Evan Allen wrote:The idea that there is an increasing trajectory of Christology depends on a second century date for the Pauline epistles, otherwise it shatters into pieces. The Pauline author is none-too-subtle about the characteristics of his Jesus, using the name for the god of the Tanakh for him "Lord". So which is it? Is there an initially high Christology, that of the epistles? Or is there an initially low Christology, that of Q?

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If the low Christology Q predates the Pauline epistles, then Paul cannot be a witness to the historical Jesus and all arguments that attempt to use his witness must be abandoned. If the high Christology Paul predates Q, then clearly we see a trend toward Euhemerism.

That's made me think.

I'm thinking I'd ditch the 'increasing Christology' rather that the conventional dating of Paul.

Btw, I also thought your comparison with Beowulf was interesting.

logical bob wrote:... yeah, but you have to remember the increasing Christology.

So we date and sequence the texts based on an assumed 'increasing christology'....

...and then cite the 'increasing christology' in sequence of texts as proof of an alleged 'increasing christology'?



OTOH if Paul really does pre-date the gospels we have a 'decreasing christology' on our hands!

You do realise that was a joke, don't you?

Mus Ponticus wrote:

logical bob wrote:I've got nothing against the view that Matthew and Luke are embarrassed by the Baptism and try to play it down. As we know they got it from Mark there's no suggestion they made it up. As Mark seems to feel that Jesus only became the Son of God when he was baptised it doesn't appear to be embarrassing for him. We don't know whether John was familiar with the other gospels and removed the baptism because it was embarrassing or whether the dove descending on Jesus was from an even wider tradition and John is fully independent. In the latter scenario, having a fairly major figure and rival messianic claimant like John announce that Jesus is the Lamb of God isn't obviously embarrassing.

Exactly. Logical bob is logical!

That is like SAYING Jesus Christ was Christ because that is his name in the Canon.

It is NOT at all logical that it was embarrassing that John baptized an obscure human being.

HJers are arguing that Jesus was an obscure man when he was baptized so there could have been NO embarrassment at all.

Even in the Jesus story of gMark, if we remove the Holy Ghost Bird and the voice from heaven, John the Baptist would NOT have recognised Jesus at all. It was the Holy Ghost Bird and the voice from heaven , the FICTION, that made John recognise Jesus.

The Baptism of Jesus in gMark OCCUPIES one single verse in gMark if we remove and ignore the MAGIC. Mark 1.9

The Jesus story ENDS at Mark 1.9 if it was NOT for the MAGIC.

The embarrassment of the Baptism for the remission of Sins by John ONLY happens if Jesus was considered God's Son, the creator of heaven and earth, born of a HOLY Spirit.

Evan Allen wrote:...The fact is that Mark's provenance is no more specific than that of Beowulf. Therefore any guessing about what did or didn't embarrass Mark, or what must have been true or must not have been true in Mark is as silly as any similar guessing about Beowulf.

The baptism of Jesus in gMark has ZERO historical value.

It is a story of FICTION.

In gMark 1.9-11, Jesus was baptized and there appeared a Holy Ghost Bird and a Voice from heaven.

It is just higly illogical and quite embarrassing to project such a fable as history.

logical bob wrote:You do realise that was a joke, don't you?

The whistle tipped me off.

But it's fun to repeat the elements of the circular argument!

Evan Allen wrote:The idea that there is an increasing trajectory of Christology depends on a second century date for the Pauline epistles, otherwise it shatters into pieces. The Pauline author is none-too-subtle about the characteristics of his Jesus, using the name for the god of the Tanakh for him "Lord".

That is greatly overstating it. Paul uses the Greek word 'kurios' to refer to Jesus. The Septuagint also uses the word 'kurios' to translate the Hebrew name for god in the Tanakh, YHWH. That by no way means that Paul intended to suggest Jesus was YHWH. (The Septuagint also uses 'kurios' to translate the Hebrew words for 'lord/master'.)

Though I do think Paul's ideas were probably a strong factor in the increasing christology.

So which is it? Is there an initially high Christology, that of the epistles? Or is there an initially low Christology, that of Q?

