jakejonesiv

That is a good link!

For an introduction to this field see particularly THE FALSIFIED PAUL. EARLY CHRISTIANITY IN THE TWILIGHT.

The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles

The Evolution of the Pauline Canon

Best,

Jake Jones IV

Barefoot Bree

Say what? :huh:

I don't care what the content of Paul's visions were. That doesn't matter one shrill hoot.... Nevermind. I guess nobody here has been on Zarathustra. Bummer.

You seem to think I am assigning some truth value to the content of the visions. I'm not. Let me try explaining things this way:

Last night I had the weirdest dream. In real life, I'm getting ready to file for divorce, but I dreamed that it was the day of the trial already and I was scrambling to get dressed properly and find all my papers and stuff. And in the middle, in walked my soon-to-be-ex, and we had a terrific fight.

Now, was I lying about having the dream? Absolutely not. The dream occured. Was I lying about the content of the dream? Nope. It happened as I described it. But did those events actually happen? Is the day of the trial here, and I couldn't find anything, and we had a fight? Hell, no. The dream truly occurred, but the contents were false, made out of whatever dreams are made of.

The same thing applies to Paul and his visions. The Exact Same Thing. Was Paul lying about having visions? I have no reason to believe he was. Was he lying about the content of those visions? Again, I have no reason to believe he was. Do those facts make the contents of those visions true? Did Paul actually see Jesus, or whatever else he claimed? Of course not.

He wasn't lying. But that doesn't make the visions themselves true.

See the distinction now?

***

Now, before you bring it up again, no, that doesn't mean that Paul's church brethren "should have" known that what he claimed to have seen was not true. As I said before, visions were extremely commonplace back then, and taken at face value. They were believed as a matter of course. It was part and parcel of the entire culture. (They still are; else we would not have thousands flocking to see statues crying blood or Mary in bird poop.)

***

ETA: Thanks, Jake. I'll check those out.

J-D

Don't be ridiculous. It isn't fair to be ridiculous when the board rules prohibit ridiculing people, even when they're being ridiculous.

J-D

Good, because there's more than one possibility, and I don't know whether the list I am able to compile is an exhaustive one--there may be more possibilities that haven't occurred to me.

It's also possible that there are different explanations in relation to different cases. For example, one explanation might apply to the text recording Paul's alleged meeting with Jesus, another to Paul's alleged meeting with James, another to Paul's alleged meeting with Peter, and yet another to the alleged appearance of Jesus to five hundred 'brethren' (whatever that means).

Also, I am only listing possible explanations involving a genuine mistake. Mistake is one of at least three possibilities along with accuracy and deliberate falsification.

Mistake might occur because of:
hallucination occasioned by temporary mental disturbance;
hallucination occasioned by lasting mental disorder;
hallucination occasioned by witting or unwitting consumption of hallucinogens;
mistaken identity (A meets B and mistakes B for C, a common event not usually considered hallucinatory);
imposture (differing from mistaken identity if B deliberately deceives A--in this case there is a liar/deceiver, but it's not the person who made the report, who is the victim of the deception, not its perpetrator);
faulty memory (also a common event not usually considered hallucinatory);
unintentional miscopying of the text (in this case the sincere mistake is not that of the original writer but of somebody later);
erroneous incorporation into the text, during the copying process, of material not originally part of it, such as marginal notes, or separate texts stored with it or written on the same physical surface (again, in this case the sincere mistake is not that of the original writer but of somebody later);
mishearing or misunderstanding during oral transmission before reduction to writing (if the person who first physically wrote the text is not the same as the person who composed it but rather an amanuensis or the like).

