Did Paul Invent Christianity?

a reply to: Malocchio

Originally posted by Malocchio
Regardless the most important and anti Pauline of the Clementina is Homilies and Recognitions which scholars have long noticed that Simon Magus serves as a pseudonym for Paul, it's rather obvious actually.

Well, I’m clearly open to the possibility if my past posts are anything to go by…but if it’s obvious, where’s the evidence, the smoking gun…???

Originally posted by Malocchio
I insist that Paul was subservient to Peter in it though, and that it is the most ridiculous book of all the Apocrypha, basically a prop piece.

But doesn’t Paul being subservient though, help support the standard Christian view of Paul and the officially Canonised texts anyway. The verses I quoted (in my previous post) put Paul on equal par with Peter, while the rest of the texts has Paul subservient to Peter…

It kind of fulfils 2 aims…One to make Paul equal with Peter i.e. an Apostle…and secondly to make Paul look humble by appearing subservient to Peter…but we know from other scriptures how Paul treat Peter badly at Antioch in Galatians 2 etc…

In the official scriptures Paul often states he is the lowest of the Apostles…he put’s himself in the lowest position in the eyes of others, but in reality his writings have taken centre stage!…


- JC

a reply to: Joecroft
The Hebrew ba·raʼʹ and the Greek ktiʹzo, both meaning “create,” are used exclusively with reference to divine creation.

That means the word "create" as it relates to those Hebrew and Greek words in the bible is not used in the broad sense that you're using it (as it is used in modern day English). It is exclusively used with reference to only divine creation. So if you switch to the broader modern day meaning when talking about biblical concepts, you will have a hard time understanding why I'm pointing out that Jesus is never referred to as a co-creator or "the Creator" the way Jehovah is as the source of creation.

a reply to: Akragon

I wonder why a consistent theme in Nag Hammadi literature is polemical against salvationist theology that is distinctly Pauline, yet it was said that they were fond of Paul with some possibly claiming succession from him?

Only 2 short texts that are in the codices mention him and they are a prayer and a revelation that have nothing to do with the real Paul or his theology and other than that he is not a presence. It could be argued some knowledge of his writings is present in a few extracts and that Silvanus is Pauline but it doesn't mention him that I remember, I didn't care for it either.

They showed far more respect to the Apostles and James in any Christ related texts, give him no presence in the longest, most complete and important (imo), the so called Pistis Sophia.

If anything they used the fact that he claimed revelations to give the Apostles further instructions and teachings from Jesus and didn't involve Paul in any stories at all.

Gospel of Truth is the most anti- Pauline piece regarding his faith only theology and instead they insist Gnosis is Salvation, freedom from ignorance and it's stated the ridiculousness of believing that in stating a simple phrase about faith and relying on a simple belief such as the saving effects of the crucifixion.

They seemed to have a low opinion overall for soteriology unless it involved Gnosis, to have regarded the Orthodox Soteriology as ignorant and ignorance inducing, a cancer on par with the schemes of the Yaldabaoth, and viewed that possibly as a scheme of the demiurge to keep people ignorant and from receiving what they considered vital Gnosis.

Paul would have hated the idea of other people having any type of divine Gnosis apart from his "faith only" scheme that requires faith in more than the crucifixion, it also requires faith that Paul's ''revelations" are from Jesus in other matters too and very deceptively as there are more rules to theology than faith in the cross and making a statement of belief but that is a major selling point in the beginning.

Although there are mentions of prophets like Silas and even some prophetesses (I think) in the New Testament, Paul clearly states only his personally revealed to him by "Jesus" "gospel" was the true Gospel and cursed anyone who taught anything other than what he taught including the 12 Apostles.

So I think people that say the Christian Gnostics revered Paul are considering Marcion as one when he was far from it only having the belief in a greater God than Yahweh in common really, and not paying attention to the overall message of the true beliefs of the sects responsible for the surviving literature that is not Marcionite or Pauline in any way whatsoever.