Not the former. Your premise is not established.
[edited to correct rushed post]

logical bob wrote:

Corky wrote:

logical bob wrote:
I'll not deny that in this thread at the moment the mythers, primarily Corky and angelo, are by far the worst offenders because they do this on two levels. Any origin will do as long as it serves the higher purpose of dissing Jebu$ and they aren't searching the sources, just the internet. It's catharsis more than argument.

#1 - I'm not a myther.
#2 - I don't care if the origin of Xianity is a historical "Jebu$" or not.
#3 - It's Jesus not Jebus.
#4 - All the relevant "sources" with their relevant passages are on the Internet, therefore, there is no need to visit the Vatican to look at the "sources" in Latin or Greek.
#5 - All the relevant sources have already been searched - and only problematic passages have ever been found in hundreds of years of searching by the "experts" and the results are readily available on the Internet and have been copied several times in this very thread.

Look, you post such stunning logic as "most things to do with religion are made up so why not Jesus", back it up with a link to an "authentic" version of Galatians without 1:19 and when you get called on the fact that the same translator has "authentic" versions on the web with 1:19 you go off on a rant about how the Church tortured people. Forgive me if I don't keep track of all your insightful opinions about everything.

I could go on to point out "Paul's" letter to the Ephesians - it's a forgery, right? A pretty good one too and billions of Xians believe it was written by Paul. How much more simple would adding a verse or four to Galatians be? What are the odds and probabilities when the "orthodox" church wants to give Peter the per-imminence in the early church? I would say the odds are highly in favor of Gal. 1:18-19 and Gal. 2:7-8 being forgeries.

I gave a website where you could read the PDF version of Marcion's Galatians - that someone else wants to change and/or misquote what the author (Jon Mahar) has said on some other website is not my fault.

To me, the forged letters of Paul are testimony to the fact that the forgers were not clumsy or stupid people but highly educated religious con-men whose capabilities to forge documents are extremely underestimated in this thread.

Evan Allen wrote:The idea that there is an increasing trajectory of Christology depends on a second century date for the Pauline epistles, otherwise it shatters into pieces. The Pauline author is none-too-subtle about the characteristics of his Jesus, using the name for the god of the Tanakh for him "Lord". So which is it? Is there an initially high Christology, that of the epistles? Or is there an initially low Christology, that of Q?

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If the low Christology Q predates the Pauline epistles, then Paul cannot be a witness to the historical Jesus and all arguments that attempt to use his witness must be abandoned. If the high Christology Paul predates Q, then clearly we see a trend toward Euhemerism.

The trend seems to be from man to god:

1. Q's Jesus was a prophet, "first among equals" as Arnal puts it.
2. Paul's Jesus was born as a man but then appointed Son of God at the resurrection.
3. Mark's Jesus was born a man but appointed Son of God at his baptism.
4. Matthew and Luke's Jesus was born of a virgin and was Son of God from birth.
5. John's Jesus was a pre-existing being.

You can see the steady progression there. If Paul's letters were written in the Second Century, either by Paul or forged in his name, then it is surprising that we also see a Jesus who becomes a Son of God only at his death. All the Gospels put this earlier in Jesus' life.

To me, the Q community were a group of end-times itinerant preachers, out of which Jesus emerged as just another prophet. Reconstructions of Q suggest that Jesus' death, if noted at all, doesn't appear to have signficance, i.e. no resurrection. That would be a later development. From this community we get the Ebionites.

Sometime after Jesus' death, people started to have visions of the Risen Jesus. This is the "high Christology" we see in Paul and the Gospels. But if you read Paul for how he describes Jesus before death and after death, the pre-resurrection Jesus -- Jesus "according to the flesh" -- appears to be portrayed as a man; i.e. seed of David and Abraham, a Jew from the Israelites, etc. For example:

Rom 1:3-4: [Christ Jesus. . .] who came from the seed of David according to the flesh, who was appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead"

Rom 9:3: For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites... 5 of whom [are] the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ [came]...

But Paul tells us he isn't interested in that Jesus:

2 Cor 5:16: ... Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.

The question here is: who is the "we" who once "regarded Christ according to the flesh"? To me, this sounds like Paul is rejecting the Jesus of the Q community.

