Mr. Premise said:
Laura, you said that Paul accepted the Hebrew God as being the same as the Father. Is that settled? There are some parts of the epistles that hint at the Gnostic view that those were two different beings. I know Bob Price argues that those may have been interpolations by later Gnostics, who, claiming Paul as one of them, added passages to counteract proto-Catholic interpolations that imply the opposite. The Gnostics also claimed that Paul had a secret teaching that he passed to Timothy who ultimately (IIRC) passed it to Marcion. Given Paul's powerful enemies in the Judaicizer camp (The pillars) it might make sense that he would keep that teaching veiled.
There did seems to be something explosive in the teaching that Paul had, maybe beyond the mission to the Gentiles thing (that Christians didn't have to be circumcised or follow the dietary restrictions). Paul's view on the Law was after all was accepted by the Catholics in Rome even while they were fighting the more Gnostic views of Marcion and Valentinus.
Sounds like a good question for the Cs.
Yes, this is very true. And the problem we face is that there were edicts at various times ordering the destruction of Christian writings and then pagan writings. The best book that discusses this topic is Robert Eisler's book "The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist: According to Flavius Josephus' recently rediscovered 'Capture of Jerusalem' and the other Jewish and Christian sources" (1931) where he includes an astonishing array of rare source citations AND images of actual ancient documents showing how they were defaced and/or edited.
Now, was Marcion correct that Paul was actually teaching a different god than the Jewish one? It is certainly possible and it can be read into the texts rather easily. If he was he was certainly playing a covert game about it in his relations with the three "pillars" at Jerusalem.
Take a look at some passages:
Gal 1:11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin;
Gal 1:12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
Here Paul makes it explicit that his gospel was inspired and did not come from the teachings of ANYONE, not even a human Jesus. His Christ was a cosmic being.
Gal 1:13 You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it.
There was, in Palestine/Judea, at the time, a tremendous conflict between the Messianists and the Hellenizers. The Messianists were Zealots, Nazoreans, Sicarii, Essenes. This last is pretty clear from the Dead Sea Scrolls. So, in order to be against the Messianists, Paul would have necessarily had to be a Hellenizer on the side of the Romans, supporting the Herodian party. Many of these Hellenizers considered themselves to be the "best Jews". This is why Paul could say, at the same time:
Gal 1:14 I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors.
Now, notice in the following that Paul says that it was GOD who revealed his son to him. He makes no mention of a vision. And in fact, in several places he alludes to the method by which this revelation took place: studying scripture and messianic texts such as those found at Qumran. There are 43 references to his study/quoting of "what is written" in the epistles. It was in these writings, particularly Isaiah 63, that he found texts that created his version of the Messiah and that the Jewish god would become the god of all men. "As it is written, "Therefore I will confess you among the Gentiles, and sing praises to your name" (Rom. 15:9)
Gal 1:15 But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased
Gal 1:16 to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being,
Gal 1:17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus.
Again, we notice that there is no mention of the story of the vision on the road to Damascus that is described three separate times in the book of Acts, each with different and/or contradictory details. Paul never had that experience; it is quite simply made up borrowing from several literary descriptions of such visions in pagan literature of the time. And again, notice his emphasis that he did not confer with anyone - no human being. HOWEVER, he does reference "those who were apostles before me" in Jerusalem, which suggests strongly that he was using SOMETHING from their literature/proclamation. That is to say, he more or less borrowed their "messiah" person for his own purposes.
Paul says he went to Arabia - or the Arabah - the wilderness. He doesn't say how long he was there; it could have been weeks, months, or years. But he does say that he "returned" to Damascus. So, taken together with the fact that he later says that no one in Jerusalem knew him, we can be sure that he wasn't persecuting anyone in Jerusalem but was probably just trying to prevent the recruiting of revolutionaries in Damascus by the James Gang from Jerusalem who were sending emissaries to Jewish communities all over the empire to tell them that god was going to destroy the Romans very soon and to "return" (repent) to their strict observance of Judaism so as to be ready to rise up at the signal.
Note on the Arabah: The Arabah was home to the Edomites (Edom was called "Idumea" in Roman times). East of the Arabah was the domain of the Nabateans, the builders of the city of Petra. Why was Paul there considering a subsequent event as we will see.
The fact that Paul clearly says that he was unknown in Jerusalem, makes it clear that the story about the stoning of Stephen with Paul acting as coat check, is another completely made up episode in Acts. It simply didn't happen. Or, if it did happen, it happened to someone else under different circumstances without the involvement of Paul.
Next, we learn that Paul was messing around in Damascus practicing his preaching which basically amounted to undermining the work of the James Gang, for three years:
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days;
Gal 1:19 but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord's brother.
Gal 1:20 In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!
Here, "the Lord's Brother" does not necessarily mean a brother of Jesus. Most likely, it refers to James as a member of a brotherhood, the Nazoreans, Zealots, Essenes, whatever, and all of them were known this way. Cephas, as is pretty well know, was probably Simon bar Jonah, or Simon the Zealot. That expresses the political nature of this group. But then, in those times, there was no separation of religion and politics.