It's weird that those two short texts exist, one even has him joining the Apostles in New Jerusalem which means whoever wrote that noticed he was excluded from it in Revelation of John from the New Testament and was trying to rectify it. It seems like a misfit among an otherwise anti "faith not works is salvation", in the extreme, mixture of sects and teachings all agreeing that Orthodox Pauline salvationist theology was a source of ignorance.

The two major errors I see mentioned are believing that faith alone is salvation and the worship of Yaldabaoth.

Paul would have hated the idea of a Goddess like Sophia, Wisdom being female would have given him a heart attack. And he would have hated the idea of other people experiencing any kind of Gnosis because he didn't think of it himself. He didn't have any knowledge of what Jesus taught but they definitely did because they read the Gospels.

I think Christ definitely would not have minded people trying to Know his Father. His teachings were the basis of a great deal of the texts and beliefs of the so called Gnostics.

Paul himself would have called it "Gnosis, falsley so called" as he calls all knowledge of spiritual or philosophical nature apart from his.

What an arrogant tool Paul was to think he was the sole authority for Revelation, claiming that he ''recieved it from no man" and was the ''only gospel."

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: Malocchio

Originally posted by Malocchio
Regardless the most important and anti Pauline of the Clementina is Homilies and Recognitions which scholars have long noticed that Simon Magus serves as a pseudonym for Paul, it's rather obvious actually.

Well, I’m clearly open to the possibility if my past posts are anything to go by…but if it’s obvious, where’s the evidence, the smoking gun…???

You have to read it and listen to what Simon says, it is not a theory I created but one scholars have long thought. The theme is that any teaching not in line with James is of a false prophet either in the letter of Peter to James or in the H&R themselves and Paul's teachings don't line up with James.

When James death is told of it is by the hand of Saul, which is the case with Josephus but believed to be New Testament Saul in the H&R account as no other Christian testimony mentions the name Saul yet Josephus does so clearly they knew something and avoid naming James murderer Saul the Pharisee when telling it for a reason, maybe Saul/Paul actually did murder James, it's been suggested Stephen's death in Acts is really the death of James but told in a way not to be noticeable or provable at that but it is possible.

Smoking guns don't exist in things like this that are meant to hide who they are really talking about like Simon Magus representing Paul in H&R and maybe even Acts for that matter but in H&R I say it's a virtual certainly.

You would have to read it and decide for yourself if it makes sense, it's a long story but interesting so don't expect to read it in a day but you could if you took the time, I'd say it's as long as the New Testament give or take and definitely served as an important writing of the teachings of Peter that are not for the masses, only to be revealed to those who prove themselves worthy, as the texts say.

Originally posted by Malocchio
I insist that Paul was subservient to Peter in it though, and that it is the most ridiculous book of all the Apocrypha, basically a prop piece.

But doesn’t Paul being subservient though, help support the standard Christian view of Paul and the officially Canonised texts anyway. The verses I quoted (in my previous post) put Paul on equal par with Peter, while the rest of the texts has Paul subservient to Peter…

It kind of fulfils 2 aims…One to make Paul equal with Peter i.e. an Apostle…and secondly to make Paul look humble by appearing subservient to Peter…but we know from other scriptures how Paul treat Peter badly at Antioch in Galatians 2 etc…

In the official scriptures Paul often states he is the lowest of the Apostles…he put’s himself in the lowest position in the eyes of others, but in reality his writings have taken centre stage!…

Paul calls himself the lowest apostle as if was one, he is not, so that is a distraction from the lie and appears to make him humble.

"I think that I am not the least inferior to the chiefest Apostle."

Is another translation of the arch-apostles/super-apostles comment and his TRUE feelings.

His claim to be the recipient of revelations from Christ of ''the true gospel" and many other arrogant statements outweigh an attempt/lie that he is the lowest of the Apostles, a lie that makes him look humble and like an actual Apostle.

