A
Angelo_Michael
Guest
It is as though the author has created a Christ that conforms to Paul’s philosophically motivated rendition of Cristianity. The author was more than likely familiar with Paul’s teachings and very fond of them and seemingly proud to “understand” their meaning. But Christ did not talk as Paul did – about grace and stuff like that. Christ didn’t have to; He was righteous and did not have any sin(s) to hide. Paul doesn’t even admit to any error in his persecutions stating that they were done in righteousness, (Philippians 3:6, “Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.”). And this is because Paul had a very perverse and self-serving notion of the law and used flattery and literary device to create a greater image of himself. But when you take Paul’s thoughts and examine them they are laced with sin and pride. The author of the work has infused the vanities of Paul into their rendition of Christ and it sounds the alarm of forgery. But, with the Church willing to justify claiming the title of God, “Father,” it doesn’t seem so far-fetched to consider that someone got it in their mind, or was ordered to, write something as if it were from Christ Himself. At this moment, I am favoring that someone ordered this document written for an intended purpose. Kind of like when a bully intimidates a ‘nerd’ into doing their homework. It may have been according to this as the author seems very familiar with scripture and, from my opinion, a bit timid – and yet proud – about forgering a document. It was more than likely an educated fellow who was not among the commoners and knew it could pass as authentic [but that it wouldn’t stand the test of time].