gurugeorge

Sorry, it just looks like plain occultism to me, and far from being "not entirely thrilled", his only caveat is about what people make of these things ethically - he does not in the least condemn the practices themselves.

This is just an example of what obscure little groups of people do and have done throughout human history and across cultures - gather together and do occult practices. It's no different from a Voodoo church, from a Sufi gathering, or from middle-class Chinese folks practicing occultism and coming up with "messages" from the "Celestial Masters". It's also little different from the more charismatic Christian churches of today; or from some contemporary "New Age" workshops, for that matter.

This is the "milieu" you have to reckon with when you are reading "Paul". It's a milieu that produces - well, things like angelologies, "apocalyptic" visions, communications from "Jesus", etc., etc., et multae ceterae.

Sheer, plain occultism - and mysticism. (For "Paul" is nothing if not also a mystic, who teaches the attainment of union (or rather, knowledge of an already-existent union) with that principle of the Divine he supposes to be in some sense "within" each of us.)

So, as I say, although this stuff may look mad to some rationalists, and may indeed rightly be considered at least eccentric, madness proper isn't a necessary prerequisite for doing what Paul and his congregation did. It's just a natural capacity of the human mind, under certain conditions including but not limited to madness, to produce visions of seeming communication with discarnate intelligences and seeming travel through dream-like "realms" of various kinds.

Whether a human Joshua the Anointed One existed or not, one has to reckon that the response to the Joshua the Anointed One story - quite evidently - was all this stuff - mysticism and occultism. That's what Paul was doing, and what his congregation were doing.

I don't think there's really much of a useful distinction between "practices" and "activities that arise spontaneously out of certain types of religious excitement". How did they get religiously excited? Well, they did certain things! The objective situation is: people gathered together, got excited, and produced some stuff (messages from Jesus, from Auntie Mary, whatever, "messages" from "spirits" and "inspired" prophecies, etc., etc.). As I say, it's just occultism - or rather, occultism and this are common expressions of certain neurological capacities interacting with certain social forms.

aa5874

Well once you are arguing that the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ of Saul/Paul did not exist then I am baffled that you seem not to realise that you are in effect arguing the Saul/Paul was a Liar when he claimed to have met apostles of and persecuted followers of his NON-EXISTING Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Saul/Paul was NOT mad at all.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles are all part of the fraud to historicise fiction.

Saul/ Paul in Acts of the Apostles was presented as a character who persecuted Jesus believers, now if Jesus did not exist at all, and was not ever called Christ then Acts is a book of fiction, there were no Jesus believers before the Fall of the Temple.

And when the Pauline writer confirmed the fiction of his acts of persecution in Acts then Saul/Paul was not mad, just a liar who tried to historicise fiction.

Petergdi

Nope. That's why I brought up early Methodism. Early Methodism was 100% exoteric not the least bit obscure and is very very well documented.

If you mean that various religious experiences all involve human neurology, then of course they do. Everything that humans do or experience involves human neurological capacities. Buth there was nothing occult or hidden about early Methodism, and the appearance of these phaenomena cannot be used to argue for occultism.

Peter.

avi

I disagree with your sentiment that "good news" always refers to the "kingdom of god".

Nothing here about the kingdom of God. Something here, though, in Paul's hand, about Jesus having arisen from the dead.

Here's another:
Paul is not writing that God revealed the kingdom of god, he writes that god revealed the truth about the resurrection of Jesus.

One more for the road...
Nothing here about the kingdom of God. Quite a bit though, about belief in the mythical offspring of god.

avi

mountainman

There are the Jewish specific 4th century law codes in the codex Theodosianus such as:


But as far as I am aware, these are the earliest evidential citations in that area.
Not only was the author of Paul mentally ill, but so was the author of Pseudo Paul.
You know, the one who wrote those letters to "Dear Senecca" ....