Acts of Peter and Paul probably doesn't even belong with the rest of the Clementina Apocryphal books and was a piece of propaganda to support the tradition of Paul and Peter as friends and in Rome, I thought I said that already but could be wrong, I merely pointed out that it has Paul playing second fiddle to Peter because it is clearly a fiction and I don't remember any other reason for bringing it up, I should have said then I don't think it belongs in that collection but I didn't, so I really don't and think it's an Orthodox prop piece.

H&R takes place in Rome and doesn't feature Paul as a tag along or Nero but Clement of Rome and his family and he is Peter's right hand man while Simon Magus seems to me a perfect stand in to hide the fact that it's Paul, and what he says is very much like the things Paul says, I personally agree with the scholars who say this is so.

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: Malocchio

Originally posted by Malocchio
I disagree, Acts of Paul and Thecla is not flattering to Paul at all.

Here’s your problem.

The book “The Acts of Paul of Thecla” because of it’s abrupt start, is considered to have been part of a larger work… that work being the “The Acts of Paul”…

And as you just saw from my previous post the “Acts of Paul” clearly paints Paul in a good light…while ridiculing followers like Hermogenes…

Ridiculing people is not flattering, not a flattering portrayal but one that says, "Paul is a ****." Why would a righteous man be ridiculing anyone? Or anyone telling a story about him who was a fan for that matter as that reflects on Paul.

How does that make him look good?

[Acts of Barnabas has Paul demeaning John Mark who begs for his forgiveness (he forgot some documents before)and, I believe for a purpose calling him "father Paul" which was a forbidden title according to Jesus that Paul applied to himself saying ''I am your father" so I believe it's point is to show Paul as unwilling to forgive and remind people that Paul called himself this in opposition to the wishes of Jesus, who he never met so didn't know, which leads to a logical conclusion that Paul lied about his revelations.]

Back on track though:

Even Peter in H&R doesn't ridicule Simon, he just defeats him intellectually and moves on, never do they agree but he still acts with dignity and not ridicule, even with the philosopher he converts who ends up being Clements father, while debating he is fully respectful and treats the man as an equal.

The thing is though people in the past viewed “The Acts of Paul of Thecla” as romantic literature, they saw Paul teaching chastity and getting thrown in Jail because of it, as being Heroic.

Even Paul’s martyrdom is seen as Heroic. Also the main purpose of the text was to promote chastity among woman. People saw that as following good Christian values and honouring God. The fact that it’s Paul teaching those types things means he’s viewed as the good guy in the story.

You’re just looking at one aspect where Paul makes a bad decision, but overall the text is making Paul look like a hero…

I’m gona have to agree to disagree…
- JC

I have good reasons to also disagree and maintain my position.

I look at the fact that it has Paul teaching something false, that he didn't teach in his own writings (that chastity is a must) and tearing apart a couple by preaching something he didn't teach in his epistles as far from being written to make him appear heroic, just the opposite.

It makes him look like a hypocrite who teaches one thing one place and different in another, or a liar.

The star is Thecla who chooses chastity to maintain her independence because being a wife was like being property at the time.

Paul only reluctantly lets her tag along and refuses to Baptize her.

After being arrested Paul doesn't save her like in a true romance, he doesn't care and does nothing.

God however looks out for Thecla and ends up Baptizing her personally, essentially saying He disagrees with Paul.

That seems clear to me as written to glorify Thecla and make Paul look powerless to save a dedicated disciple even unwilling or uncaring. His refusal to Baptize is anti Christian as the Ethiopian Eunuch was Baptized forthwith so there's no way of excusing the refusal of a Christ ordained rite and right.

God must have felt the same as he was the Hero having protected Thecla, Paul is kind of a jerk, running around breaking up engaged people and preaching the evils of sex.

