rhutchin

I guess you nether claim nor deduce. You merely opine and speculate about things of which you have no real knowledge.

aa5874

But, did you just write that you guess?


You just guess the things about which you have no knowledge. Keep guessing.

rhutchin

You're not talking. You claim nothing. You deduce nothing. So, you opine. However, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I say I'm guessing. Who knows, maybe there is more that might come down the road than opinions built on opinions.

avi

In Galatians 1:20 Paul writes that he is not lying.

Then the question before this forum is why he would write such a sentence in his letter to the Galatian Church.

I have expressed a couple of thoughts about this sentence, most recently suggesting that Paul wrote this disclaimer to emphasize the validity of Paul's explanation for his acquisition of knowledge regarding the life of Jesus Christ. Paul emphasizes, in Galatians 1:12, the fact that he never met Jesus, while the latter was alive on the planet earth as a human. Further Paul insists that he did not learn of Jesus' many accomplishments by discussing Jesus' life with ANY of Jesus' dozen disciples, followers of Jesus, who, curiously enough, were neither captured nor detained by the Roman authorities, upon the supposed arrest and execution of Jesus for treason.

rhutchin disputes my assessment, and quotes from Acts, Luke, and other passages of Galatians to support his own arguments:
a. the Galatians had been deceived by false prophets:

Well, there are several problems with this analysis, but the most glaring question is "Who are these false prophets"? If rhutchin is correct, and I err, then, the logical interpretation of his conclusion would be that this writing of "Paul" took place in the fourth century, at a time of enormous upheaval in the Christian church, when there were many purges of "false prophets"--most notably Arius. Another convenient time for authorship could be mid second century, following the third Jewish-Roman conflict. In that post-war era, there were many ex-Jewish sects floating about, and one or more of them (Marcion, Nazarenes) could have penetrated into the Galatian's environment to dispute Paul's version of events, thus inviting his written insistence that he had expressed the truth. rhutchin needs to identify those false prophets responsible for lying to the Galatians, if rhutchin sincerely believes that Paul's rationale for writing that he is telling the truth in Galatians 1:20, is to refute the dogma of those unspecified false prophets, rather than to emphasize the validity of Paul's unbelievable claims in Galatians 1: 1-19.

Personally, notwithstanding all of rhutchin's quotes from Acts, Luke, and later passages of Galatians as well as other letters to other church groups, I still prefer the idea of interpreting the text of Galatians 1:20, based solely upon the context of the original Greek version of Galatians 1:1-19, without consulting companion texts: Acts, Luke, and so on. The people LISTENING to a reading of Paul's letter to the Galatians, two thousand years ago, would not have necessarily been intimately aware of all these other, various, religious tracts, that rhutchin has invoked, as supporting his notion that Paul claimed to write honestly in order to repudiate someone (who? Marcion? Arius?) who had dishonestly represented some other, competing theological argument, angle or interpretation. No, I don't support this approach by rhutchin. I think we must stick to the text of Galatians 1:1-19, and locate a rationale for Paul's assertion that Paul is not a liar, from exclusively that narrow range of text.

Then the question is this: Is there a valid reason for anyone to DOUBT that which "Paul" had written in Galatians 1:1-19? When Paul wrote, as he did in Galatians 1:6, about having learned of other, unnamed influences on the community in Galatia, supposedly sectarian influences with FALSE doctrines, and then elaborating, as Paul does in Galatians 1:11, that his, Paul's, gospel, "is not according to man", i.e. that his gospel is only attained by faith in the divinity of Jesus, then, he is, in my view, inviting accusations of fraud, from a skeptical pagan audience.

I thus do not find any virtue in quoting from other texts, sources, or documents (Acts, Luke, etc,) authored in the mid second century.

When Paul writes in Galatians 1:12, that he knows of Jesus by way of a miracle: Paul's private visit from Jesus, post resurrection, then, yes, that is, in my view, a tall tale, a story which would have been received with substantial ridicule and argument, hence the need for Paul's disclaimer.

b. In response to my suggestion that a different rationale for Paul insisting that he is being honest with the Galatians, is found within the context of his delusional thinking, that he, Paul, possessed a unique relationship with Jesus, such that the latter provided Paul, exclusively, with a personal meeting, a "revelation". I expressed surprise that Jesus should have uniquely chosen Paul, according to Paul, for this tete a tete, and NOT Peter, or James, Jesus' supposed brother, or James, brother of John, or one of the other disciples of Jesus, who had known him, presumably for three decades. In other words, I have suggested confabulation by Paul. Here is rhutchin's reply:
Yes, I am, most assuredly.

1. who is "he"? Jesus? Paul?

2. where did you learn of 3.5 years of revelations?

I see that "Paul" claims to have spent three years living in Damascus, after his return from Arabia, following his miraculous encounter with the resurrected Jesus. I don't see anything about three years of continual revelations from Jesus to Paul, while the latter lived in Damascus, nor do I comprehend why Paul traveled to Saudi Arabia after this miraculous revelation. As I read the text, and my Greek is abysmal, as you know, I understand this "revelation" to have been a single, one time occurrence, this miraculous descent from heaven to earth of the resurrected Jesus for a personal encounter with Paul. Please correct me, if my interpretation of this Greek sentence is faulty, for I continue to make many mistakes in understanding the Greek text. Is there something in this text about additional revelations?
avi

rhutchin

Whoa!! Is the anonymity of the false prophets a "glaring" question? What exactly is a "glaring" question?