Paul is a fabrication, just like all the other boneheads. At the core historical source of Paul is the travelling philosopher/sage and "suspected Holy Man and Miracle Worker", the author of books and man of letters collected after his death ... Apollonius of Tyana

mountainman

I suggest you consider the original Greek idea (which the 4th century Christians "stole") as expressed by Plotinus (ca. CE 204–270) as outlined in History of Western Philosophy - by Bertrand Russell

HINT: This is related to the notion of Nondualism

Petergdi

It isn't a sentiment, it is an observation about the use of the term by NT writers. Did you notice that the word "ευαγγελιον" doesn't seem to appear in your quotations? I don't dispute that Paul believed that God raised Jesus from the dead, and that Paul thought that this was extraordinarily important, but it isn't how he uses "gospel."

Peter.

aa5874

But, where are you getting your information from? Apologetic sources of antiquity contradict you with respect to the Ebionites and Paul.

This is Eusebius on the Ebionites in "Church History" 3.27.4 This is the Pauline writer on his Jesus.

Philippians 2.9-11 And here is the Pauline writer on his Jesus in Colossians 1.16-17

This is Eusebius clearly indicating the beliefs of the Ebionites in "Church History" 3.27.2-3

It is just not true at all or there is no evidence, even from apologetic sources of antiquity, that the Pauline christology was essentially the same as the Ebionites.

The evidence essentially shows the opposite, that the Ebionites rejected all of the Pauline writings.

gurugeorge

Well perhaps we got off on the wrong foot, I was using "occultism" more to stress the aspect of practice rather than study of these matters - the "hidden" aspect of the meaning of the term is of no interest to me, it's really just an accidental artefact of such practices being viewed somewhat dimly by the Church for a few hundred years. But that's precisely the point: close competitors, you see? You don't want independent versions of this woo-woo stuff, you want to be practicing only the sanctioned magic of the Church (miracle of the Mass and all that).

It's a cross-cultural phenomenon based on certain common quirks of neurology (namely our proprioceptive systems combined in some way with the mechanisms that normally produce dream imagery and storytelling). Paul saw something he called "Christ". People see things they call "spirits", "gods", "demons", etc., etc. Paul seemingly encouraged his congregation to see spirits and have them talk through them, etc., etc. (although he was careful - like most serious occultists - to put such practices in a moral context).

Visionary experience is the source of the whole thing - it's the primary source of the phenomenon of religion, and the primary source of this one, Christianity, too. The idea of "ghosts" and "gods", or "Jesus Christ" for that matter, would never have occurred to anyone (they are not possible final terms in any sort of speculative rational discourse), if some people hadn't had these kinds of experiences. It's people having peculiar experiences that puts those terms into public discourse, then further on down the line people prate on learnedly about things they haven't experienced themselves, and build theologies around the terms as used as counters in a "glass bead game" whose main interest is actually politics, the control of people, and the mulcting of them for all they're worth.

aa5874

But, why are you attempting to historicise the Pauline revelations when the very source cannot be externally corroborated and was internally manipulated?

The historicity of the Pauline writer and content of his supposed revelations are based entirely on FAITH and unsupported speculation.

It is true that people have claimed they had visions but on what basis must the content and the chronology of the visions be accepted without any evidence whatsoever?

The Pauline writings are essentially uncorroborated manipulated writings, it therefore must be that the veracity of those writings are extremely questionable bearing in mind that the Pauline conversion in Acts is also most likely to be fictitious.

Now, you have NO IDEA what the Pauline writer actually saw, and further the writer wrote about Jesus Christ, not just Christ.


But, what historical source of antiquity demonstrate that it was the Pauline writer who first had visions?

The Pauline writer admit no such thing.

Why are you trying to make Paul first when he said he was the LAST TO SEE JESUS?

This is a Pauline writer claiming he SAW JESUS LAST.

1 Corinthians 15.8-9 Again, these are found in the Pauline writings.

Romans 16:7 - Ga 1:17 - And in Acts, Saul/Paul was blinded after Jesus ascended through the clouds, after the day of Pentecost, and after Stephen was stoned to dearh.

Both internally, from the Pauline writer and Acts, there is no evidence that the Pauline writer was first. It is the complete opposite, Paul was the LAST as confessed.


It is now becoming MERE propaganda that Paul was first when there is no historical support for such a view.

The Pauline writer was not mad, just LAST.