Antihero if anything. Compare him to the dignified Peter and it's not even a debate. Thecla is not a flattering portrayal of Paul and ridiculing Hermogenes is not heroic, it brutish, bullying even.

originally posted by: Malocchio
a reply to: Akragon

I wonder why a consistent theme in Nag Hammadi literature is polemical against salvationist theology that is distinctly Pauline, yet it was said that they were fond of Paul with some possibly claiming succession from him?

Only 2 short texts that are in the codices mention him and they are a prayer and a revelation that have nothing to do with the real Paul or his theology and other than that he is not a presence. It could be argued some knowledge of his writings is present in a few extracts and that Silvanus is Pauline but it doesn't mention him that I remember, I didn't care for it either.

They showed far more respect to the Apostles and James in any Christ related texts, give him no presence in the longest, most complete and important (imo), the so called Pistis Sophia.

If anything they used the fact that he claimed revelations to give the Apostles further instructions and teachings from Jesus and didn't involve Paul in any stories at all.

Gospel of Truth is the most anti- Pauline piece regarding his faith only theology and instead they insist Gnosis is Salvation, freedom from ignorance and it's stated the ridiculousness of believing that in stating a simple phrase about faith and relying on a simple belief such as the saving effects of the crucifixion.

They seemed to have a low opinion overall for soteriology unless it involved Gnosis, to have regarded the Orthodox Soteriology as ignorant and ignorance inducing, a cancer on par with the schemes of the Yaldabaoth, and viewed that possibly as a scheme of the demiurge to keep people ignorant and from receiving what they considered vital Gnosis.

Paul would have hated the idea of other people having any type of divine Gnosis apart from his "faith only" scheme that requires faith in more than the crucifixion, it also requires faith that Paul's ''revelations" are from Jesus in other matters too and very deceptively as there are more rules to theology than faith in the cross and making a statement of belief but that is a major selling point in the beginning.

Although there are mentions of prophets like Silas and even some prophetesses (I think) in the New Testament, Paul clearly states only his personally revealed to him by "Jesus" "gospel" was the true Gospel and cursed anyone who taught anything other than what he taught including the 12 Apostles.

So I think people that say the Christian Gnostics revered Paul are considering Marcion as one when he was far from it only having the belief in a greater God than Yahweh in common really, and not paying attention to the overall message of the true beliefs of the sects responsible for the surviving literature that is not Marcionite or Pauline in any way whatsoever.

It's weird that those two short texts exist, one even has him joining the Apostles in New Jerusalem which means whoever wrote that noticed he was excluded from it in Revelation of John from the New Testament and was trying to rectify it. It seems like a misfit among an otherwise anti "faith not works is salvation", in the extreme, mixture of sects and teachings all agreeing that Orthodox Pauline salvationist theology was a source of ignorance.

The two major errors I see mentioned are believing that faith alone is salvation and the worship of Yaldabaoth.

Paul would have hated the idea of a Goddess like Sophia, Wisdom being female would have given him a heart attack. And he would have hated the idea of other people experiencing any kind of Gnosis because he didn't think of it himself. He didn't have any knowledge of what Jesus taught but they definitely did because they read the Gospels.

I think Christ definitely would not have minded people trying to Know his Father. His teachings were the basis of a great deal of the texts and beliefs of the so called Gnostics.

Paul himself would have called it "Gnosis, falsley so called" as he calls all knowledge of spiritual or philosophical nature apart from his.

What an arrogant tool Paul was to think he was the sole authority for Revelation, claiming that he ''recieved it from no man" and was the ''only gospel."

Very good post!

a reply to: whereislogic

Originally posted by whereislogic
The Hebrew ba·raʼʹ and the Greek ktiʹzo, both meaning “create,” are used exclusively with reference to divine creation.

That means the word "create" as it relates to those Hebrew and Greek words in the bible is not used in the broad sense that you're using it (as it is used in modern day English). It is exclusively used with reference to only divine creation. So if you switch to the broader modern day meaning when talking about biblical concepts, you will have a hard time understanding why I'm pointing out that Jesus is never referred to as a co-creator or "the Creator" the way Jehovah is as the source of creation.

