FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-04-2008, 11:26 AM   #81
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

I think you have isolated a passage that gives a clear indication that the letter-writer called "Paul" of 1 Corinthians was aware of gMatthew 28.18-20.

The letter-writer, "Paul", strangely claimed his Jesus told him not to baptise but this claim contradicts the Jesus of gMatthew.

This agreement by scholars is completely flawed. There is no basis for such an agreement.
trust me, aa, it would not take a prophet to predict you would say that.
  • "Paul" is an unknown character that surfaced in the late 2nd century.

    is that your dating of Acts (of the Apostles) ? or First Clement ? or are you suggesting that e.g. the Testament of Lenin, dictated in 1922, but the existence of which surfaced only later abroad, as it was supressed in the USSR, should be then post-dated to the date a translation of it was published ?

  • Paul's history as written in Acts is bogus.

    no possibility that anything written about Paul might in fact be historical material ? besides even if it was all bogus it does not mean that the Paul did not exist. The character of Henryk Sienkiewicz' pan Wolodyjowski may have been a historical figure, but the novel's swashbuckling hero and his exploits are completely fictional (except for the place and and manner of his death). Is your mind capable of applying this analogy ?

  • The information in the epistles about Jesus could not have been revealed to "Paul".

    Yes, it could have been revealed. It could have been intuited, in an analogous way to Pythagoras' perceiving the mathematical relation of sides of a triangle, i.e. as observation that cannot be induced. Whether Paul tested his revelations by methods that would pass the scrutiny today is another question.

  • The information about the crucifixion, death and resurrection was already available in the "memoirs of the apostles" as written by Justin Martyr.

    You will have to prove your first item, i.e. that "Paul's" letters were forged in a period after Justin Martyr, otherwise the argument is demonstrably circular.

  • No early christian writer ever claimed that "Paul" wrote any epistle before the Synoptics.

    The designation Synoptic Gospels was not current until the Enlightment. The sequencing of the texts in the canon was not much of a concern in antiquity anyhow, I suspect. The significance of this assertion unclear to me, at any rate, as there is no obvious conclusion that flows from it.

  • If Jesus actually lived and was crucified, "Paul" revelations would be meaningless.

    They are apparently meaningless to you either way.

Quote:
"Paul" was manufactured, he never really said anything.
Q.E.D.

Quote:
"Paul's" bogus miraculous conversion is directly dependent on the Synoptics. The manufacturer of "Paul" must have already read or heard that Jesus had ascended to heaven and had the power to save.
This is false. You have nothing to support your claim. Religious conversion can have any number of organic or occult causes: they can be symptoms of a conversion disorder (hysteria), or conversion-to-psychosis (usu. schizophrenia but affective psychosis is also common), or appear in postictal psychosis in some forms of epilepsy. Organic causes, e.g. injury to brain during s cerebral stroke are also known to trigger religious phantasms.

Quote:
This is just pure speculation based on your imagination.
...whereas your speculation is based on what ? On your belief that you are an expert ?

Quote:
You have no evidence whatsoever that "Paul" wrote anything. All you have are epistles with "Paul" name attached to them.
Hmmm...thank God for that ! What do you have ?


Quote:
And if these epistles were written before the Synoptics, still none of the authors of the Synoptics mentioned anyone named Saul/Paul anywhere in their Gospels.
Perhaps, you will discover one of these years that the Synoptics (and John as well) cover a period of time before Paul enters on the scene.

Quote:
Total BS. You have diagnosed an unknown patient from letters which may have been forged. This is quackery.
But you see, aa - I mean, you don't see - there are some very curious and internally consistent patterns of ideation in those letters and gospels. It does not matter who wrote them.

Quote:
Your are just re-inventing "Paul" from your imagination.
You can look at it that way. I am not offended.

Quote:
Your approach to the mythical Jesus is just baseless non-sense.
You know I had this really smart, eccentric teacher in high school who used to say and do hilarious things. His standard approach to someone who talked through his hat, and put on airs, was to make a serious, thoughtful face and mumble in mocking fascination: 'Hmmm, interesting, hmmm, definitely interesting, hmmmm, hmmm, interesting, definitely, interesting...........but, you see , the real question is: to whom !?'

