Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Paul also talks about no longer thinking of Jesus in an earthly way. (2 Cor 5). Which suggests Paul didn't invent him!
I would guess that Paul spent a lot of time among the first church and borrowed a wealth of their concepts which he brought into his own gospel
He denies this in Galatians, but its hard not to suspect it was true, and he was embarrassed by this. Would he deny it even if it was not true... for his gospel and it's success it may have been necessary!
Why was it embarrassing? because those folks were his opponents, I don't mean 'enemies' but differed on the direction things should go and who should speak for the whole group. The usual church politics
But I believe through Paul's writings you can see many, many early Christian concepts (eg 'grace', 'the spirit', 'emphasis on love', spiritualising of certain requirements of the law, and so on)
I think he differed a bit on 'emphasis' and moved salvation more into belief alone than teachings of Jesus and working at salvation, but the concepts were very similar or even the same

davidmartin wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:54 am I would guess that Paul spent a lot of time among the first church and borrowed a wealth of their concepts which he brought into his own gospel
He denies this in Galatians ...

1 Cor 15 also says

3 For what I received I passed on to you at the first / as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

well, this is where I think he was emphasising things a bit. i think there were numerous early church branches with varying ideas. i think many did see the meaning of the cross as salvific, but not with the particular sacrificial emphasis he developed into his gospel maybe not that i'm against that. for sure all branches would have believed he continued to live on. but i was really referring to key concepts such as Grace, the Holy Spirit, Love, and the concepts he talks about i think he inherited from the Jewish church. I tend to see Paul strictly as a theologian putting forward his understanding of Jesus and actually forming another branch kind of distinctive in it's own right

davidmartin wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:43 pm I think there were numerous early church branches with varying ideas.

Maybe(?) Probably(?) But, if so, what types of churches might they have been?

Were some more Gnostic that orthodox? Were some more Jewish?

davidmartin wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:43 pm I think many1 did see the meaning of the cross as salvific, but not with the particular sacrificial emphasis he developed into his gospel ...

Who are you referring to here?

Paul only refers to the cross a few times, and seemingly in contradictory ways, -

Galatians 2



Galatians 6, -


vv.14 and 17 are interesting there. With different emphases, -

• 14 "far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which [or, through whom] the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world."

Why does Paul say he has been crucified to the world??

• 17 "From now on let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus."

What 'marks of Jesus' does Paul bear?


Philippians 3:18, -



1 Corinthians 1


- which fits with what you say.

1 Corinthians 5, obliquely, -



Colossians 1, -

davidmartin wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:43 pm the concepts he talks about i think he inherited from the Jewish church. I tend to see Paul strictly as a theologian putting forward his understanding of Jesus and actually forming another branch kind of distinctive in it's own right

I tend to agree.

Maybe(?) Probably(?) But, if so, what types of churches might they have been?

Were some more Gnostic that orthodox? Were some more Jewish?

ahh, well a time machine would come in handy!

I see a history that looks a bit like -
* A somewhat mystical messianic Jewish/Samaritan original, connected with the Odes of Solomon dated the 50's
* A pre-existing Samaritan Ebionite group, law following/anti-sacrifice who opposed the mystical group but later re-interpreted one of it's messiah's to their own 'true prophet'

The unwelcome success of the former group led to Samaritan official sanction of the latter to help oppose it
From them came the original Matthew gospel+Revelation and were the 'Judaisers'. These folk were never the original Christians
The same unwelcome success in Judea and Galilee led a zealous upstart named Paul to get involved
He hung around the mystical group and absorbed all their doctrines, then got inspired and acted boldly
Instead of supporting the Ebionites he went off in his own direction, clashing with their leadership
He created a hybrid of the two mixing traditional Pharisee doctrines of sinfulness and the avenging deity, traditional scriptural midrash
together with the Christ and Father of love (but not the Mother) of the mystics. A tension that exists till this day!

At this point, following severe religious based persecution, the mystical group split
Some turned on the biblical God as the enemy mixing anti-materialism into the first proper gnostics. bitter opponents of the ebionite/paul branches who were usurpers to them. But, they also became way, way more gnostic than the originals, just another orthadoxy
Some decided to work with the ebionite/paulines and steer them back to the God of love and inner peace by whatever name he is known
They helped with the gospel of John and influenced Valentinians and people like Dionysius much later
This group also had some prominent female elder/apostles floating about who opposed the gnostic theology (Thunder Perfect Mind)
A lot of symbols got introduced into the gospels by them, in the guise of literal accounts, and the sayings of the messiah they spread around

So they managed to get quite a lot of the original messiah in there, who Paul did not portray because of his differences with said mystical group and their messiah, as he presented Christ more in his own image (hence the marks he said he bore as a psychological device). But people are curious, they wanted to know about this dude, not Paul. This wide open goal was filled.

But the attempt to quash a medium sized spiritual uprising did result in a large religiously orthodox branch that ultimately won the crown (of the emperor). The Holy Spirit was thus poured into a more orthadox mold suitable for converting all manner of folks especially 'god fearers' attracted to Judaism and people like being told they are saved just by 'believing'. It wasn't long before legions of centurions were being baptised with a mop and bucket

But quite a bit of the original stuff ended up in the orthadox faith that emerged when the Pauline and Ebionites patched up some of their differences and orthadoxy really got going in the 2nd century. But, hide the origins! Blame it on Simon Magus
After a while trying to preach to folks the original mystical version would have seemed beyond belief that Christ was several layers veiled by a lot of bull crap that wasn't true in the attempt to make orthadox quite an unorthadox messiah, and yet a lot that was true got planted right there in the orthadox churches as well, especially the Holy Spirit that if the messiah was genuine (whoever he, she, they was), is the spiritual manna of God he was trying to spread about stripped of religious mind control and barriers.
I got this idea from making the Odes of Solomon the priority source text