But the words “create” and “co-creator” are not even used in the verses of Proverbs 8...

It’s pointless defining and outlining the definition of the word “create” and stating it doesn’t apply in one sense or the other…when that word (create) isn’t even in the verses.

But creation is being described within those verses, they just don’t use the word create/creation directly in the text…

A simple example; I can describe someone crying, without ever using the word “cry”, “crying” or even “weeping”…does that mean crying is not being reflected or expressed in what I’ve just written…NO it doesn’t!!!

CREATION is being expressed in those verses though, and then being tied back into the one being brought forth…You need to focus on the grammatics, instead of the definitions of words which aren’t even mentioned in the Chapter…

You’re doing the same thing as before, defining words in a literalistic way instead of looking at what the text is actually describing overall…

Anyway, you haven’t even addressed some of the key points that I’ve raised and this discussion is not even on topic with the thread…Plus, no one else is even putting forward their opinion on our discussion, probably because they see it as being off topic…

Suggestion…set up your own thread outlining your perspective on it, and see what kind of responses you get.

I’ll be seriously surprised if no one tells you you’re wrong…


- JC

a reply to: Malocchio

I think there might be some natural cross over confusion taking place, when discussing the “Acts of Paul”, while also discussing the “Acts of Peter and Paul.”

So for that reason, I’m just going to address the “Acts of Paul” in this post only…

Originally posted by Malocchio
Ridiculing people is not flattering, not a flattering portrayal but one that says, "Paul is a ****." Why would a righteous man be ridiculing anyone? Or anyone telling a story about him who was a fan for that matter as that reflects on Paul.

How does that make him look good?

Yes I understand that. When a text shows somebody attacking someone else (like Hermogenes), the person doing the attacking can be made to look like the bad guy…but that’s clearly not the case with the book “The Acts of Paul”…

And here’s why…

Here’s that extract again that I quoted before from “The Acts of Paul”

The Acts of Paul

1 When Paul went up unto Iconium after he fled from Antioch, there journeyed with him Demas and Hermogenes the coppersmith, which were full of hypocrisy, and flattered Paul as though they loved him. But Paul, looking only unto the goodness of Christ, did them no evil, but loved them well, so that he assayed to make sweet unto them all the oracles of the Lord, and of the teaching and the interpretation (of the Gospel) and of the birth and resurrection of the Beloved, and related unto them word by word all the great works of Christ, how they were revealed unto him (Copt. adds: how that Christ was born of Mary the virgin, and of the seed of David).

As you can see calling Hermogenes a hypocrite, is not being used to make Paul look like a bad guy, because the very next sentence praises Paul’s character by stating “He was full of goodness and loved them well” etc…

The other key point is that Paul isn’t even calling them hypocrites. It’s the writer of the text, who thinks their hypocrites. But the writer also thinks Pauls is a great loving guy too!!!

In fact, you even said yourself on page 58 that you didn’t think “Acts of Paul” belonged to the anti Pauline Clementina…

Here’s you’re quote below…

Originally posted by Malocchio
I never read Acts of Paul to be honest and don't think it would belong to the decidedly anti Pauline Clementina, I think it was thrown in to offset the tone of the rest which is anti Pauline or Pauline absent or has him subservient to Peter.

But here’s the bigger and wider problem with stating the “Acts of Paul and Thelca” was used to attack Paul…

Take a look at this…

The religious romance known as the Acts of Paul and Thecla
has of late become the object of peculiar interest through the
discovery of the long-lost Acts of Paul. 1 While the opening
sentence of the Acts of Paul and Thecla has always been felt to
be abrupt, few scholars were prepared to find that this abrupt-
ness was due to the removal of the romance from a larger work,
the Acts of Paul, of which the Acts of Paul and Thecla originally formed part.

