Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 02-15-2012, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I don't understand why the reference to any resurrection in Corinthians need refer to a resurrection in a physical body on Earth. If the Christ was said to have appeared to Paul as he did to all the others, and Paul never saw an earthly Christ, then it could just as easily stand to reason that the author wasn't referring to an earthly resurrection but to a rebirth in the spiritual realm.
If the author were referring to some witnesses who saw a physically resurrected Jesus akin to the gospels, then why wouldn't the author of Corinthians say a single word about that event?
And why would such people be asleep? They would have known what they saw in a physical form.
Unless the vision of a resurrected being in the spiritual realm was subjective as a mental experience.
In any case resurrection need not mean into the earthly realm. Verses 42 to 49 don't suggested an earthly resurrection .....verse 44 stands out.

The issue in the two posts I referenced is not to do with where or how resurrection would take place. The issue is the two voices that are discerned from the l Cor.15 passage. One voice talks of resurrection without any mention of the Christ figure. The second voice is basing a resurrection philosophy/theology on a Christ figure. ie that is one big shift of focus. From resurrection as a general theology/philosophy to one centered on the Christ figure. That suggests that there are two traditions, two voices, in this passage. An earlier and a later voice. And in the context of the OP - that could well be suggesting an early and a late 'Paul'.

Duvduv · 02-15-2012, 08:56 AM

I went back to Corinthians and read it more carefully but I am having trouble seeing the distinction you mention in verses 12-22.

(Now that I think of it, I am also intrigued by the use of the word "buried" which is not the same thing as being placed in a tomb. It says he DIED and was BURIED. Nothing there about a crucifixion or placement in a tomb.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I don't understand why the reference to any resurrection in Corinthians need refer to a resurrection in a physical body on Earth. If the Christ was said to have appeared to Paul as he did to all the others, and Paul never saw an earthly Christ, then it could just as easily stand to reason that the author wasn't referring to an earthly resurrection but to a rebirth in the spiritual realm.
If the author were referring to some witnesses who saw a physically resurrected Jesus akin to the gospels, then why wouldn't the author of Corinthians say a single word about that event?
And why would such people be asleep? They would have known what they saw in a physical form.
Unless the vision of a resurrected being in the spiritual realm was subjective as a mental experience.
In any case resurrection need not mean into the earthly realm. Verses 42 to 49 don't suggested an earthly resurrection .....verse 44 stands out.

The issue in the two posts I referenced is not to do with where or how resurrection would take place. The issue is the two voices that are discerned from the l Cor.15 passage. One voice talks of resurrection without any mention of the Christ figure. The second voice is basing a resurrection philosophy/theology on a Christ figure. ie that is one big shift of focus. From resurrection as a general theology/philosophy to one centered on the Christ figure. That suggests that there are two traditions, two voices, in this passage. An earlier and a later voice. And in the context of the OP - that could well be suggesting an early and a late 'Paul'.

Toto · 02-15-2012, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Hey Earl,

... the possibility that the Pauline letters were fiction inspired by the Paul/ Saul character in Acts? - That they are elaborations on Acts; and that the author writing as ‘Paul’ was simply developing and fleshing-out that character?

.

There are many problems with this: the Pauline letters are not fictional and do not develop or flesh out the character in Acts. They are primarily theological, and while there is a personality that can be inferred from the letters, that personality does not flesh out the character in Acts. It contradicts that character.

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

Toto · 02-15-2012, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

... your rebuttals to allegations of the type made by clowns like aa5874.

...

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.

Sheshbazzar · 02-15-2012, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I think 'Paul' is the last hurdle, so to speak, that the ahistoricists/mythicists must tackle...I think 'Paul', like JC, is a composite figure; two historical figures, living at different time periods, whose activities/traditions have been fused into the 'Paul' we now have in the NT. An early and a late 'Paul' - with a considerable time gap between them. An early, pre-70 c.e. 'Paul', and a later, post-70 c.e. 'Paul.

