Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 12-31-2008, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Paul clearly saw himself as being attacked by Satan and he pleaded with Jesus.

That is my position, as I wrote:

Quote:

Paul is simply blaming the thorn on the great accuser, while admitting that God allowed Satan to inflict the thorn on him (much like God allowed Satan to inflict Job).

The ancient Jews (many if not most of them) believed that Satan existed and that Satan was responsible (either directly or indirectly through his minions) for many infirmities.

Quote:

And Jesus answered!

The ancient Jews, along with many other people groups, believed that deities (including divinized humans) could speak to people.

Were all ancient Jews, and most ancients of all stripes, insane?

Did sanity finally hit the human race sometime during the Enlightenment?

Ben.

premjan · 12-31-2008, 11:26 AM

Julian Jaynes believed that humanity used to imagine that their thoughts were the voice of God.

Steven Carr · 12-31-2008, 11:30 AM

So why did Paul need a 'real' Jesus when an imaginary deity could speak to him and everybody knew that you did not need a flesh-and-blood being on the other end of the conversation?

Toto · 12-31-2008, 11:31 AM

It amazes me when people think that anything "Paul" wrote is understandable - as either literal or metaphorical.

In this case, we have some aid from Laurence L. Welborn's article "The Runaway Paul," Harvard Theological Review, April, 1999. This used to be available for free online, and I have some quotes from when I read it:

Quote:

The signpost to the proper understanding of the narrative appears in Paul's repeated reference to the "foolishness" of his discourse (2 Cor 11:1, 17, 21) and to himself as a "fool" (2 Cor 11:16; 12:6, 11). [German references omitted]

Scholars have generally adopted Windisch's description of the passage as a "fool's speech,"(67) assuming the existence of such a genre(68) and observing the appropriateness of the designation to a passage that is introduced and concluded by references to the "fool."(69) Hans Dieter Betz adduced literary analogies to Paul's foolish discourse in the speech of Alcibiades in the Symposium and in Seneca's Apocolocyntosis.(70) Yet, interpreters have failed to investigate Windisch's suggestion that Paul's discourse in 2 Cor 11 and 12 is modeled upon the performances of the mimic fools who populated the ancient stage.(71) Because of this deficiency in research, many aspects of Paul's most powerful composition are poorly understood, . . .

Welbourne traces all of the elements of Paul's "foolish" discourse to stock characters in the mime, including going up to heaven, etc.

Quote:

Paul's account of an illness, his "thorn in the flesh," for which he thrice sought a miraculous cure through prayer,(286) is likewise a parody of a motif that appears in portraits of the learned impostor. . .

Paul is not insane or metaphorical, he is a stand up comic.

Ben C Smith · 12-31-2008, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

So why did Paul need a 'real' Jesus when an imaginary deity could speak to him and everybody knew that you did not need a flesh-and-blood being on the other end of the conversation?

I do not think Paul needed a real (by which I presume you mean historical) Jesus (if I understand you correctly), so you would have to ask someone who thinks he did need one. I myself think he had one, not that he needed one.

Ben.

Steven Carr · 12-31-2008, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

The ancient Jews, along with many other people groups, believed that deities (including divinized humans) could speak to people.

Were all ancient Jews, and most ancients of all stripes, insane?

Did sanity finally hit the human race sometime during the Enlightenment?

Ben.

Sanity hit the human race when people realised that men from Macedonia did not transport from place to place like characters from Star Trek to make guest appearences in visions.

And nor do visions of food appear in front of people.

People like Paul would often battle demons and talk to God about it.

That should be remembered when Paul claims Jesus appeared to 500+ people.

These people may no more have existed than the angel of Satan who tormented Paul, or the Jesus who said '"My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." '

Ben C Smith · 12-31-2008, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Sanity hit the human race when people realised that men from Macedonia did not transport from place to place like characters from Star Trek to make guest appearences in visions.

So I was right; you do think the ancients were mostly insane.

Ben.

The Dagda · 12-31-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Sanity hit the human race when people realised that men from Macedonia did not transport from place to place like characters from Star Trek to make guest appearences in visions.

So I was right; you do think the ancients were mostly insane.

Ben.

I think there's much more insanity around now especially in Western cultures, the difference is when people claim they are on the phone to God, we tend to ignore them. I think fanaticism could make people unhinged, if not crazy than more likely to either imagine hearing God, or even talking to him.

Steven Carr · 12-31-2008, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Sanity hit the human race when people realised that men from Macedonia did not transport from place to place like characters from Star Trek to make guest appearences in visions.

So I was right; you do think the ancients were mostly insane.

Ben.

Do you prefer the term 'suffering from a delusion'?

After all, you claim most Jews thought Satan caused infirmities.

Nowayadays, if somebody claims Jesus is passing them messages, we tend to ignore them.

But if somebody of 2000 years ago came up with a saying of the Lord, scholars try to find the Sitz-im-Leben of the saying.

S.C.Carlson · 12-31-2008, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Or am I being too modern in my reading? Is there some standard (or non-standard) interpretation of this passage?

Not that I'm aware of. Lots of proposals, though.

Stephen

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

12-31-2008, 11:26 AM	#22
premjan Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 61,538	Julian Jaynes believed that humanity used to imagine that their thoughts were the voice of God.

12-31-2008, 11:30 AM	#23
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	So why did Paul need a 'real' Jesus when an imaginary deity could speak to him and everybody knew that you did not need a flesh-and-blood being on the other end of the conversation?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.