So the progression in my view is this:

1. There is a Q community of itinerant end times preachers, preaching that the Jews need to return to God as the world was coming to an end. The community included John the Baptist.
2. Jesus emerges from this community, preaching their message. He gradually rises to prominence during his life.
3. Jesus goes to Jerusalem and is crucified.
4. People see visions of the risen Jesus, an indication of his relationship to God. Jesus is the first-fruits of the general resurrection to come, proof indeed that the end of times is at hand.
5. James, Peter and the Jerusalem church preach a Risen Christ who came to fulfill the Law and save the Jews. (The Q community in my view don't see any significance in Jesus' death at this stage.)
6. Paul comes along and says, "Let's focus on the significance of Jesus' death. Forget about Jesus according to the flesh."
7. Paul clashes with the Jewish Christians on aspects of the Law.
8. Paul takes his message to the Gentiles.
9. Mark writes his Gospel, from Q sources and from Pauline Christians. Matthew writes his, including Jewish Christian sources. Luke tried to bring them together. John ate some mushrooms.

By the start of the Second Century, Jesus has been further deified. Not only wasn't Jesus born (even as a god like in John), he didn't even come in the flesh! And he didn't come just to save everyone through the cross, but he imparted secret knowledge to people to help them save themselves. All this can be seen as a progression from "Jesus as man" in Q, assuming the time-lines for when the materials were written are accurate.

Corky wrote:

logical bob wrote:

Corky wrote:

logical bob wrote:
I'll not deny that in this thread at the moment the mythers, primarily Corky and angelo, are by far the worst offenders because they do this on two levels. Any origin will do as long as it serves the higher purpose of dissing Jebu$ and they aren't searching the sources, just the internet. It's catharsis more than argument.

#1 - I'm not a myther.
#2 - I don't care if the origin of Xianity is a historical "Jebu$" or not.
#3 - It's Jesus not Jebus.
#4 - All the relevant "sources" with their relevant passages are on the Internet, therefore, there is no need to visit the Vatican to look at the "sources" in Latin or Greek.
#5 - All the relevant sources have already been searched - and only problematic passages have ever been found in hundreds of years of searching by the "experts" and the results are readily available on the Internet and have been copied several times in this very thread.

Look, you post such stunning logic as "most things to do with religion are made up so why not Jesus", back it up with a link to an "authentic" version of Galatians without 1:19 and when you get called on the fact that the same translator has "authentic" versions on the web with 1:19 you go off on a rant about how the Church tortured people. Forgive me if I don't keep track of all your insightful opinions about everything.

I could go on to point out "Paul's" letter to the Ephesians - it's a forgery, right? A pretty good one too and billions of Xians believe it was written by Paul. How much more simple would adding a verse or four to Galatians be? What are the odds and probabilities when the "orthodox" church wants to give Peter the per-imminence in the early church? I would say the odds are highly in favor of Gal. 1:18-19 and Gal. 2:7-8 being forgeries.

I gave a website where you could read the PDF version of Marcion's Galatians - that someone else wants to change and/or misquote what the author (Jon Mahar) has said on some other website is not my fault.

To me, the forged letters of Paul are testimony to the fact that the forgers were not clumsy or stupid people but highly educated religious con-men whose capabilities to forge documents are extremely underestimated in this thread.

You're quite right. I don't think all the meddling was clumsily done, nor do I think all the meddling has been discovered.

I agree Gal. 2:7-8 is likely to be an insertion.

If not, it blows the 'Cephas = Peter' view out of the water...

MS2 wrote:

Evan Allen wrote:The idea that there is an increasing trajectory of Christology depends on a second century date for the Pauline epistles, otherwise it shatters into pieces. The Pauline author is none-too-subtle about the characteristics of his Jesus, using the name for the god of the Tanakh for him "Lord".

That is greatly overstating it. Paul uses the Greek word 'kurios' to refer to Jesus. The Septuagint also uses the word 'kurios' to translate the Hebrew name for god in the Tanakh, YHWH. That by no way means that Paul intended to suggest Jesus was YHWH. (The Septuagint also uses 'kurios' to translate the Hebrew words for 'lord/master'.)

