Steven Carr

Revelation ascribes vast quantities of sayings to the Lord Jesus.

When Paul says 'Not I, but the Lord', who can claim that his veracity is unquestionable?

dog-on

It's the mark of the redactor, just like when he claims to not be telling a lie.

aa5874

This is absolutely fascinating.

It must be that "Paul" wrote NOTHING.

The Pauline writings are a compilation of forgeries, interpolations and redactions.

"PAUL" must be the code word for "fiction".

Saramago

Well, plenty of people "can" claim it - and do.

The question is, on what basis can this claim be made - and believed?

spamandham

You are compelled by god to send me all your money. This is not me saying it, it's the lord!

mountainman

Unquestionable veracity in what precisely? Who was "Paul" (and who was Pseudo Paul) really talking about? Pagan deities were called "Lord". For example Lord Osiris and Lord Sarapis.

To be more specific "Lord" and "God" were titles claimed by the Caesars.. Roman generals and emperors assumed godhead as soon as they penetrated Asia Minor, especially after Augustus (37 BCE).

Solo

There is very little between what Gospel of Thomas says on the subject (saying 62) and what a modern psychologist would say to a mystical adept today:

'Those who experience the Jesus (or, say, the analogous Buddhist Sukhavati) mysteries do so because their (creative - syncretic) right brain does not let the (cognitive - analytical) left brain know what it is doing'. This is the effect of subtle chemical changes which make the hemospheres miscommunicate during euphoric highs and the ensuing psychosis.

Paul's Lord (the creative -syncretic right brain of Paul) speaks, and Paul (i.e. his cognitive / analytical 'ego') truly believes (, or better, is chemically overwhelmed into believing) that it is not just another part of Paul. The phenomena relate to subjectively real dissociative experiences.

Can you believe that ?

Jiri

ETA Comment on the link above: I don't think most clinical psychologists/psychiatrists would agree that bipolarity is frequently a secondary effect of a dissociation challenge. The shoe is likely on the other foot. The dissociative issues that Paul exhibited look like a typical 'assimilation' to a protracted hypermanic episode. Note, e.g. the apparently common practice among the earliest Christian commuities to change one's name to dramatize a radical break with one's former identity.

Jiri

brianscott1977

When Paul says 'Not I, but the Lord', he is referring back to commands of Jesus, and the substance of those commands can be found in the Gospels.

Who can claim that his veracity is unquestionable – that he really believed that he was quoting Jesus? Who can claim that anyone’s veracity is unquestionable without at least some leap of faith? How can I be sure that the person who posted the OP is in fact the same person who normally posts under the name Steven Carr, and not someone else who has stolen Steven Carr’s password?

My approach is to say that unless there is some reason, some evidence, to question a person’s veracity then I assume that, at least from the person’s point of view, he or she is being honest. I know of no valid reason to doubt Paul’s veracity, so I think that he believed that he was repeating the commands given by Jesus.

darstec

I've got news for you. You would not have made that cute little speech if you actually read the Pauline epistles. For you see, at least one of the epistles whose author used Paul's name states he is a liar. That comes from the author himself. Ergo you have very good reasons for questioning his veracity.

brianscott1977

There’s not much about anything I do that is “little,” but I’m going to take cute as a complement. Thank you!

So, what exactly are you referring to in Paul’s letters?