Sheshbazzar

'Paul', that is the many 'Paul's' that had a hand in the writing of the 'Paulinian' epistles, lived in a religious fantasy world.
from infancy they were brought up to believe in and accept that 'angels',
'demons', 'spirits', the Adversary (Satan), and 'God' were real beings that actually intervene in the affairs of men.
As befitting 'righteous' and 'God fearing' men, they were expected to search The Scriptures, and interpret contemporary events in the light of The Bible's ('Tanaka's') teachings.
As 'Holy men' they were expected to practice communing with God, searching to determine His will in their every day life, for their own individual good, and also that of their nation.
The receiving and interpretation of 'visions' and 'dreams' was a culturally honored practice. Each 'Prophet' reported his 'vision's or 'dreams' and sometimes their interpretation, and this was not at all considered as 'lying' within that cultural milieu, with its long history of Prophet's and 'prophecy', rather, the prophecy or preaching was laid out in the public view, and was not determined or judged to be either right or wrong (within certain culturally set acceptable limits), but the validity of the prophecy, and the authority and honor of the Prophet rested entirely upon the predicted events actually eventually coming to pass.
In this fashion, the stories were fabricated, the writer believing that his dreams and visions, and his subsequent writings had proceeded directly from God, and were God's words, and true expressions of God's will, which He revealed to men through His chosen 'servants'.
'Paul' wrote, and subsequent 'Paul's' wrote in his spirit, such things as they believed God, (and the original 'Paul') had intended.

These things were not taken lightly, as it was believed (from the myrid OT examples) that Divine punishment would be exacted against the one that would not speak, as well as against all people who would not listen, thus the fate of all were at stake.
In a sense, this was an earlier, primitive form of patriotism, one that was felt as fiercely as the most fervent of today's patriotic sentiments.
These 'Paul's' (and others) sincerely believed that what they were writing was the truth that God wanted them to write and to preach.

The error of critics, tends to be one of expecting such religiously generated literature to function as a repository of history, or be consistent with what is known of history, whereas to these writers, historical accuracy was of minor consequence, the tales being fashioned with the express purpose of conveying theological concepts, 'truths' and teachings.

While one may be correct in the rejecting of the literal accuracy of the accounts, or in the premises they present of the existance of an actual God and Satan waging a war for men's souls, the lessons presented of hoping for good to triumph over evil are still relevant today.

Another mistake is to doubt the sincerity of believers.
Being believers many -do- seriously believe that The Bible is "God's word, and that there will be a Judgement.

The composition and form of the NT Scriptures was a natural development and consequence of the type of culture and society that produced them.


I had the above written earlier, in a much better, and briefer form, but just as I was about to post it, we were hit with a power outage, and the Internet ate it
I am painfully aware that this is an inferior composition, but much of the pith of the original just seems to have escaped me, and I cannot now recall it,
Bummer, anyway, I hope that this will serve better than nothing.

J-D

Historians don't proceed by subjecting witnesses to courtroom procedures, and it would be inappropriate to try, and even more emphatically so to apply procedures specifically intended for expert witnesses. A historical inquiry is not a legal process, it shouldn't be, and it shouldn't try to be.

Sheshbazzar

Very good J-D!

Sheshbazzar

As you may determine by the contents of my last couple of posts, I have significantly altered my opinion and my position. At this point I can no longer edit the above post, which if I could, I would now delete.

Sometimes one needs pushed in a new direction to see things that were being overlooked. Events outside of this thread, and Forum, have caused me to 'see' and reevaluate my views on 'Paul' and the development of the NTs texts.
Please excuse me while, for the sake of a clear conscience, I willingly eat me 'humble pie'
Yummm Yum.....NOT!

KrisK10

Hi folks,

I swung by the forum here for a quick look and couldn't help but notice that the title of the current thread nearly matches the title of my new book Doubting Jesus' Resurrection: What Happened in the Black Box? (or via: amazon.co.uk) Although I'm just a layman, it has some pretty good endorsements from Dr. Richard Carrier, Dr. Robert M. Price, Dr. Robert J. Miller, Dr. Gregory C. Jenks, and others. If you are interested in this topic, you might want to check it out. All the best!

Kris K.

It's also available on Amazon.uk and Amazon.ca

aa5874

You must care about the content of Paul's vision and whether or not he had a vision. You have to care if you want to assess whether or not he was lying.

Why are trying so hard to impress me that you are not lying. Why should I care? You don't care about the veracity of Paul.

I am trying to impress upon that you MUST CARE whether Paul did really have visions and that he was truthful about the contents and you don't give a shrill hoot.....


Please tell me why I should give a shrill hoot...about your dreams?

How can you tell me the exact same thing happened when you don't give a shrill hoot....?


You don't give a shrill hoot...about Paul's veracity.

Are you claiming he was not lying because you don't give a shrill hoot....?

Of course I see the distinction. You don't give a shrill hoot...about Paul's veracity but you want me to give a shrill hoot.... to your veracity and your dreams.