Jiri
Solo is offline  
Old 05-04-2008, 01:30 PM   #82
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post


This agreement by scholars is completely flawed. There is no basis for such an agreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
  • "Paul" is an unknown character that surfaced in the late 2nd century.

is that your dating of Acts (of the Apostles) ? or First Clement ? ....
I use Justin Martyr's extant writings. Justin, writing at around the middle of the 2nd century, appear to have no knowledge at all of "Saul/Paul", the letters to the seven Churches or Acts of the Apostles.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
  • Paul's history as written in Acts is bogus.

no possibility that anything written about Paul might in fact be historical material ? besides even if it was all bogus it does not mean that the Paul did not exist.
Regardless of my position or yours, there is always the possibility that "Paul" did or did not exist.

In order for me to reverse my position on "Paul", that is, "Paul's history is bogus, I would need to see credible non-apologetic information about "Paul".

So far I cannot find any credible external information about "Paul".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
  • The information in the epistles about Jesus could not have been revealed to "Paul".

Yes, it could have been revealed. It could have been intuited, in an analogous way to Pythagoras' perceiving the mathematical relation of sides of a triangle, i.e. as observation that cannot be induced. Whether Paul tested his revelations by methods that would pass the scrutiny today is another question.
How could the words Jesus as written in gLuke be revealed to "Paul" unless the fabricator of "Paul" had read or heard of gLuke already.

And, again if Paul dreamed about Jesus, he must know about Jesus before.

Pythagoras was a mathematician and must have been an astute observer. Mathematicians do not develop formulas from revelations from Jesus at all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
[ list][*] The information about the crucifixion, death and resurrection was already available in the "memoirs of the apostles" as written by Justin Martyr.[/list]
You will have to prove your first item, i.e. that "Paul's" letters were forged in a period after Justin Martyr, otherwise the argument is demonstrably circular.
Your diagnosis of "Paul" is without any factual basis. You have no idea, in the first place, who "Paul" actually was. And scholars claim that there were at least two of them called "Paul".

Which one did you diagnose?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
  • No early christian writer ever claimed that "Paul" wrote any epistle before the Synoptics.

The designation Synoptic Gospels was not current until the Enlightment. The sequencing of the texts in the canon was not much of a concern in antiquity anyhow, I suspect. The significance of this assertion unclear to me, at any rate, as there is no obvious conclusion that flows from it.
The early christisan writers never claimed the letters to the seven Churches were written before the gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
  • If Jesus actually lived and was crucified, "Paul" revelations would be meaningless.

    They are apparently meaningless to you either way.
Because "Paul's claim are bogus. The fabricator of "Paul" knew about Jesus in advance that is why the fabricator made Jesus talk to "Paul" at his fictional conversion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
Religious conversion can have any number of organic or occult causes: they can be symptoms of a conversion disorder (hysteria), or conversion-to-psychosis (usu. schizophrenia but affective psychosis is also common), or appear in postictal psychosis in some forms of epilepsy. Organic causes, e.g. injury to brain during s cerebral stroke are also known to trigger religious phantasms.
But, if a person claims he was blinded by or received revelations from either Jesus, Allah, Vishnu or Zeus, this would indicate that the person had some previous knowledge of Jesus, Allah, Vishnu or Zeus.

