Did Paul’s “mystery/Universal Christ” theology/revelation contribute to Gnostic Christology? Was that debate between orthodoxy and Gnosticism more fluid than I understood from my divinity school training?
The earliest gnostic sources all point to Paul as the one who “unlocked” their understanding of Xristos/Christ.
Again, “Christ” was not Jesus to many Christ-worshippers. They worshipped the “Christ-meme” and rejected the argument that Yehoshua bar-Yosef was the human incarnation of the Christos/Logos.
John and Paul both argued that he was, in fact, that same incarnation - though John disagreed FORCEFULLY with Paul over the meanings and mechanics of that claim. Largely because Paul “unlocked” gnosticism associated with Yehoshua (docetism, Marionites, Nicolaitians, etc.).
I believe the Universal Christ idea (doctrine?) is true or points to spiritual truth. But it seems to me that John’s “Word made flesh” teaching would support that understanding of Christos. He certainly believed Jesus was more than simply human. So would John have also contributed some seeds to the gnostic patch?
If I understand a little of your article, was John accusing Paul of antinomianism while Paul was accusing the apostles of being too soft on grace? Is this overstating your points?
My apologies for asking you to clarify what I might have learned if I’d taken Hebrew and more than just one year of Greek! And thank you for taking your time to reply.
I would say that Peter and Paul were influenced by Libertini constructions of earliest Christian doctrines, developing Petrine and Pauline schools of Christianity. John and Peter shared much more in common than Paul and anyone else, so the Johannines would also be described as earliest proto-orthodox Christians as well - though remember, their version of Christianity varied greatly from Paul's (and even Peter's).
The Ebyonim, as I have been recovering them, were heterodoxical but highly orthopraxical, meaning that they believed different things about Yehoshua and the Messiah than the others did, but they were committed to the same corpus of teachings and practices as all of the traditions linked to the original Twelve.
Paul has always stood apart from the Twelve.
Also, antinomianism was two things then that it has never been for us moderns.
1. Anti-nomian (against the law) is not a generic posture for Paul. It is against a very specific "law" - namely the Sinai Constitution of Moses. Paul was anti-Torah and all of his contemporaries were very clear about that point.
2. Direct revelation was not "bad" in Yahwism. It was a hinge of the Sinai Constitution. Namely, for the prophets. They were spoken to directly by YHWH, had to speak specifically with the formulation, "This is what YHWH has said" ("thus says 'the Lord'") and absolutely HAD to stay within the guardrails established by Deuteronomy 13 and 18. If they violated any of those terms, their prophethood credentials (and the political protections they were afforded) were voided and they were killed.
This is what the successors of the Twelve said about Paul when they called him an apostatos: apostate. He violated Deuteronomy 13 and 18 on every major point those chapters established. And when he was "busted" and the Jerusalem leadership held him to account, he started calling the Torah a "curse", the circumcision (which WAS the Covenant of Abraham) was "multilation", the leaders who extricated him became (mockingly) "Super Apostles") and "dogs". He fantasized openly about their castration in Galatians. He called his observance of Torah (via Hillelite takkanot) as "shit" (literally). He called those who stayed loyal to the Sinai Covenant "slaves" and "weak" for following the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15.
He got real ugly, real fast. He never apologized for participating in Stephen's murder. He justified it to his last day. He never made amends for those he killed, hunted, or arrested.
I don't see any evidence that he ever "converted" or was radically altered in any way by the teachings or example or praxes of Jesus.
Did Paul’s “mystery/Universal Christ” theology/revelation contribute to Gnostic Christology? Was that debate between orthodoxy and Gnosticism more fluid than I understood from my divinity school training?
The earliest gnostic sources all point to Paul as the one who “unlocked” their understanding of Xristos/Christ.
Again, “Christ” was not Jesus to many Christ-worshippers. They worshipped the “Christ-meme” and rejected the argument that Yehoshua bar-Yosef was the human incarnation of the Christos/Logos.
John and Paul both argued that he was, in fact, that same incarnation - though John disagreed FORCEFULLY with Paul over the meanings and mechanics of that claim. Largely because Paul “unlocked” gnosticism associated with Yehoshua (docetism, Marionites, Nicolaitians, etc.).
I believe the Universal Christ idea (doctrine?) is true or points to spiritual truth. But it seems to me that John’s “Word made flesh” teaching would support that understanding of Christos. He certainly believed Jesus was more than simply human. So would John have also contributed some seeds to the gnostic patch?
If I understand a little of your article, was John accusing Paul of antinomianism while Paul was accusing the apostles of being too soft on grace? Is this overstating your points?
My apologies for asking you to clarify what I might have learned if I’d taken Hebrew and more than just one year of Greek! And thank you for taking your time to reply.
I would say that Peter and Paul were influenced by Libertini constructions of earliest Christian doctrines, developing Petrine and Pauline schools of Christianity. John and Peter shared much more in common than Paul and anyone else, so the Johannines would also be described as earliest proto-orthodox Christians as well - though remember, their version of Christianity varied greatly from Paul's (and even Peter's).
The Ebyonim, as I have been recovering them, were heterodoxical but highly orthopraxical, meaning that they believed different things about Yehoshua and the Messiah than the others did, but they were committed to the same corpus of teachings and practices as all of the traditions linked to the original Twelve.
Paul has always stood apart from the Twelve.
Also, antinomianism was two things then that it has never been for us moderns.
1. Anti-nomian (against the law) is not a generic posture for Paul. It is against a very specific "law" - namely the Sinai Constitution of Moses. Paul was anti-Torah and all of his contemporaries were very clear about that point.
2. Direct revelation was not "bad" in Yahwism. It was a hinge of the Sinai Constitution. Namely, for the prophets. They were spoken to directly by YHWH, had to speak specifically with the formulation, "This is what YHWH has said" ("thus says 'the Lord'") and absolutely HAD to stay within the guardrails established by Deuteronomy 13 and 18. If they violated any of those terms, their prophethood credentials (and the political protections they were afforded) were voided and they were killed.
This is what the successors of the Twelve said about Paul when they called him an apostatos: apostate. He violated Deuteronomy 13 and 18 on every major point those chapters established. And when he was "busted" and the Jerusalem leadership held him to account, he started calling the Torah a "curse", the circumcision (which WAS the Covenant of Abraham) was "multilation", the leaders who extricated him became (mockingly) "Super Apostles") and "dogs". He fantasized openly about their castration in Galatians. He called his observance of Torah (via Hillelite takkanot) as "shit" (literally). He called those who stayed loyal to the Sinai Covenant "slaves" and "weak" for following the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15.
He got real ugly, real fast. He never apologized for participating in Stephen's murder. He justified it to his last day. He never made amends for those he killed, hunted, or arrested.
I don't see any evidence that he ever "converted" or was radically altered in any way by the teachings or example or praxes of Jesus.