Also, we learn later that Paul left Damascus under unusual circumstances: he was being chased by the agent of King Aretas of the Nabateans and was hidden and then let down over the city wall in a basket to escape. It is probably at this time that he first went to Jerusalem. 2Co 11:32-33 "In Damascus, the governor under King Aretas guarded the city of Damascus in order to seize me, but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and escaped from his hands."
Notice: Aretas was king of the Nabataeans from roughly 9 BC to AD 40. We already know that 2 Thessalonians was written around 40 AD because of the reference to the activities of Gaius/Caligula which means that Paul's escape must have occurred much earlier in order to give him time to establish his missions in Thessalonica.
So, we have Paul being converted, then going to the land of the Idumeans/Nabataeans for a period, then returning to Damascus for a period of three years at which point he goes to Jerusalem for 15 days and THEN sets off for his major mission:
Gal 1:21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia,
Gal 1:22 and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ;
Gal 1:23 they only heard it said, "The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy."
Gal 1:24 And they glorified God because of me.
Notice where Paul says he was
unknown by sight to the churches of Judea. Keep in mind that "church" is simply "ecclesia" which meant, at the time, a political group that met regularly. So there were obviously many "cells" of the revolutionaries meeting and discussing the coming Messiah who was going to whup up on the Romans. And a LOT of them, obviously, were violent guerrilla fighters going about the countryside killing their opponents, engaging in raids for food and goods, etc. That is really what early "Christianity" was in Judea.
So, what was Paul doing with their Messiah? He had taken him and made something altogether different than what the James Gang were preaching. And this led to a whole lot of trouble for Paul.
So, 14 years pass with Paul on his mission. Once gets the feeling that something has been deleted here because the last he tells us is that he was in Cilicia and Syria. Yet, in order for the timeline to work at all he MUST have also been much further afield, so why is it not mentioned? Fourteen years is a long time... One suspects that he was using Antioch as a base and journeying out from there to his various missions.
Gal 2:1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.
Gal 2:2 I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain.
Gal 2:3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek.
Gal 2:4 But because of false believers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us--
Gal 2:5 we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you.
Gal 2:6 And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)--those leaders contributed nothing to me.
Gal 2:7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised
Gal 2:8 (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles),
Gal 2:9 and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
Gal 2:10 They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do.
The above is obviously the famous "meeting in Jerusalem" described VERY differently in Acts. Paul's version and the version of Acts, written 70 or more years later, are simply irreconcilable. Paul makes it sound like they argued things out and came to an understanding that Paul would recruit for the revolution of the coming Messiah in his way, and they would recruit in theirs.
Notice that Paul never mentions "the twelve" in this recitation of events. The only place "The Twelve" are ever mentioned by him is at 1 Cor. 15:5 which is probably an intepolation. For Paul, there were never "twelve apostles/disciples". There was only the three "pillars": James, John and Cephas. Notice above the bit about "Peter". These are the ONLY two verses in all of Paul's writings that mention anyone named "Peter" though "Cephas" is mentioned in 8. Thus, it is very likely that the two verses, 7 and 8 are added much later to bring Peter clearly into the picture as a major apostle.
At this point, the troubles really begin. Even though the "pillars" were said, by Paul, to have agreed to disagree as long as he gave them money, (and he was anxious to do this because it fulfilled a prophecy in the OT about the gentiles sending gifts to Jerusalem and Paul was quite driven by this Pesher-like exegesis), they obviously either lied or had second thoughts because now, the persecution of Paul by the James Gang began in earnest:
Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned;
Gal 2:12 for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction.
Gal 2:13 And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
Now, imagine that! Paul dressed down one of the three Pillars in public. And even his former companion, Bar Nabas, obviously a Jew, turned against him and sided with Peter. The James Gang must have been pretty scary. They came and took over Paul's HQ in Damascus, and he was OUT. Off he went to his other communities, and the James Gang peeps relentlessly pursued him as is revealed in the Corinthian letters and Galatians. They may have been responsible for the events that landed him in prison at which time he wrote Philemon, Laodiceans/Ephesians and Colossians.
In 2 Corinthians, Paul talks about the James Gang (some scholars try to get the Jerusalem peeps off the hook on this, but it is pretty clear from the sequence of events, as well as the clear context of the times that can be obtained from Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, that the Jerusalem "church" was little more than a revolutionary gang of uber-Jewish zealots/messianists and it is these individuals that Paul railed against, this group that hounded him and attempted to steal his congregations from him, to demand full conversion to Judaism in order to be "saved" by the Jewish god and his coming Messiah.
2Co 11:4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough.
2Co 11:5 I think that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles. {Super apostles obviously referring to those sent by James}
{...}
2Co 11:13 For such boasters are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
2Co 11:14 And no wonder! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
2Co 11:15 So it is not strange if his ministers also disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness. Their end will match their deeds. {Clearly, Paul is accusing the apostles from the Jerusalem gang, the organization alleged to be the first church of the apostles of Jesus of Nazareth, which it obviously was not, of being Satanic deluders.}
{...}
2Co 11:19 For you gladly put up with fools, being wise yourselves!
