From ἀπολλώς to παῦλος

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9637
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

From ἀπολλώς to παῦλος

Post by Giuseppe »

  • 1) traces of hermetism in the pauline epistles (argument about this)
  • 2) Apollos in Acts as a figure in the middle between Sethianism/Hermetism and Jewish-Christianity . Proof based basically on two reasons:
    • FIRST REASON: Apollos's ignorance about the holy spirit against the Gospel portrait of John the Baptist as prophet of a baptism by holy spirit would make Apollos a proto-mandean (= hater of YHWH).
    • SECOND REASON:
      • 1 Corinthians 12, 8–10 (Paul who talks about the seven charisms) are based on a hermetic text (argument on this)
      • the story in Acts about the talking in tongues (by the disciples of John, after their conversion to the baptism of Jesus) is based on 1 Corinthians 12:8-10
      • in Acts the talking in tongues in Pentecoste is based on the story in Acts about the conversion of the followers of John the Baptist
      • for the virtue transitive, the glossolalia is a legend based on a hermetic text.
  • similarity of sound: Apollos (ἀπολλώς) and Paul (παῦλος): Paul is invented to eclipse Apollos.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9637
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: From ἀπολλώς to παῦλος

Post by Giuseppe »


One might consider, with some radical critics, whether the relationship "From Paul to Marcion" should not be reversed. In that case, Marcion would not be a pupil of Paul, but the figure of "Paul" would in reality be a creation of Marcionism, by means of which the Marcionites retrojected their theology into the apostolic past, in order to provide themselves with a pedigree and a precedent for their doctrines in the theological conflicts of the second century.

And indeed, there were besides Van Manen radical critics who reacted to the question in the sense just mentioned. One of them was the Dutch classicist S. A. Naber, who in his "Nuculae," written in Latin, came to the result that the Pauline Epistles "ortas esse in Cerdonis vel Marcionitarum scholis" ("arose in the schools of Cerdo or Marcion").

https://depts.drew.edu/jhc/detering.html

This supposes that the "apostolic past" was already known (for his importance) by the time the epistles were fabricated by cerdonites/marcionites. It seems that the fabricated Paul assumes by construction a date that is already fixed: the apostolic past.

Who invented the "apostolic past"?

Who invented the tradition of the Pillars?


The fundative text of the tradition of the Pillars: was it a first gospel? Hardly so.

Was it a text as lost Acts of Apostle X, Acts of Apostle Y, Acts of Apostle Z?



Those lost Acts (by Jewish-Christians) would have founded the "apostolic past" hence creating consequently the need (for cerdonites/marcionites) of lost Acts of Paul before, and of Epistles of Paul after.

Still no "Acts of Jesus" (a first gospel) in the horizon.

Then the Acts of Pilate were written: something as the preaching of Christ by Pilate in Rome.

Then Pilate was chosen as judge of Jesus: the first gospel.

CONCLUSION:
The Acts of the Apostle X, Y, Z, etc preceded the first gospel (="Acts of Jesus") and caused the need of one.
Post Reply