Though I do think Paul's ideas were probably a strong factor in the increasing christology.

So which is it? Is there an initially high Christology, that of the epistles? Or is there an initially low Christology, that of Q?

Neither. Your premise is not established.

Well I assume you haven't read the Pauline epistles then.

"Who (referencing Jesus), being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them"

So a Christ who is the image of God may not be binitarian or trinitarian, but he's certainly not a regular dude working on some cabinets. This is a very high christology.

dejuror wrote:

MS2 wrote:I don't think it is the fact of baptism that is argued to be embarrassing, but the baptism by John [edit: as opposed to 'by God']. And it is argued that the developing embarrassment suggests a developing view of Jesus's high status. Which in turn suggests that early on he was seen as 'just a man'. This obviously doesn't prove that he existed, but does seem to tell us about how he was seen early on.

Your claim is horribly illogical.

It would NOT at all be embarrassing for John to have baptized Human beings after all that is EXACTLY what he was doing--Baptizing human beings.

It would ONLY be embarrassing and ridiculous for John to have Baptized the Son of God, the Creator, for the Remission of Sins.

Please explain how it SUDDENLY becomes embarrassing for John to have baptized a supposed obscure human being ?

And, please do NOT ever forget about Paul. Once you claim Paul preached Christ Crucified, and Resurrected, the Universal Savior and Lord of all since 37-41 CE then all claims of LATER embellishments are DESTROYED.

Based on the Canon, soon after Jesus died, and resurrected Paul was ALL over the Roman Empire with MASSIVE EMBELLISHMENTS [False Claims] that lasted for at LEAST 17 year

Better than that - explain why Paul wasn't and didn't have to be baptized when Jesus was and did.

Evan Allen wrote:

MS2 wrote:

Evan Allen wrote:The idea that there is an increasing trajectory of Christology depends on a second century date for the Pauline epistles, otherwise it shatters into pieces. The Pauline author is none-too-subtle about the characteristics of his Jesus, using the name for the god of the Tanakh for him "Lord".

That is greatly overstating it. Paul uses the Greek word 'kurios' to refer to Jesus. The Septuagint also uses the word 'kurios' to translate the Hebrew name for god in the Tanakh, YHWH. That by no way means that Paul intended to suggest Jesus was YHWH. (The Septuagint also uses 'kurios' to translate the Hebrew words for 'lord/master'.)

Though I do think Paul's ideas were probably a strong factor in the increasing christology.

So which is it? Is there an initially high Christology, that of the epistles? Or is there an initially low Christology, that of Q?

Neither. Your premise is not established.

Well I assume you haven't read the Pauline epistles then.

"Who (referencing Jesus), being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them"

So a Christ who is the image of God may not be binitarian or trinitarian, but he's certainly not a regular dude working on some cabinets. This is a very high christology.

Likewise Colossians seems to hold this Jesus in rather an exalted view:

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

proudfootz wrote:

logical bob wrote:... yeah, but you have to remember the increasing Christology.

So we date and sequence the texts based on an assumed 'increasing christology'....

...and then cite the 'increasing christology' in sequence of texts as proof of an alleged 'increasing christology'?



OTOH if Paul really does pre-date the gospels we have a 'decreasing christology' on our hands!

You may be only joking, I don't know, but that is actually a good point. In fact, it's almost as if "Mark" had never heard of Paul.

Evan Allen wrote:

MS2 wrote:

Evan Allen wrote:The idea that there is an increasing trajectory of Christology depends on a second century date for the Pauline epistles, otherwise it shatters into pieces. The Pauline author is none-too-subtle about the characteristics of his Jesus, using the name for the god of the Tanakh for him "Lord".

That is greatly overstating it. Paul uses the Greek word 'kurios' to refer to Jesus. The Septuagint also uses the word 'kurios' to translate the Hebrew name for god in the Tanakh, YHWH. That by no way means that Paul intended to suggest Jesus was YHWH. (The Septuagint also uses 'kurios' to translate the Hebrew words for 'lord/master'.)

Though I do think Paul's ideas were probably a strong factor in the increasing christology.