2 The very recent recovery of considerable parts of the Acts of Paul in a Coptic form in a Heidelberg papyrus has already been noticed in American journals, and the fact is here recalled only for its important bearing on the origin of the Acts of Paul and Thecla as a constituent part of that larger work.

Source

“The Acts of Paul” (that I quoted further up which praised Paul) is connected to the book “The Acts of Paul and Thelca”…according to scholars…

For 2 books to be historically related to each other and for one of them to praise Paul, while the other (according to you) makes Paul out to be the bad guy, wouldn’t make any sense…

Originally posted by Malocchio
I look at the fact that it has Paul teaching something false, that he didn't teach in his own writings (that chastity is a must) and tearing apart a couple by preaching something he didn't teach in his epistles as far from being written to make him appear heroic, just the opposite.

Not sure I’m following you here, Paul teaches against fornication in the NT…

Originally posted by Malocchio
The star is Thecla who chooses chastity to maintain her independence because being a wife was like being property at the time.

But in the story Thecla is only the star, because of Paul’s influence on her life. It’s Paul teachings that changed her and make her a star, which again indirectly promotes Paul and his teachings.

The text is making Paul out too look like a normal man who makes mistakes, (keeping him humble; which is what they want to promote) but that overall he’s teaching Gods word and about chastity. Those are the things which are being promoted as good.

Originally posted by Malocchio
After being arrested Paul doesn't save her like in a true romance, he doesn't care and does nothing.

God however looks out for Thecla and ends up Baptizing her personally, essentially saying He disagrees with Paul.

That seems clear to me as written to glorify Thecla and make Paul look powerless to save a dedicated disciple even unwilling or uncaring. His refusal to Baptize is anti Christian as the Ethiopian Eunuch was Baptized forthwith so there's no way of excusing the refusal of a Christ ordained rite and right.

The text has God honouring and helping (baptizing) the person who's remaining chaste, because they want to give God the glory for people/woman remaining chaste, not Paul. But Paul is teaching those things and is thereby seen as following God to the best of his ability, even though he’s not making perfect decisions at every turn…

Anyway, I don’t think any of the text is literally true, it’s really a fictional story trying to promote chaste values…but remember Paul is the one who taught those values…according to the story...


- JC

a reply to: Joecroft

Total side note, take a look at this and tell me if you can make sense of it it's The Epistle of Barnabas

It's not like anything I've read from the Apocrypha, It's in some ancient Bible MS. too.

a reply to: Malocchio

Originally posted by Malocchio
Total side note, take a look at this and tell me if you can make sense of it it's The Epistle of Barnabas

It's not like anything I've read from the Apocrypha, It's in some ancient Bible MS. too.

There was something wrong with your link, but I checked the web address through looking at properties…

Did you mean this link…?


- JC

a reply to: Joecroft

I still don't think Paul is portrayed favorably in those texts for the reasons I stated that need no further explanation. Why is Hermogenes a hypocrite and so what, he calls Barnabas, Peter and the Apostles hypocrites and he had no evidence then either.

Paul and Thecla was read by me in a book of Apocrypha without the Acts of Paul and he is teaching that chastity is a requirement for salvation, not just preaching chastity as a choice but a requirement. Not flattering at all and neither is his accusing Hermogenes of hypocrisy, what did he do?

Either way I already said everything necessary about this.

a reply to: Joecroft

You are not seeing what I am which is how I explained it already which was not more complicated or different from pointing out the individual flaws in his story in the NT but you just look at the supposed complimentary portions like it is of no matter he refused to Baptize someone who was Baptized by God or that he was insisting on chastity as a requirement for salvation.

I see damning evidence that compliments can't pardon him from.

a reply to: Malocchio

Demas and Hermogenes tell the guy in the beginning of the story that Paul deprives husbands from wives and preaches that without chastity there is no salvation.

On page one.

Paul doesn't intervene when Alexander arrests her and condemns her to death for following Paul.