Is the anonymity of the false prophets really a problem? Even if not true, Paul obviously thinks it true and reacts to it. Even if there are no false prophets and Paul is mistaken, he has still written a letter that, contextually, addresses the teachings of alleged false prophets.

rhutchin

Double whoa!! The context for the letter to the Galatians is the first century. There is no basis, derived from the context of the letter, to go down the rabbit hole you propose.

The 4th century may have had its problems with false prophets but Paul clearly lived in the first century given the information we are given in the NT.

rhutchin

No, I don't. The context of Galatians points to false prophets who have come in and deceived the Galatians. Their identity is inconsequential to their mistaken philosophy.

What are the "unbelievable" claims? Whether you actually believe that which Paul writes in his letter to the Galatians does not matter. All that matters is that you read what Paul says and evaluate that which you read.

If the English assignment is to read and analyze Gulliver's Travels, do you complain because the story is unbelievable. No, you read it, determine what it says, and evaluate what you find.

All of a sudden, you have departed the logical arguments you sought to make earlier and are going goofy on us. Has some alien taken over AVI's mind!!

avi

Thanks, rhutchin, I always enjoy reading your replies on this forum.

Well, where to begin, I guess with the alien thing. So far as I am aware, my mind has deteriorated, greatly, during the past decade, which may or may not relate to aliens or zodiac signs, or even genetics, but, my supposition is that it is primarily a result of having consumed an excessive quantity of Greek wine and goat cheese, trying to put myself in the spirit of life in ancient Greece!

If the assignment were to read and analyze any work of fiction, Gulliver's travels, or any other masterpiece, I think one would expect internal consistency, with regard to the plot, and description of the characters. Since I do regard the Jesus story as a work of fiction, I evaluate "Paul's" letters from that perspective. I find the letter to Galatians inconsistent with the Gospels, in places, and internally inconsistent as well.

You ask for an elaboration of my assertion that "Paul's" claim of a revelation is unbelievable. Well, umm, I am not quite sure how to describe this to your satisfaction, but, in modern medicine, when a person claims to have visions of the dead, we call them hallucinations. When they claim to speak to these dead people, we consider that they are manifesting overt traits of psychosis.

I tried, and obviously failed, to explain with Paul Bunyan and Babe the blue ox, how a claim of seeing some nonexistent entity represents fiction, not reality.

Paul, in this letter to Galatians goes out of his way, to insist that he learned about the life of Jesus exclusively from personal conversation with a post-resurrection dead man, and NOT from any of the living disciples of Jesus. Conversing with non-existent entities is a clear manifestation of psychotic behaviour.

I do not understand why you would consider "inconsequential" the nature of the ideology of the "false prophets", since it is clear, at least to me, that this letter to Galatians is written with a deliberate, intentional lack of temporal or spatial precision. Had the authors of "Paul's" letter to Galatians specified the rationale for his visit to Arabia, or identified the nature of the theological differences in Galatia, which ostensibly led to Paul's writing in Galatians 1:20, that his version of Christianity is authentic, then we would be better able to identify WHEN this letter was written. At present, the letter is so vague we have no idea what these "false prophets" represent.

avi

aa5874

The writer under the name Paul has no external historical source to confirm his existence before the Fall of the Jewish Temple. And the very Paul saw a fictitious entity that was raised from the dead in a fiction story written after the Fall of the Temple and also stayed for FIFTEEN DAYS with a fictitious character called Peter written in the same fiction story .

Further, in the NT, the author of Acts did not confirm the Pauline writer's chronology of his travel to Jerusalem.

The author of Acts did NOT write that Paul left Damascus, went to Arabia, returned to Damascus, then went to Jerusalem and only saw Peter and the Lord's brother.

The author of Acts wrote that Saul/Paul left Damascus, went to Jerusalem after his bright light conversion, that Barnabas introduced Paul to the apostles, and that Saul/Paul was in and out of Jerusalem with the apostles.

See Acts 9.26-28.

The Pauline writer claimed that he "did not confer with flesh and blood" after his conversion but the author of Acts contradicted him and claimed that Saul/Paul was with ["flesh and blood"], the disciples and then immediately preached Jesus was the Son of God.

See Acts 9.19-20.

The author of "Church History" 3.4.8 claimed that the Pauline writer was aware of gLuke.

"Church History" 3.4.8 1. Saul/Paul's conversion is implausible. See Acts 9

2. Apologetic sources place Paul after gLuke was written.

3. Apologetic sources claimed Paul and the author of gLuke were contemporaries and close companions

4. Apologetic sources place Paul after 2nd Timothy was written.

5. The author of Acts place Saul/Paul after the ascension of Jesus and the day of Pentecost when the disciple were filled with the Holy Ghost.

It is clear that the Pauline writer is after the Fall of the Temple or after gLuke.

The things which Paul wrote in Galatians 1.19 are lies.

Clivedurdle

The beginning of Galatians reads far more like the beginning of a mystery story - what are these time periods and numbers about?

Jerusalem and Damascus and Arabia all have symbolic meanings.

I am not lying is a typical once upon a time saying.

And are not these Galatians those brilliant story tellers the Celts and the Druids who are bewitching them?

Paul is telling his new old old story of the christ.