Very near my views. I also see two 'Paul's', not so much separated by time, as by the ONE being a very real person, Shaul, a Jewish Pharisee that both held and practiced the Jewish form of religion, with messianic expectations,
And the second, a latter non-historical ersatz christian invented fictionalized visionary 'Paul' puppet that was fashioned by church writers capitalizing on the legitimate reputation, travels to far flung synagogues, and writings of the real Jewish Shaul whose writings the christian church had co-opted and extensively edited and reworked to turn him into their philosophical/theological christian talking head.

The name change from the Hebrew/Jewish 'Shaul' into the christian church's 'Paul' being an early Christian 'code' used by the church's writers and leaders to identify those texts bearing their revisions and writings, from any actual epistles of Shaul the Jew that may have still been in circulation.
Thus at a glance, the name in the introduction or in closing, would instantly tip off church leaders and authorities to the origin of the writing in hand, anything bearing the Hebrew name 'Shaul' (Saul) to be set aside __and likely be destroyed.
(as a 'different Gospel', one that -'Paul'- did not preach, one whose very existence would undermine and discredit 'Paul' and the christian church's claims)

Quote:

So, Earl is correct to maintain an early 'Paul' figure. But to stop there is to take Acts as history - which it is not. gLuke, it's writer, did not write until after Antiquities, around 95 c.e. (unless he was in contact with Josephus...) Christian history post-70 c.e. has been backdated to assimilate with the pre-70 c.e. christian history.

It is far more likely that there never was such thing as a pre-70 c.e. christian history.
The development of christianity, and many of its tenents and claims are very anachronistic when retrojected into the Temple era.
To me, it seems very clear that christianity actually came into being in response to the destruction of the Temple and attendant loss of a functioning and authorative Levitical priesthood and records that would have been able to counter christianities false claims.

Quote:

'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.

Again I would point out the distinction between the existence of ONE very real and historical Jewish Shaul, and the christian writers invented talking head fictional 'Paul'.
Bottom line, I completely agree with your assment; "The NT 'Paul' is not an historical figure."

Duvduv · 02-15-2012, 12:51 PM

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?

maryhelena · 02-15-2012, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I think 'Paul' is the last hurdle, so to speak, that the ahistoricists/mythicists must tackle...I think 'Paul', like JC, is a composite figure; two historical figures, living at different time periods, whose activities/traditions have been fused into the 'Paul' we now have in the NT. An early and a late 'Paul' - with a considerable time gap between them. An early, pre-70 c.e. 'Paul', and a later, post-70 c.e. 'Paul.

Very near my views. I also see two 'Paul's', not so much separated by time, as by the ONE being a very real person, Shaul, a Jewish Pharisee that both held and practiced the Jewish form of religion, with messianic expectations,
And the second, a latter non-historical ersatz christian invented fictionalized visionary 'Paul' puppet that was fashioned by church writers capitalizing on the legitimate reputation, travels to far flung synagogues, and writings of the real Jewish Shaul whose writings the christian church had co-opted and extensively edited and reworked to turn him into their philosophical/theological christian talking head.

The name change from the Hebrew/Jewish 'Shaul' into the christian church's 'Paul' being an early Christian 'code' used by the church's writers and leaders to identify those texts bearing their revisions and writings, from any actual epistles of Shaul the Jew that may have still been in circulation.
Thus at a glance, the name in the introduction or in closing, would instantly tip off church leaders and authorities to the origin of the writing in hand, anything bearing the Hebrew name 'Shaul' (Saul) to be set aside __and likely be destroyed.
(as a 'different Gospel', one that -'Paul'- did not preach, one whose very existence would undermine and discredit 'Paul' and the christian church's claims)

Quote:

So, Earl is correct to maintain an early 'Paul' figure. But to stop there is to take Acts as history - which it is not. gLuke, it's writer, did not write until after Antiquities, around 95 c.e. (unless he was in contact with Josephus...) Christian history post-70 c.e. has been backdated to assimilate with the pre-70 c.e. christian history.