She is only saved because of God, Paul abandoned her after causing her misfortune.

a reply to: Joecroft

Yeah the three letter thing, I forgot to see if I typed it in right but that is it.

a reply to: Joecroft

There were early Church Fathers who considered Thecla a historical account and a Thecla Order of women who were devoted to her.

She represents the independent woman who doesn't need a man like Paul to save her because she pleases God. Paul let her get arrested twice and does nothing to help. I think the takes credit for saving her from the fire through prayer which takes credit from God.

I see problems for Paul all over this story and I think it is more of a parody of Paul and a condemnation, and an exaltation of Thecla.

a reply to: Joecroft
The subject I spoke about in the comment you were responding to was also addressing this comment from Mallochio earlier:

...Just because he was called or compared to the Logos, a Platonic, Stoic and Philonic teaching that was merely borrowed as a title for Jesus in the Philonic fashion of first born of God, the Great High Priest and compared to Melchizedek almost exactly as Philo speaks of the Logos of God.

I have no doubt that whoever wrote John was using the Philonic philosophy to suggest that Jesus was this Logos which means Reason and sometimes Word.
...

Which the rest of that comment ties to the OP. It (the claims above or that way of thinking about history) ignores the following as well as what is in the videos regarding John 1:1 and related verses that I shared and my commentary in general about that subject:

Justin, though claiming to reject pagan philosophy, was the first to use philosophical language and concepts to express “Christian” ideas, considering this type of philosophy “to be safe and profitable.”
...
From this point on, the strategy was, not to oppose philosophy, but to make supposed Christian thought a philosophy higher than that of the pagans.
...
Christianity Distorted
...
Certain teachings were greatly modified. For example, in the Bible, Jesus is called “the Logos,” meaning God’s “Word,” or Spokesman. (John 1:1-3, 14-18; Revelation 19:11-13) Very early on, this teaching was distorted by Justin, who like a philosopher played on the two possible meanings of the Greek word logos: “word” and “reason.” Christians, he said, received the word in the person of Christ himself. However, logos in the sense of reason is found in every man, including pagans. Thus, he concluded, those who live in harmony with reason are Christians, even those who claimed or were thought to be atheists, like Socrates and others.

Moreover, by forcing the tie between Jesus and the logos of Greek philosophy, which was closely linked with the person of God, the apologists, including Tertullian, embarked on a course that eventually led Christianity to the Trinity dogma. (see the article The Paradox of Tertullian)

Source: The Apologists—Christian Defenders or Would-Be Philosophers?

Here's a comment with more details and another discussion I had about it some time ago with windword.

a reply to: Malocchio

Originally posted by Malocchio
Yeah the three letter thing, I forgot to see if I typed it in right but that is it.

I think it’s showing that gnosis is encoded within Jesus initials in the form of IHT, rather than the well known IHS…

It states the “cross” was to express his grace only; emphasis on “express”.

Seeing as Jesus was crucified upon a tree…the T probably represents a “Tree”, and symbolizes a return to the way of the Tree of life…

There could be some sacred geometry mixed in there too, as the letters combined together form a square grid of 2 by 2…


- JC

a reply to: whereislogic

Originally posted by whereislogic
The subject I spoke about in the comment you were responding to was also addressing this comment from Mallochio earlier:


...Just because he was called or compared to the Logos, a Platonic, Stoic and Philonic teaching that was merely borrowed as a title for Jesus in the Philonic fashion of first born of God, the Great High Priest and compared to Melchizedek almost exactly as Philo speaks of the Logos of God.


I have no doubt that whoever wrote John was using the Philonic philosophy to suggest that Jesus was this Logos which means Reason and sometimes Word.
...