2Co 11:20 For you put up with it when someone makes slaves of you, or preys upon you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or gives you a slap in the face. {Obviously, this is how Paul saw the James Gang peeps}
{...}
2Co 11:22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I. {Here Paul makes it absolutely clear that he is referring to the James Gang}
2Co 11:23 Are they ministers of Christ? I am talking like a madman--I am a better one: with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless floggings, and often near death.
2Co 11:24 Five times I have received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one.
2Co 11:25 Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I received a stoning. Three times I was shipwrecked; for a night and a day I was adrift at sea;
2Co 11:26 on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from bandits, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers and sisters;
2Co 11:27 in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, hungry and thirsty, often without food, cold and naked.
In the above, please notice Paul's list of adventures. Now, this letter was written not very long after the infamous meeting in Jerusalem followed by the hounding of Paul at Antioch by the agents of the James Gang and his public confrontation with Cephas. So, that means it was not long after the mentioned 14 years. Recall that he said "Gal 1:21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia" which is the last thing you hear before the 14 years later comes up. That's why I say that something is missing. Obviously, all these sea voyages, shipwrecks, dangers in the wilderness, dangers from false brothers and sisters, floggings, beatings, stonings, and MULTIPLE imprisonments, took place in that 14 year period. Paul was a busy guy. And he wasn't just hanging out in Syria-Cilicia.
I mean, REALLY, a long, hard look needs to be taken at this. Fourteen years and all that sort of thing happening? Just what the holy heck was going on??!!!
Another example of Paul's opinion of the "church at Jerusalem"
Php 3:2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh!
So you see, Paul has a very interesting story to tell and it certainly trumps anything that came later composed about a mythical Jesus of Nazareth who was some kind of messiah for the world. Judas the Galilean, my candidate for the messiah given the name of Joshua by the James Gang and used as their messianic poster boy for the revolution, was in no way, shape or form, the least bit interested in gentiles or peace or any of the things attributed to this mythical Jesus created much, much later. Anything and everything about Jesus that is positive actually came from Paul's ideas. Even Paul's very words were later put into the mouth of the novelized Jesus.
This development, how one text is dependent on another, becomes glaringly obvious when they are read in the correct chronological order.
Now, as to the question: was Marcion correct in saying that Paul was preaching a different god? I don't think so. The weight of the evidence is against that. That appears to have been a twist that developed by Marcion's gnostic exposure. Because, certainly, there were a lot of Jewish gnostics around the time of Paul who developed the idea that Yahweh was a demiurge (based on Platonic ideas since Plato was the one who came up with the term) and not the highest god. I think Paul was trying to sort through this and find a middle way. He searched and searched the scriptures for evidence that there was a great mystery that had been hidden for ages that Yahweh really, all along, was planning on fixing things up. And it was Paul who figured it all out by his interpretation of the scriptures.
1Co 4:5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment {on Paul} before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive commendation from God.
1Co 4:6 I have applied all this to Apollos and myself for your benefit, brothers and sisters, so that you may learn through us the meaning of the saying, "Nothing beyond what is written," so that none of you will be puffed up in favor of one against another.
Everything Paul taught was supported by him via his peculiar exegeses.
Eph 2:11 So then, remember that at one time you Gentiles by birth, called "the uncircumcision" by those who are called "the circumcision"--a physical circumcision made in the flesh by human hands--
Eph 2:12 remember that you were at that time without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us.
Eph 2:15 He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace,
Eph 2:16 and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it.
Eph 2:17 So he came and proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near;
Eph 2:18 for through him both of us have access in one Spirit to the Father.
Eph 3:1 This is the reason that I Paul am a prisoner for Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles--
Eph 3:2 for surely you have already heard of the commission of God's grace that was given me for you,
Eph 3:3 and how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I wrote above in a few words,
Eph 3:4 a reading of which will enable you to perceive my understanding of the mystery of Christ.
Eph 3:5 In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit:
Eph 3:6 that is, the Gentiles have become fellow heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
Eph 3:7 Of this gospel I have become a servant according to the gift of God's grace that was given me by the working of his power.
Eph 3:8 Although I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of the boundless riches of Christ,
Eph 3:9 and to make everyone see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things;
Eph 3:10 so that through the church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.
Eph 3:11 This was in accordance with the eternal purpose that he has carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord,
Eph 3:12 in whom we have access to God in boldness and confidence through faith in him.
So it is, Christianity, as we know it, was really created by the imaginative exegeses of Paul.
Edit: added a few thoughts about Paul's adventures.
Nope, not exactly. I was just curious if you were familiar with Laura's writings and also Gurdjieff (mostly Ouspensky's book, In Search of the Miraculous), since those works provide the foundation of what we're all about here.