It is far more likely that there never was such thing as a pre-70 c.e. christian history.
The development of christianity, and many of its tenents and claims are very anachronistic when retrojected into the Temple era.
To me, it seems very clear that christianity actually came into being in response to the destruction of the Temple and attendant loss of a functioning and authorative Levitical priesthood and records that would have been able to counter christianities false claims.

Quote:

'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.

Again I would point out the distinction between the existence of ONE very real and historical Jewish Shaul, and the christian writers invented talking head fictional 'Paul'.
Bottom line, I completely agree with your assment; "The NT 'Paul' is not an historical figure."

Thanks, Shesh, for your post. An interesting position!

Basically, we agree that the NT 'Paul' is not an historical figure. :thumbs:

Yes, I would agree with you - technically speaking, the pre-70 c.e. situation was not what we would call today 'Christian'. However, Christianity, Christian theology/philosophy, did not just drop from the sky - it sprung up from Jewish roots. So, perhaps the pre-70 c.e. situation could be labeled a proto-christianity. Which would make that earlier 'Paul' a Jew who was keeping well within the possibilities of that theology/philosophy. The late 'Paul', to my thinking, is the renegade, the heretic. The one who found positive value in the cross - as 1 Cor.15 demonstrates with the two voices articulating two different perspectives: Resurrection as a 'normal' occurrence and resurrection depending upon the cross. Two traditions; one very Jewish and the other the new cross theology/philosophy - fused together to create the Christianity we have today.

This does not mean that the late 'Paul' invented the JC story. There is nothing within that basic story that is not Jewish. A man gets crucified - some followers think he was resurrected - or was still alive. They take up his cause. And most likely a lost cause. 'Paul', the one late to the party, steps in and creates a new story, an upgrade - that cross and resurrection, of that one man, is salvation for all men. The late 'Paul' turns a negative into a positive via a blood transfusion....

And the parting of the way became unavoidable...:constern01:

Duvduv · 02-15-2012, 12:57 PM

Maryhelena, could you clarify for me the distinct verses about resurrection as I still don't see it in 1 Corinthians. Thanks.

maryhelena · 02-15-2012, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Maryhelena, could you clarify for me the distinct verses about resurrection as I still don't see it in 1 Corinthians. Thanks.

Here they are, as set out by PhilosopherJay

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

Quote:

Here is voice one:

RSV 1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel which you received, in which you stand,
3a For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,
11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
12b How can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13a But if there is no resurrection of the dead,
15a We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we (so) testified of God,15c if it is true that the dead are not raised.
16a For if the dead are not raised,
17b your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
19a If for this life only we have hoped
19c we are of all men most to be pitied.

Here is Voice Two:

3b that Christ 2 by which you are saved if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain, died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God
10a But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain.
10b On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.
12a Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead,
13b then Christ has not been raised;
14a if Christ has not been raised,
14b then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
15b that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise
16b then Christ has not been raised.
17a If Christ has not been raised,
18a Then those also who have fallen asleep
18b in Christ.
18c have perished.
20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep
19b In Christ.

Duvduv · 02-15-2012, 01:34 PM

This is very interesting indeed, and describes a fascinating method of integrating two different speakers not in sections but by phrases within the same sentences using pronouns such as but, though, now.

How does this look through linguistic analysis in Greek? And if it can be determined that this method is used to integrate two different speakers, has it been used to analyze other places in other epistles?

And if so, I imagine a skilled individual could reproduce very distinct letters, or at least distinct complete letters and phrases from the second speaker.

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

02-15-2012, 12:51 PM	#16
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	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?

02-15-2012, 12:57 PM	#18
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Maryhelena, could you clarify for me the distinct verses about resurrection as I still don't see it in 1 Corinthians. Thanks.

02-15-2012, 01:34 PM	#20
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	This is very interesting indeed, and describes a fascinating method of integrating two different speakers not in sections but by phrases within the same sentences using pronouns such as but, though, now. How does this look through linguistic analysis in Greek? And if it can be determined that this method is used to integrate two different speakers, has it been used to analyze other places in other epistles? And if so, I imagine a skilled individual could reproduce very distinct letters, or at least distinct complete letters and phrases from the second speaker.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.