gospel of John naming Magdalene as the parakletos it all fell into place, and that account get's horribly garbled as Helen by Epiphanius cause any rumour or legend they didn't like they invented the fictitious Simonians to stick it on, in these Helen symbolises the holy spirit just like she does in John

John lays out the history from the sect's own annals which someone turned into a gospel

But when the comforter comes who I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth which comes from the Father that one will testify about me and you also shall testify because you have been with me from the beginning

It's clearly Christian schtick that the holy spirit only came after pentecost and wasn't available before, so who is the parakletos?
The one 'called' to the 'side' of Jesus is Magdalene and John relates she is the chosen leader, symbolising the Spirit naturally, who will testify (eg write the Odes) alongside the other apostles. She "will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I said to you"
No mention of Paul - only the ones who actually were his followers from the start with John's gospel actually identifying Magdalene with the Parakletos that why Mary is 'sent out' with a message in all the gospels, she's also the woman at the well, da, da, da, she's his no.2 or none of this ever happened

So with that mystery solved by the gospel of John the Odes showing up is no surprise at all, the parakletos delivers the goods and starts preaching the real good news, heavy duty powerful ball crushing. The flying fist of Judah into the corporeal nutsack

That's why in 1 John the parakletos suddenly becomes Jesus not the holy spirit, he wasn't going along with this cause 1 John is a Pauline fanatic, but note he talks in the same verse of certain 'commands'. Sure he does because she dished them out in that role

Of course Magdalene symbolises the Spirit, and her desire is to kick Paul's butt for creating Christianity.

This is no more preposterous than other things taken for granted or thought plausible. Like Christianity's number 1 apostle never being a follower of Jesus. The only reason i don't mention it much is cause why state the obvious. The legend of her automatically means she is the leader or Jesus never existed. There can be no historicist explanation for Christianity without her being the original apostle and that Christianity's ignoring at an early date the chosen successor, it went wrong from that moment on

[mlinssen]

ah the details, you knew it was coming, the Magdalene theory enters at this point to date the Odes correctly to the 50's/60's

When I saw the gospel of John naming Magdalene as the parakletos it all fell into place, and that account get's horribly garbled as Helen by Epiphanius cause any rumour or legend they didn't like they invented the fictitious Simonians to stick it on, in these Helen symbolises the holy spirit just like she does in John

John lays out the history from the sect's own annals which someone turned into a gospel

But when the comforter comes who I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth which comes from the Father that one will testify about me and you also shall testify because you have been with me from the beginning

It's clearly Christian schtick that the holy spirit only came after pentecost and wasn't available before, so who is the parakletos?
The one 'called' to the 'side' of Jesus is Magdalene and John relates she is the chosen leader, symbolising the Spirit naturally, who will testify (eg write the Odes) alongside the other apostles. She "will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I said to you"
No mention of Paul - only the ones who actually were his followers from the start with John's gospel actually identifying Magdalene with the Parakletos that why Mary is 'sent out' with a message in all the gospels, she's also the woman at the well, da, da, da, she's his no.2 or none of this ever happened

So with that mystery solved by the gospel of John the Odes showing up is no surprise at all, the parakletos delivers the goods and starts preaching the real good news, heavy duty powerful ball crushing. The flying fist of JudahSamaria into the corporeal nutsack

That's why in 1 John the parakletos suddenly becomes Jesus not the holy spirit, he wasn't going along with this cause 1 John is a Pauline fanatic, but note he talks in the same verse of certain 'commands'. Sure he does because she dished them out in that role

Of course Magdalene symbolises the Spirit, and her desire is to kick Paul's butt for creating Christianity.

This is no more preposterous than other things taken for granted or thought plausible. Like Christianity's number 1 apostle never being a follower of Jesus. The only reason i don't mention it much is cause why state the obvious. The legend of her automatically means she is the leader or Jesus never existed. There can be no historicist explanation for Christianity without her being the original apostle and that Christianity's ignoring at an early date the chosen successor, it went wrong from that moment on

Mar.i.ham has always been distilled by me as witness.to.Necessity/Craftsmanship, that's how Copyic can break it down

I've brutally edited your Judah there, sorry

But yes, obviously all attention was focused in Mary, and the well is likely the place where John introduces her to his audience

[ebion]

I created a quickie the other day, the GospelSoup

I formatted up the first course of your Gospel Soup with hyperlinks from the verses to ECW.

I found the later courses hard to digest as I put Paul in Acts as when it says (< 63 AD - murder of James), but Faul in the Faulines as MarcionOrLater (>144 AD), which I find easier to stomach.

Thanks.

[RandyHelzerman]

f=3&t=7668&p=161746&hilit=MarcionOrLater#p161746]MarcionOrLater[/url] (>144 AD), which I find easier to stomach.

We are so lucky to have your stomach. I can think of no surer guide.

Faul

Paul has cooties!!