"Paul" must have had some prior knowledge of Jesus to claim that he was blinded by Jesus or received revelations from him.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-04-2008, 03:10 PM   #83
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
"Paul's" bogus miraculous conversion is directly dependent on the Synoptics.
You mean Acts which is not part of the "Synoptics". The latter refers only to Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 05-04-2008, 04:40 PM   #84
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
"Paul's" bogus miraculous conversion is directly dependent on the Synoptics.
You mean Acts which is not part of the "Synoptics". The latter refers only to Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
I mean "Paul's" conversion is based on the the Jesus described in the Synoptics.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-04-2008, 07:36 PM   #85
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Pythagoras was a mathematician and must have been an astute observer. Mathematicians do not develop formulas from revelations from Jesus at all.
You have misunderstood what I said. The "revelatory process" does not work only in theology. I took mathematics as an example because complex abstract formulas, equations or proofs often come in a flash of insight, through an uncanny coincidence, or even in a dream-like state. The psychological process of discovery, if you are interested, has been described brilliantly by Arthur Koestler in his Act of Creation (or via: amazon.co.uk)

BTW, does anyone know where I can get my hands on the notebooks of Srinivasa Ramanujan ?
He was a mathematical genius who often worked himself into shamanic frenzy to "solve" his math problems. Some of his entries are said to be a complete word salad.


Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
Religious conversion can have any number of organic or occult causes: they can be symptoms of a conversion disorder (hysteria), or conversion-to-psychosis (usu. schizophrenia but affective psychosis is also common), or appear in postictal psychosis in some forms of epilepsy. Organic causes, e.g. injury to brain during s cerebral stroke are also known to trigger religious phantasms.
But, if a person claims he was blinded by or received revelations from either Jesus, Allah, Vishnu or Zeus, this would indicate that the person had some previous knowledge of Jesus, Allah, Vishnu or Zeus.

"Paul" must have had some prior knowledge of Jesus to claim that he was blinded by Jesus or received revelations from him.
Paul never claimed he was blinded by Jesus or received revelations from him. (1 Cr 11:23 does not come from Paul; it contradicts 2 Cr 1:1 and Gal 1:16)

Jiri
Solo is offline  
Old 05-04-2008, 08:52 PM   #86
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
I mean "Paul's" conversion is based on the the Jesus described in the Synoptics.
What? That makes even less sense.
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 05-04-2008, 10:41 PM   #87
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
You have misunderstood what I said. The "revelatory process" does not work only in theology. I took mathematics as an example because complex abstract formulas, equations or proofs often come in a flash of insight, through an uncanny coincidence, or even in a dream-like state.
Well, based on your post, mathmeticians are already familiar with formulas, equations or proofs, so perhaps certain solutions can be "revealed" to them.
And this is exactly my point, "Paul" was already familiar with Jesus, that is how he knew that the "revelations" were from Jesus.

But it is still my view that "Paul" was fabricated late 2nd century and his "revelations" may have been taken from the "memoirs of the apostles" as mentioned by Justin Martyr.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
Paul never claimed he was blinded by Jesus or received revelations from him. (1 Cr 11:23 does not come from Paul; it contradicts 2 Cr 1:1 and Gal 1:16)

Jiri
But, how do you know what "Paul" wrote? Suppose it is the other way?

All I can say for now, is that the epistles are propaganda, and that "Paul" appears to be fabricated late in the 2nd century based on Justin Martyr's extant writings.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-05-2008, 01:20 AM   #88
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
...
BTW, does anyone know where I can get my hands on the notebooks of Srinivasa Ramanujan ?
....
Ramanujan's Notebooks: Part I - follow the links for parts II - V - very pricey.
Toto is offline  
Old 05-05-2008, 10:36 AM   #89
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The recesses of Zaphon
Posts: 969
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_cave View Post

I would also like to point out that Delbert Burkett finds a "Sanhedrin trial" source in his analysis of Mark, and that Vorkosigan (following Ludemann) has displayed the parallels between the Sanhedrin trial and the trial before Pilate in his Commentary.
Thanks. I tried googling this but I couldn’t find much.

Do you know where I can find more info about this on line?
Loomis is offline  
Old 05-05-2008, 11:27 AM   #90
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Vorkosigan is Michael Turton. His commentary on Mark is here.

Delbert Burkett is the author of Rethinking the Gospel Sources: From Proto-Mark to Mark. T. & T. Clark International, 2004. Stephen Carlson has a review here and there is another review here by Douglas W. Geyer for the SBL. It can be previewed on Google books
Toto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:55 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.