Which the rest of that comment ties to the OP. It (the claims above or that way of thinking about history) ignores the following as well as what is in the videos regarding John 1:1 and related verses that I shared and my commentary in general about that subject:


Justin, though claiming to reject pagan philosophy, was the first to use philosophical language and concepts to express “Christian” ideas, considering this type of philosophy “to be safe and profitable.”
...
From this point on, the strategy was, not to oppose philosophy, but to make supposed Christian thought a philosophy higher than that of the pagans.
...
Christianity Distorted
...
Certain teachings were greatly modified. For example, in the Bible, Jesus is called “the Logos,” meaning God’s “Word,” or Spokesman. (John 1:1-3, 14-18; Revelation 19:11-13) Very early on, this teaching was distorted by Justin, who like a philosopher played on the two possible meanings of the Greek word logos: “word” and “reason.” Christians, he said, received the word in the person of Christ himself. However, logos in the sense of reason is found in every man, including pagans. Thus, he concluded, those who live in harmony with reason are Christians, even those who claimed or were thought to be atheists, like Socrates and others.

Moreover, by forcing the tie between Jesus and the logos of Greek philosophy, which was closely linked with the person of God, the apologists, including Tertullian, embarked on a course that eventually led Christianity to the Trinity dogma. (see the article The Paradox of Tertullian)


Source: The Apologists—Christian Defenders or Would-Be Philosophers?

Here's a comment with more details and another discussion I had about it some time ago with windword.

But those aspects have nothing to do with me, or my position and I didn’t even write that post…

I think maybe you’ve got the wrong idea. I haven’t been defending the Trinity throughout this entire discussion and I don’t accept the Trinitarian view…I have my unique perspective on it…

And the philosophy (Justin) you quoted, is not being defined correctly, because having reason does not automatically mean you know God…Simple example, atheists have reason but they don’t know God…

Although perhaps your quote which describes Justin's philosophy is biased, and is only referring to “them” as atheists, because they are not Christians…

Anyway, none of those things you quoted above reflects my own position…

Perhaps you would be better off discussing that topic with someone else…


- JC

a reply to: Malocchio

Originally posted by Malocchio
Demas and Hermogenes tell the guy in the beginning of the story that Paul deprives husbands from wives and preaches that without chastity there is no salvation.

But remember my previous quote from the Acts of Paul…where the WRITER accuses Demas and Hermongenes of being full of hypocrisy…

Because of the text demonizing Demas and Hermongenes further up, (i.e. Making them out to be the bad guys) I think it has to be inferred that Demas and Hermongenes are lying about Paul teaching those things; which in turn has to be compared to Pauls speech from verses 5 to 6…

I don’t think Paul is teaching that there is no salvation without chastity in those verses (5-6), but he’s certainly suggesting that chastity is good trait…

Also those verses (5-6), are making Paul mimic a similar style to that of Jesus sermon on the mount; they’re clearly trying to paint Paul as some great righteous teacher…

Originally posted by Malocchio
Paul doesn't intervene when Alexander arrests her and condemns her to death for following Paul.

But assuming it’s literally true, (Which I don’t btw) what could Paul or anyone else have possibly done; he can hardly overturn the authorities decision on his own…

Plus Pauls the one who taught her those things…they’re hardly going to listen to Paul of all people, even if he did try to intervene…

Originally posted by Malocchio
She is only saved because of God, Paul abandoned her after causing her misfortune.

But none of this story can be literally true, there are too many fanciful elements in it, for it to be real…

Also the storyteller wants Thecla to be saved by God, that’s the whole plan for the narrative…it’s set up that way by the writer, so that no one will save her, except God alone…


- JC

a reply to: Joecroft

There is no reason to infer that they were lying, the author doesn't infer it so why would anyone?

This unproven alleged hypocrisy doesn't seem convincing to me, I don't think it is any different than Paul accusing the Apostles of hypocrisy, it is no different.

No evidence, and Paul is known for making accusations without evidence, so again why should I believe it without evidence.

Believing that Hermogenes and Demas were lying because Paul of all people accuses them of hypocrisy without evidence is bad analysis.

The author doesn't say "Hermogenes and Demas falsey told..."

He says they told it, that's that. He leaves no indication of or reason to believe that they BOTH lied.

So why should I infer what is not there?