Christianity without Paul

[Shermana]

What would the "Christian" religion be without Paul's epistles?

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by Shermana

What would the "Christian" religion be without Paul's epistles?

Something very different. We have very few writings from the early period of the Jesus movement, and whether one likes him or not, Paul is a valuable source in knowing how the movement began, and evolved in the early years.

Now, are we assuming that Paul never wrote anything, or that his writings were lost? Because that would also make a difference.

[Shermana]

Originally Posted by fallingblood

Something very different. We have very few writings from the early period of the Jesus movement, and whether one likes him or not, Paul is a valuable source in knowing how the movement began, and evolved in the early years.

Now, are we assuming that Paul never wrote anything, or that his writings were lost? Because that would also make a difference.

Paul is a valuable source in knowing how one particular branch began, the Nazarenes and Ebionites from what is written, were in bitter opposition to him. Additionally, several of the epistles traditionally attributed to him are being exposed as psuedipigrapha, such as the Pastorals which even the Syrian Orthodox church discluded from Canon back in the day.

I'm not assuming Paul didn't write what he wrote, but there are minority opinions, including those like Edgar Goodspeed, who say Corinthians is a compilation of other writings, and some even say he may have not written Galatians, but that's another story.

So when you say "something very different", that's exactly what I'm saying, going by the Gospels alone (including the fragments of things like Gospel to the Hebrews/Nazoreans), we have a "very different" religion. We have "Jewish Christianity".

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Originally Posted by Shermana

Paul is a valuable source in knowing how one particular branch began, the Nazarenes and Ebionites from what is written, were in bitter opposition to him.

That's a speculative position. We simply don't know enough about the dissention among early christians, particularly during Paul's time when christianity wasn't distinct from judaism, to say what the relation was betwen Paul and certain other groups like the Ebionites.

So when you say "something very different", that's exactly what I'm saying, going by the Gospels alone (including the fragments of things like Gospel to the Hebrews/Nazoreans), we have a "very different" religion. We have "Jewish Christianity".

If you are including other "gospels," then we would have something even less like Judaism than mainstream christianity. Some of the other gospels regarded the Jewish god as more or less equivalent to Satan/the devil.

[Shermana]

That's a speculative position. We simply don't know enough about the dissention among early christians, particularly during Paul's time when christianity wasn't distinct from judaism, to say what the relation was betwen Paul and certain other groups like the Ebionites.

Saying anything about anything is going by a speculative position, Iraneus's depictions of the Jewish Christian "Cerinthus" is contradictory to others, he titles him "Gnostic", yet his views are little if anything like the Sethians. Nonetheless, what we can tell from some of the writings is that part of the accusations against them was that the Ebionites and Nazarenes specifically rejected Paul's epistles.

If you are including other "gospels," then we would have something even less like Judaism than mainstream christianity. Some of the other gospels regarded the Jewish god as more or less equivalent to Satan/the devil.

Not all of them. Some of them. The Yaldabaoth stuff started around the end of the 2nd century, and it distinct from the stuff like Gospel of Philip. Sethians and Orphites and such anti-Jewish leaning "Gnostics" were a phenemenon that started fairly long afterwards. The problem is that "Gnostics" as a whole got lump summed together even though their own "Gospels' often were nothing like various other apocrypha that was dubbed "Gnostic". What we do know is that Jerome and others attributed Matthew as a rewrite of an earlier book called "Gospel to the Hebrews". I personally go by Gospel of Philip (which is heavily Jewish, pro-Sabbath, etc), and there is nothing like the stuff in Gospel of Judas in it. Likewise with Acts of Peter. Even things like the "Apostolic Constitutions" are proof of a heavily Jewish influenced association. Even Clement refers to the Law as binding it seems. The so-called "Pseudo-clementine literature" paint a picture of a heavily Jewish group, and F.C. Baur and the Tubingen school among many others were very confident that "Simon Magus" was code-word for Paul in them.

