Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bingo the Clown-O · 02-16-2012, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

This might be of some help.

Sifting a historical Paul from a nonhistorical Jesus: Doherty’s position

BTW - thanks.

His leading argument is that if ‘Paul’ didn’t exist then he doesn’t know how to explain early Christianity.

Bingo the Clown-O · 02-16-2012, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

'Paul', like JC before him, is a composite figure - reflecting the activities of two historical 'Paul' type figures involved with the developments of early christianity. The NT 'Paul' is not an historical figure.

Below are links to two posts, from a rather long thread, that highlight the two voices that can be discerned in 1 Cor.15.

The case for interpolation in 1 Cor 15

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....45#post6908445

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....89#post6908689

Thanks. I’ve read that before. That’s very interesting. Your premise that “Paul is a composite figure” does not demand your conclusion that one of the ‘voices’ is a historical person. I think you are making a very common error in judgment. I think you are so excited that you have discovered two voices that you accidentally took the ‘leap of faith’ and assumed that one voice was ‘historical Paul’ for no compelling reason at all.

Chili · 02-16-2012, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

[In the context of a purely intellectual sphere, a 'spiritual' sphere, we are all nameless and country-less. We are a blank slate until we develop our intellectual comprehension. Yes, some intellects will go further and some will be satisfied with home comforts. The point is that we can all do something about developing what we have been born with. In contrast, on that purely physical plane - we are stuck with the physical circumstances of our birth.

Later 'Paul' shifts focus from the physical reality of living on earth, to the intellectual reality of living on earth. Yes, a 'new heaven', a new intellectual comprehension, will have consequences for living in our physical reality. Miracles can happen....

We can use our intellectual understanding to bring humanistic changes to our social/political environment. Sure, inequalities, Jews and Gentiles, will always be there. But we can change how we view the inequalities - as something to be eradication or something to be celebrated.

. . . and so his message was also prophetic but now of this age called iconic that each Jew and Gentile could encounter as heaven has arrived on earth and we are the living testimony of it as we do encounter the allegories of which he spoke.

The whole NT is allegory and alive in us either by acceptance or denial but must be heard before we can encounter and so testify and go back for more and even pay to hear it.

If instead Paul would have said "it is all in your head" we might 'accept' but not go back for more because it does not help us any, and if he had said that he had a flat tire on his way to church we could have gone the bar to hear the same instead.

The "this age" is very relevent as 'coming alive in us' as apposed to prophetic through the ages only. And of course passages are important but only in the allegory and so deceptions on their own.

maryhelena · 02-16-2012, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

'Paul', like JC before him, is a composite figure - reflecting the activities of two historical 'Paul' type figures involved with the developments of early christianity. The NT 'Paul' is not an historical figure.

Below are links to two posts, from a rather long thread, that highlight the two voices that can be discerned in 1 Cor.15.

The case for interpolation in 1 Cor 15

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....45#post6908445

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....89#post6908689

Thanks. I’ve read that before. That’s very interesting. Your premise that “Paul is a composite figure” does not demand your conclusion that one of the ‘voices’ is a historical person. I think you are making a very common error in judgment. I think you are so excited that you have discovered two voices that you accidentally took the ‘leap of faith’ and assumed that one voice was ‘historical Paul’ for no compelling reason at all.

Oh, dear, it was not me that 'discovered' the two voices. If you have read the thread you would know that it was David Hindley and PhilosopherJay that did the spade work on the two voices.............

And as for my thinking the NT 'Paul' is not an historical figure - that's old news. :huh:

Bingo the Clown-O · 02-16-2012, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Oh, dear, it was not me that 'discovered' the two voices. If you have read the thread you would know that it was David Hindley and PhilosopherJay that did the spade work on the two voices.............

And as for my thinking the NT 'Paul' is not an historical figure - that's old news. :huh:

Fine.

I stand corrected.

aa5874 · 02-16-2012, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Oh, dear, it was not me that 'discovered' the two voices. If you have read the thread you would know that it was David Hindley and PhilosopherJay that did the spade work on the two voices.............

And as for my thinking the NT 'Paul' is not an historical figure - that's old news. :huh:

The claim that there are Two "Pauls" or " Two Voices" was NOT really discovered by DC Hindley and PhilosopherJay that was ALREADY PRESUMED by Scholars when they claimed some letters were authentic and some were Not genuine.

Neither DC Hindley and PhilosopherJay can show that any author of the NT Canon heard the Voice of Paul.

Not even the author of REVELATION heard of the Revelations of Paul.

The author of REVELATION heard the VOICES of the prophets of Hebrew Scripture like Joel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Zechariah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Micah, Zephaniah, and the Psalmist David.

PAUL had NO Voice in the 1st century Before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

Paul had NO VOICE before Voices of the authors of the Short-Ending gMark, the Long Ending gMark and gMatthew were heard.

Bingo the Clown-O · 02-16-2012, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There are many problems with this: the Pauline letters are not fictional ..

That’s begging the question. Isn’t it?

Bingo the Clown-O · 02-16-2012, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It makes more sense to think of Acts as a novelistic attempt to develop and subvert the character of Paul from the gospels.

Sorry but I don’t understand this because I’m confused by the phrase ‘from the gospels’.

What do you mean ‘from the gospels’?

Could you rephrase it?

Duvduv · 02-16-2012, 07:37 AM

Maryhelena, further to my posting below, does the Greek confirm two speakers whose words have been merged in the method you describe?
And if so, what would the two Corinthians look like??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

If we were to reconstruct the story of PAUL alone from Acts with no reference to SAUL, what could we say about who he was as distinct from Saul, considering all the differences we find between the Paul of Acts and the Paul of the epistles?

Bingo the Clown-O · 02-16-2012, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It would be difficult if not impossible to keep up with the allegations of aa5874, and most people put him on ignore after a while.

I can understand why some people might call aa5874 a “one-trick-pony.” But his trick (his arguments for the non-existence of Paul) are so compelling that it’s hard to understand why people like Doherty ignore them.

The best explanation that I can think of is that Doherty is ‘locked in’ to his earlier publications and can’t backtrack.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.