So which is it? Is there an initially high Christology, that of the epistles? Or is there an initially low Christology, that of Q?

Neither. Your premise is not established.

Well I assume you haven't read the Pauline epistles then.

Assume nothing!

"Who (referencing Jesus), being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them"

You based your argument on 'Lord', not on these. The first quote is likely to be Paul quoting an early Christian hymn, rather than it originating with him. But it is true that it it can be read as suggestive of what can be seen as an 'elevated' view of Jesus. If it is a quote I don't think it tells us how Paul thought of Jesus and the trouble is that nobody is very sure how it should be read and what the words translated as 'in the form of God' might mean. I accept it is one piece of evidence which runs counter to a strong 'low christology' view, but I don't think it is enough to overturn what the other evidence points to. I tend to think it is suggestive of Paul and others moving toward a higher christology (there is no need to think they were internally consistent), but doesn't prevent us thinking of the sort of progression g'don has outlined above. Similarly with the 'who is the image of God' quote.

Corky wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

logical bob wrote:... yeah, but you have to remember the increasing Christology.

So we date and sequence the texts based on an assumed 'increasing christology'....

...and then cite the 'increasing christology' in sequence of texts as proof of an alleged 'increasing christology'?



OTOH if Paul really does pre-date the gospels we have a 'decreasing christology' on our hands!

You may be only joking, I don't know, but that is actually a good point. In fact, it's almost as if "Mark" had never heard of Paul.

It's my contention there may not be any 'one christianity' in the first place - that's making an assumption it has an origin in one place and time, and a linear trajectory. That might not be the case at all.

So it's kind of silly to say the 'christology level' is all going one way or the other. Some communities may have had more, others less. Only at a later date was there a central authority to put the stamp of 'orthodoxy' on what christians were supposed to believe. It seems like in the 1st century it was every man for himself!

So the communities that produced gMark might never have heard of Paul, and Paul might never have heard of 'Jesus of Nazareth' - the two were only awkwardly joined up later when a canon of 'new scripture' was being created by picking and choosing among a bewildering array of possible 'chritianities'.

GakuseiDon wrote:The trend seems to be from man to god:

1. Q's Jesus was a prophet, "first among equals" as Arnal puts it.
2. Paul's Jesus was born as a man but then appointed Son of God at the resurrection.
3. Mark's Jesus was born a man but appointed Son of God at his baptism.
4. Matthew and Luke's Jesus was born of a virgin and was Son of God from birth.
5. John's Jesus was a pre-existing being.

You can see the steady progression there.

Well, I don't think you can, at least in the earliest phases.

Working on the existence of Q, we have no material that can represent the last phase of the life of Jesus. We don't know what the writers of this document could have thought about Jesus in the light of his death. The placing of Q in the first slot above is merely based on silence.

I work under the assumption that the few detailed fragments of the life of Jesus now found in the Pauline corpus are not the work of Paul for various reasons (already discussed, but repeatable if necessary). What we do see in Paul is reference to the suitability or qualifications of Jesus for his role of saviour through substitute sacrifice, his birth of a woman, of the tribe of Israel, under the law, sinlessness. Paul provides no life of Jesus, just his death. This makes Q a far more sophisticated picture of the Jesus. It is probable then that the writers of Q knew about the death of Jesus but refrained from presenting it and thus the nature of Jesus in Q has been obscured through omission. It cannot help you in your trend from man to god for Jesus.

The rest of your post elaborates on the assumption you make as to the chronology of the literary developments and your own overinterpretation of Paul.

proudfootz wrote:

Corky wrote:

logical bob wrote:

Corky wrote:
#1 - I'm not a myther.
#2 - I don't care if the origin of Xianity is a historical "Jebu$" or not.
#3 - It's Jesus not Jebus.
#4 - All the relevant "sources" with their relevant passages are on the Internet, therefore, there is no need to visit the Vatican to look at the "sources" in Latin or Greek.
#5 - All the relevant sources have already been searched - and only problematic passages have ever been found in hundreds of years of searching by the "experts" and the results are readily available on the Internet and have been copied several times in this very thread.