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Originally Posted by Shermana

Saying anything about anything is going by a speculative position

True enough, but some theories are more speculative than others.

,

Iraneus's depictions of the Jewish Christian "Cerinthus" is contradictory to others, he titles him "Gnostic"

The term "gnostic" is a modern construction. Iraneus uses it (or rather gnostikos) as this fits the title of his work, in which he accuses others of false gnosis.

, yet his views are little if anything like the Sethians.

Quite. Which is why "gnosticism" is an umbrella term, so wide that M. A. Williams argued the term should be abandoned as it has no meaning.

Nonetheless, what we can tell from some of the writings is that part of the accusations against them was that the Ebionites and Nazarenes specifically rejected Paul's epistles.

What we can tell is that the "gospel of the ebionites" was written by in Greek, and therefore probably by hellenized Jews. Also, it was likely based on the synoptic gospels. But our knowledge is limited to a few quotations and descritions from authors who wrote over a century after Paul was dead.

The Nazarenes are a different story. It is hard to differentiate "Nazarenes" as followers of Jesus of Nazareth from the group said to be responsible for the gospel of the Nazarenes.

Not all of them. Some of them.

That's what I said.

The Yaldabaoth stuff started around the end of the 2nd century, and it distinct from the stuff like Gospel of Philip.

Not really. The gospel of philip mentions archons, and other things to indicate that same line of thought: "The world came into being through an error. For he who created it intended to create it imperishable and immortal. He failed to obtain his hope." (99).

I personally go by Gospel of Philip, and there is nothing like the stuff in Gospel of Judas in it.

"The archons wanted to decieve the humans because they saw that he was kindred to the truly good ones. They took the name of the good ones and gave it to those that are not good." There is a great deal of suggestion in the gospel of philip of the anti-jewish cosmology in which the original Jewish gods and angels are deceivers of mankind.

[Shermana]

One question, which translation of Gospel of Philip are you using? Verse 99 does not say the world was created through error in this one and I can't seem to find it. And it uses "Authorities" instead of "Archons" such as in your quote of verse 13. But the concept of "archons" nonetheless can still corrolate directly to fallen angels such as in Apocalypse of Peter which is not as "Gnostic" in the Sethian sense either. Also, there's a matter of how you're interpreting the "failed to accomplish" the immortal and perfect world....that was kind of the intention of the Garden of Eden for example. It's not quite at all like the idea of Yaldobaoth at least IMO.

Look at this passage from verse 100:

God [created] a garden-paradise. Mankind [lived in the] garden, [... but] they were not in the [...] of God in [...] their hearts’ [...] given desire. [...] This garden [is the place] where it will be said to me: [Thou may eat] this or not eat [this, according to thy] desire.¹This is the place (where) I shall consume every different (thing)—there, where isthe tree of knowledge which slew Adam. Yet (in) this place the tree of knowledge gave life to mankind. The Torahºwas the tree. It has (the) capability in itself to bestow the knowledge of good and evil. It neither cured him of the evil nor preserved him in the good, but rather it caused those who had ingested it to die. For death originated because of (the Torah's)saying: Eat this, but do not eat (that)

No Sethian-style Gnostic text would give any respect to the Torah like that.

Here is verse 99 in this version.

This world devours corpses—furthermore, those who eat in it themselves die. The true (person) consumes life—therefore no one nourished in [the truth shall] die. Yeshúa came from within that place, and he brought nourishment from there. And to those whom he wished he gave their lives, so that they not perish.

http://www.metalog.org/files/philip.html

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by Shermana

What would the "Christian" religion be without Paul's epistles?

Judaism......

[Shermana]

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin

Judaism......

We have a winner. Except as we've seen from certain threads here, the term "Judaism" seems to apply to Rabbinicists and they don't like it being applied to anything less as if it's trademarked.

[outhouse]

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin

Judaism......

Ding ding ding