About an acute observation of Arthur Drews about the “humanity” of the pauline Jesus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: About an acute observation of Arthur Drews about the “humanity” of the pauline Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

In this thread I was not arguing for an antinomian nature (dualism) of the early Christians, but even in comparison to your interpretation of the "iota" ("the little one, the least was at the root of the ten commandments, was the true power behind even the god of the Jews") I see that there is a better interpretation.

So Dr. Detering:

Moreover, that the name Paul could already be conceived in a figurative sense by the writer of the Pauline letters can be clearly seen in 1 Cor 15:9, where “Paul” speaks of himself as the last and the smallest, like a “miscarriage” as it were. B. Bauer correctly commented about this: “He is the last, the unexpected, the conclusion, the dear nestling. Even his Latin name, Paul, expresses smallness, which stands in contrast to the majesty to which he is elevated by grace in the preceding passages of the letter.”

(The Falsified Paul, p. 145)

At any case, what I was talking about in this thread before your intrusion is that Drews noted implicitly the following discontinuity:

1) in the Pagan culture, a criminal or an animal or an effigy was crucified in the role of the god, without being really the god,
2) for Paul the victim is God himself in human form,
3) in Mark there is evidence of separationism.

Hence the first Gospel represents a regress to a view of the expiatory sacrifice that is pre-pauline. This is clearly a betrayal of Paul.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: About an acute observation of Arthur Drews about the “humanity” of the pauline Jesus

Post by Secret Alias »

How is that a better interpretation when mine references an early ancient sectarian interpretation?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: About an acute observation of Arthur Drews about the “humanity” of the pauline Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

Secret Alias wrote: Sat Sep 15, 2018 11:03 am How is that a better interpretation when mine references an early ancient sectarian interpretation?
how can something of "Christian" be older than Paul?

The evidence of antinomianism is already in the name itself of Paul. But can you prove that in the epistles there is trace of your ditheism as opposed to monarchianism or dualism? Detering has given an interpretation of the epistles along gnostic lines (gnostic in the sense I interpret the term: as anti-Jahwism). I don't see never you even try something of kind. Can you point out a point in the epistles where there are two gods and where these two gods are allies and not enemies between them? I am still waiting for "evidence".
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply