Possible the original Pauline letters never mentioned Jesus?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
rgprice
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Possible the original Pauline letters never mentioned Jesus?

Post by rgprice »

Is it possible that the name Jesus has been insert into the Pauline letters? Is it possible that everywhere we now read "Lord Jesus", "Christ Jesus", "the Lord Jesus Christ", etc., originally just said "Lord", "Christ", etc., i.e. "Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Christ."

Would this make sense? Are there passages in which this doesn't make sense? In cases where it doesn't make sense can those passages be explained as later revisions?

Is there any case to be made here at all?
lsayre
Posts: 670
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Possible the original Pauline letters never mentioned Jesus?

Post by lsayre »

Yes, it is possible, and it makes sense. And particularly more so before such as culling and plagiarizing and redaction... But unfortunately we only have the extant material which remains.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Possible the original Pauline letters never mentioned Jesus?

Post by Charles Wilson »

rgprice wrote: Sun Aug 28, 2022 7:08 am Is it possible that the name Jesus has been insert into the Pauline letters?
lsayre wrote: Sun Aug 28, 2022 7:55 am Yes, it is possible, and it makes sense.
Yes, Yes and as a change of pace, YES!!!

We are assuming, with this Thesis, that the Progression is Linear, that the Pauline Literature came first and then the "Life of Jesus" was written around this. The rewrites, however, may have been in both directions. Indeed, if the Paulines had Pagan Origins, a unifying rewrite [in both directions] would be a necessity.

The NT argues for a reinstatement of Human Sacrifice. This cannot be of Judaic origin. Which would imply:

1. The stories of Paul are Metaphysics

2. At the realization that there is an opening for a New Religion loyal to Rome (For example, see Atwill, and others.), a "Wrapper" History is written, either out of whole cloth or a story created by theft over honest toil (I obviously vote for the latter.).

The unification involves a rewrite from the other direction, from the Pagan back to the Stolen Story.

John 1: 29 (RSV):

[29] The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

A very Semitic "Behold, Immar-Yah..." betrays the Semitic Roots but the Word-Play is found in "Mar-Ya" = "Lord". The Greek obliterates the Semitic for the Metaphysical "Lord Jesus Christ".

"And so on..."

This is Great Stuff!!
Thank you both.

CW
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1498
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Possible the original Pauline letters never mentioned Jesus?

Post by John T »

Possible, yes. Anything is possible. Probable? No!
Charles Wilson
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Possible the original Pauline letters never mentioned Jesus?

Post by Charles Wilson »

John T wrote: Sun Aug 28, 2022 4:57 pmPossible, yes. Anything is possible. Probable? No!
So tell us, John T --

What do you consider PROBABLE here?

CW
rgprice
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Possible the original Pauline letters never mentioned Jesus?

Post by rgprice »

The Pauline letters clearly distinguish between God and the Lord. This distinction exists within the Jewish scriptures, and was very likely something understood by many Jews and a God-fearers.

In much the same way that Philo distinguishes between God and his son the Word, the Pauline letters appear to distinguish between God and the Lord.

If we take an example:

Original:
1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,

2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:

3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

4 I always thank my God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. 5 For in him you have been enriched in every way—with all kinds of speech and with all knowledge— 6 God thus confirming our testimony about Christ among you. 7 Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. 8 He will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, who has called you into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Revised
1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,

2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Christ—their Lord and ours:

3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Christ.

4 I always thank my God for you because of his grace given you in Christ. 5 For in him you have been enriched in every way—with all kinds of speech and with all knowledge— 6 God thus confirming our testimony about Christ among you. 7 Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Christ to be revealed. 8 He will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Christ. 9 God is faithful, who has called you into fellowship with his Son, Christ our Lord.

Obviously, v2 says, "who call on the name of our Lord". Christ isn't a name. This is an example of a verse that may not make sense without the name Jesus present.

Then again, maybe the name was supposed to be unstated in writing? Also, maybe v2 is a later revision?

In Vision of Isaiah the name Jesus is also not used, instead using the term the Beloved, who is the Lord. Vision of Isaiah also distinguished between the Lord, who is the one who comes down to defeat Belial, and God, who is called the Most High, the God of Truth who sits in the upper world on High.

