Barefoot Bree

^^ Jawohl.

Mostly.

I do think there was likely a Paul who kick-started the whole thing, by providing a coagulation point with enough specific gravity for a critical mass of other myths floating around to adhere to.

Upon which very mixed metaphor I'm going to bed. 'Night, Shesh. (Sorry for the "Shez". I mistyped that. I have difficulties remembering your precise spelling, for some reason.)

Sheshbazzar

But if they were poisoned that alone would not explain the ALL seeing the very same vision(s), that would be a miracle in itself!
Nope, it sounds like such an agreement as to what the 'vision' consisted of would take some discussion, and reaching a consensus of opinion, a directed 'mass hysteria'. 'Witch Hunts' et. al. require instigation and collective persuasion.

Sheshbazzar

I have stated in this thread, that I also believe that there was an actual 'Paul' at the core, one whose writings the Church writers hi-jacked, rewrote, and added to.

aa5874

Well, please me tell what you would call a person who lived no earlier than the middle of the 2nd century who claimed that he and over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state in the 1st century, and then claimed, apparently before he was even born, that he saw Peter and the brother of the resurrected, two fictitious characters, in Jerusalem?

The writer called Paul has a disturbing pattern of lies. He even claimed that he did not get his gospel from man.

Who is Paul trying to fool?

The gospels are all man-made. Paul read the Septuagint or some similar source to fabricate his gospel.

Paul is a liar without any reasonable doubt.

Sheshbazzar

LIAR! is a harsh word, one that in religious contexts tends to polarise (yes, I know, I have used it a few times myself)

This present debate here has been going on among a group that all identify themselves as being non-believers in the Bibles NT claims, the difference of opinion centers around how 'Paul' could have made those claims without it actually being 'lying'.

Suggestions have been tendered that he was clinically 'insane',

or perhaps unknowingly 'under the influence' of some naturally occuring psychoactive drug that profoundly affected his ability to distinguish truth from imagination.

Or that it was the result of collective ecstatic events that so severely affected his reasoning ability that he could no longer distinguish 'truth' from his flights of religious fantasy
(Recall the 'Heavens Gate' cult, where they mutually convinced themselves of the 'truth' of their irrational beliefs)
This would 'explain Paul 'thinking' and convincing himself and others, that he had been in Jerusalem and had spoken with Jesus, James, John, and Peter, and although he had 'made up' the entire story, in his religious ecstasy, he became fully convinced of it himself, as is illustrated by the case of Marshall Applewhite's bizarre conduct.
Add in the stress of possibly unknown psychoactive influences, herd instinct mass hysteria, and ecstatic religious fervor and something could easily develop, that while not actually being intentionally 'lying', would be far from being 'the truth' in any conventional sense of the term;
But 'THE GOSPEL 'TRUTH' a religiously derived 'vision' and 'version' of what 'truth' consists of.
Certainly it has found itself receptive audience for these last 2000 years!

The more cynical of us unbelievers might be inclined to describe the process that produced The Bible, and Biblical religions as a succession of religious 'brain farts',
and like most farts they do have tendency to stink.

Latter, Sheshbazzar

Barefoot Bree

And there you go again, Shesh. I should retire and let you take over for me. You stated what I've been trying to say ever so much more elegantly and clearly. I'm not going to argue this anymore, you've said it all, except for this one addition:

AA, your repeated attempts to put Paul on the witness stand and cross-examine him a la Perry Mason, leading to this shrill GOTCHA moment, is misguided at best, serves no good purpose, masks the real issues, and betrays a deep lack of understanding about the culture of the times, as well as how religions begin and continue. Visions and mystical occurences were commonplace back then, the coin of the realm, taken at face value without question, and used as a kick-off for incredible flights of fancy that became established dogma if they caught on. Speculating now on the "true" underlying scientific causes of those visions is an amusing pasttime at best, and trying to impose 21st century ethics on 1st or 2nd century societies is a fruitless endeavor, leading not to understanding but only to shouting.

My only dog in this fight is this: until and unless we - and that "we" can be as big or as small as you like - we understand the way religions start and grow, the role they play in the psychology and sociology of man, we don't stand a chance of wrestling them into something more reasonable and serving of the global greater good (rather than the gg of just a chosen few, as all of them do now). We are never going to do away with religion entirely. The best we can hope for is nudging it to something reasonable. And what I see in your posts, AA, is working directly against that goal of understanding.

*****

But I am curious about one thing. I don't live here in BCH, so this whole 2nd-century Paul thing is new to me. Can someone point me to a thread where the evidence is brought out and pored over please? Or, if one doesn't exist yet, perhaps it could be created and you could go over it now while I :eating_popcorn:. Many thanks.

aa5874

Once Paul lived over a century from the supposed events, then Paul could only be lying. Once Paul read the Septuagint or some similar source to fabricate his gospel then Paul was lying when he claimed he did not get his gospel from man.

Lying is a mild word for Paul.

Paul was a fraud.

He needs to explain what exactly he and over 500 people saw in a resurrected state.

Barefoot Bree

And how, exactly, do you propose to force him to make this explanation? Got a time machine handy?

dog-on

Go to www.radikalkritik.de

and have fun!

aa5874

Well, you might know what Paul was likely to see in a vision of the resurrected one.

You think he was not lying, so please tell me what Paul saw of the resurrected one if he was poisoned or on drugs.

And don't forget Saul/Paul was blinded by a bright light when he was introduced to Jesus from heaven on the road to Damascus.

In addition there seems to be NO mass-hallucinations when Paul was converted with the bright light and the voice. The author of Acts, although initially claiming everyone with Saul/Paul heard the voice, he later claimed only Saul/Paul heard it, plus only Saul/Paul was blinded.


See Acts of the Apostles.

Acts 9.3-6
Acts 22.6-9 Do you have any idea at all what Saul/Paul may have seen or heard when he and over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state?

The author of Matthew may help.

Matthew 17.1-2