Look, you post such stunning logic as "most things to do with religion are made up so why not Jesus", back it up with a link to an "authentic" version of Galatians without 1:19 and when you get called on the fact that the same translator has "authentic" versions on the web with 1:19 you go off on a rant about how the Church tortured people. Forgive me if I don't keep track of all your insightful opinions about everything.

I could go on to point out "Paul's" letter to the Ephesians - it's a forgery, right? A pretty good one too and billions of Xians believe it was written by Paul. How much more simple would adding a verse or four to Galatians be? What are the odds and probabilities when the "orthodox" church wants to give Peter the per-imminence in the early church? I would say the odds are highly in favor of Gal. 1:18-19 and Gal. 2:7-8 being forgeries.

I gave a website where you could read the PDF version of Marcion's Galatians - that someone else wants to change and/or misquote what the author (Jon Mahar) has said on some other website is not my fault.

To me, the forged letters of Paul are testimony to the fact that the forgers were not clumsy or stupid people but highly educated religious con-men whose capabilities to forge documents are extremely underestimated in this thread.

You're quite right. I don't think all the meddling was clumsily done, nor do I think all the meddling has been discovered.

I agree Gal. 2:7-8 is likely to be an insertion.

If not, it blows the 'Cephas = Peter' view out of the water...

I don't think that "Peter" even existed at the time of Paul's writings. I think Peter was probably some high mucky muck in the church in the aftermath of the first Jewish war (possibly the author of the epistles by that name) but didn't exist at the time of Paul. It doesn't make sense that a man who was going by an alias, "Peter", would also need another alias, "Cephas", because Peter's real name was supposedly "Simon bar Jonah" and sometimes called "Simon Peter" = no "Cephas" can be derived from any of those names and nick names. Why would Paul call one man two different names in the same passage?

Theory: Peter was a high mucky muck in the church after the first Jewish war and when the gospels were written he was written in as Jesus' right hand man to give him even more authority in the second generation church - "Pope", even.

Evan Allen wrote:

MS2 wrote:

Evan Allen wrote:So which is it? Is there an initially high Christology, that of the epistles? Or is there an initially low Christology, that of Q?

Neither. Your premise is not established.

Well I assume you haven't read the Pauline epistles then.

"Who (referencing Jesus), being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them"

So a Christ who is the image of God may not be binitarian or trinitarian, but he's certainly not a regular dude working on some cabinets. This is a very high christology.

Actually, Dunn believes this is an example of an "Adam Christology". Paul thought that Jesus was the second Adam. In that sense, "Who , being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" is a reference to Adam, who was in the image of God (Dunn makes the point that "image" and "form" being equivalents in ancient Greek). Adam eat the fruit to become like a god, and was punished for it. Jesus, on the other hand, was also in the image of God, but came as a servant. (I cover this briefly in my review of Doherty's latest book here and you can read Dunn's explanation here)

"Christ, who is the image of God" is the same. Christ, like Adam, is the image of God. So it may not necessarily be a sign of a high Christology at all.

proudfootz wrote:

Corky wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

logical bob wrote:... yeah, but you have to remember the increasing Christology.

So we date and sequence the texts based on an assumed 'increasing christology'....

...and then cite the 'increasing christology' in sequence of texts as proof of an alleged 'increasing christology'?



OTOH if Paul really does pre-date the gospels we have a 'decreasing christology' on our hands!

You may be only joking, I don't know, but that is actually a good point. In fact, it's almost as if "Mark" had never heard of Paul.

It's my contention there may not be any 'one christianity' in the first place - that's making an assumption it has an origin in one place and time, and a linear trajectory. That might not be the case at all.

So it's kind of silly to say the 'christology level' is all going one way or the other. Some communities may have had more, others less. Only at a later date was there a central authority to put the stamp of 'orthodoxy' on what christians were supposed to believe. It seems like in the 1st century it was every man for himself!

So the communities that produced gMark might never have heard of Paul, and Paul might never have heard of 'Jesus of Nazareth' - the two were only awkwardly joined up later when a canon of 'new scripture' was being created by picking and choosing among a bewildering array of possible 'chritianities'.

Like the possibility that the whole Jesus movement was a natural development from Philo's Therapeutae after some of their leaders got killed by the Romans.