I can see Beloved and Christ being interchangeable. But in the core of Vision of Isaiah the name Jesus is not used. So in Vision of Isiah we have the Beloved Lord and God and in the Pauline letters we have Christ the Lord and God.

It seems possible that this is the first layer of the Pauline works. The name Jesus could have been introduced by Marcionite editors to tie the Pauline letters to a narrative in which the name Jesus was used.

Just considering the possibility.
lsayre
Posts: 670
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Possible the original Pauline letters never mentioned Jesus?

Post by lsayre »

Verses 1 through 3 appear to be an editorial preamble. Any real message may have began with verse 4 (or perhaps more originally at verse 10). But can anyone realistically imagine gobbledygook such as this being red before a Church body of perhaps 85-95% illiterates? Does this sound like an early product of an emerging new religious movement sprouting among common folk, or like a product which has evolved from a much later stage of development, or a product never intended for a common folk Church audience at all..
Last edited by lsayre on Tue Aug 30, 2022 4:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: Possible the original Pauline letters never mentioned Jesus?

Post by Sinouhe »

If the Epistles of Paul were originally available in very small quantities and a scribe changed all the letters to include the name Jesus, then it is possible.
It implies that all other copies have disappeared or as I said, that they were available in very small quantities or even only in one copy and that the fraud took place from the beginning.

And for example, if we change the name Jesus to Enoch, then we would have a corpus that is completely in line with the parables of Enoch.
lsayre
Posts: 670
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Possible the original Pauline letters never mentioned Jesus?

Post by lsayre »

If Paul dates to the 50's, then whatever religion Paul was "actually" promoting likely had by that time already experienced at least 100 or more years in which to evolve. Religions don't likely begin at a fully advanced end-game level, but rather they would seemingly be more likely to experience a far more modest and simplistic grass roots beginning.

I will grant that a powerful state sponsored effort to emerge a new religion would be more likely to build it from top down, removing thereby the 100+ years of natural evolution component.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Possible the original Pauline letters never mentioned Jesus?

Post by Charles Wilson »

https://everlastinggoodnewsofyahweh.info/MarYah.html
http://www.thearamaicscriptures.com/maryayhwh.html

Above are two "Studies" and I assume that these are given with Serious Intent. Obviouly, a lot of work went into the Subject Matter.
To repeat:

John 1: 29 (RSV):

[29] The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Why is this verse here? Everywhere else, "Immar-Yah" is written as "Mar-Yah" or variation. "Yah" has already been in a Replacement Battle with "El" (Jeremiah, Nathaniel, for ex.) and the Battle goes back to Sumer where an animal name is paired with a god name:
(" 'nmmr-hdd" => "Nimrod", ["Panther-of-Hadd"] (Pettinato, et. al.)

"Marya" in the above finds the "Settled Science" of "Mar" as "Lord".
No one looks at any other meaning.
Yet, someone could read the Word-Play that others cannot see - the religious sensibilities overwhelm even the most sceptical.
To pronounce "Mar", you initiate the word with "emm" as in "Emm-arr".

Strong's H563: "Immar" - "Lamb" => " אִמַּר "

So: "Immar-Yah": "Behold Immar-Yah", "Behold the Lamb of God".
The Word Play involves the 16th Mishmarot Group "Immer" [H564] which is the same word as H563.
Immer is on Duty with Bilgah preceeding Immer at the Passover of 4 BCE.

This is what was written and rewritten with "Jesus" being substituted for whatever was originally designated as the name of a Mishmarot Priest.

Warning! There's Maff involved but the above can be proved.
The Temple Atrocity of 4 BCE was the Basis for many of the Stories of the NT.
***
The Paulines were written as an amalgamation of Pagan ideas with ideas from probably Mucianus, who traveled around the Empire.
He wrote two books of interest: "Epistolae" and "Acts". "What could "Letters" and "Acts" have to do with the NT...?"

This is almost a QED moment.

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Mon Aug 29, 2022 10:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply