Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 10-20-2009, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I have made no claims about probabilities. So why are you asking me this question?

Because we are dealing with Paul's lies about seeing Jesus in a resurrected state along with over 500 people. Even if he was unknowingly poisoned, some one of his church brethren or his friends, unless they too were unknowingly poisoned, would have been able to recognize that Paul was seeing and hearing things that were not true.

Only if they were supposed to be present on the occasion referred to. If somebody told you that they had seen me and that 500 other people were there and saw me too, how could you tell whether the report was true or not? How could anybody tell? If the text said 'he was seen by 500 people including Arthur, Martha, Zeke, and Zoe', then we might wonder what Arthur, Martha, Zeke, and Zoe had to say about that, but the text doesn't name any of the (alleged) 500.

On the other hand, it's also possible that the equivalents of my hypothetical Arthur, Martha, Zeke, and Zoe did contradict Paul's reports, but that their contradictions were not written down, OR that they were written down but no copies have survived.

J-D · 10-20-2009, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefoot Bree

...Again, I'm taking issue with your characterization of Paul as a liar, and presenting an alternative explanation, that also has great bearing on the genesis of the vast majority of religions throughout history.

Well, please me tell what you would call a person who lived no earlier than the middle of the 2nd century who claimed that he and over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state in the 1st century, and then claimed, apparently before he was even born, that he saw Peter and the brother of the resurrected, two fictitious characters, in Jerusalem?

The writer called Paul has a disturbing pattern of lies. He even claimed that he did not get his gospel from man.

Who is Paul trying to fool?

The gospels are all man-made. Paul read the Septuagint or some similar source to fabricate his gospel.

Paul is a liar without any reasonable doubt.

You could be wrong.

aa5874 · 10-20-2009, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Because we are dealing with Paul's lies about seeing Jesus in a resurrected state along with over 500 people. Even if he was unknowingly poisoned, some one of his church brethren or his friends, unless they too were unknowingly poisoned, would have been able to recognize that Paul was seeing and hearing things that were not true.

Only if they were supposed to be present on the occasion referred to. If somebody told you that they had seen me and that 500 other people were there and saw me too, how could you tell whether the report was true or not? How could anybody tell? If the text said 'he was seen by 500 people including Arthur, Martha, Zeke, and Zoe', then we might wonder what Arthur, Martha, Zeke, and Zoe had to say about that, but the text doesn't name any of the (alleged) 500.

On the other hand, it's also possible that the equivalents of my hypothetical Arthur, Martha, Zeke, and Zoe did contradict Paul's reports, but that their contradictions were not written down, OR that they were written down but no copies have survived.

So, I may be right after all.

aa5874 · 10-20-2009, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, please me tell what you would call a person who lived no earlier than the middle of the 2nd century who claimed that he and over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state in the 1st century, and then claimed, apparently before he was even born, that he saw Peter and the brother of the resurrected, two fictitious characters, in Jerusalem?

The writer called Paul has a disturbing pattern of lies. He even claimed that he did not get his gospel from man.

Who is Paul trying to fool?

The gospels are all man-made. Paul read the Septuagint or some similar source to fabricate his gospel.

Paul is a liar without any reasonable doubt.

You could be wrong.

You didn't know that? I knew that so long ago.

Barefoot Bree · 10-20-2009, 10:19 PM

Okie-dokie, aa, I give up. You are not truly listening to a word I'm saying. Here's your prize for chasing me away: you get to deal with Shesh instead. Care to try completely inverting and then handwaving away what he's saying below?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Once Paul lived over a century from the supposed events, then Paul could only be lying. Once Paul read the Septuagint or some similar source to fabricate his gospel then Paul was lying when he claimed he did not get his gospel from man.

Lying is a mild word for Paul.

Paul was a fraud.

He needs to explain what exactly he and over 500 people saw in a resurrected state.

'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 · 10-20-2009, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Only if they were supposed to be present on the occasion referred to. If somebody told you that they had seen me and that 500 other people were there and saw me too, how could you tell whether the report was true or not? How could anybody tell? If the text said 'he was seen by 500 people including Arthur, Martha, Zeke, and Zoe', then we might wonder what Arthur, Martha, Zeke, and Zoe had to say about that, but the text doesn't name any of the (alleged) 500.

On the other hand, it's also possible that the equivalents of my hypothetical Arthur, Martha, Zeke, and Zoe did contradict Paul's reports, but that their contradictions were not written down, OR that they were written down but no copies have survived.

So, I may be right after all.

I'm sure you're right about something, although I don't know what.

aa5874 · 10-20-2009, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefoot Bree

Okie-dokie, aa, I give up. You are not truly listening to a word I'm saying.

Was it not you who said that you don't give a shrill hoot....about Paul's veracity? Why are you now trying very hard to come across as very truthful with your dreams?

Because you realise that veracity and chronology is extremely important.

Please tell me the truth about Paul. When did PAUL write that he and over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefoot Bree

Here's your prize for chasing me away....

Didn't you just say you give up?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefoot Bree

Okie-dokie, aa, I give up....

I did not chase you, you just simply ran away.

J-D · 10-21-2009, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefoot Bree

Okie-dokie, aa, I give up. You are not truly listening to a word I'm saying.

Was it not you who said that you don't give a shrill hoot....about Paul's veracity?

No, she didn't say that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Why are you now trying very hard to come across as very truthful with your dreams?

She isn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Because you realise that veracity and chronology is extremely important.

Please tell me the truth about Paul. When did PAUL write that he and over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state?

Nobody knows for sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Didn't you just say you give up?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefoot Bree

Okie-dokie, aa, I give up....

I did not chase you, you just simply ran away.

If everybody who met you ran away, what would that tell us?

Sheshbazzar · 10-21-2009, 08:41 AM

Here is another thing that I forgot to include in my previous post, and that needs empathised.
In addition to these Biblical writers being raised from their infancy in a religion dominated 'cult' environment, one where the existence and interaction of 'angels',
'demons', 'spirits', 'The Adversary', and 'God' were an unquestioned, FACT of their every day life.
From morning to night every aspect of their life and thought was enmeshed in the observances of myrid religious rituals- ALL geared towards the recalling of, and the reinforcing of their devotion to their God.
Elaborate rituals and recitations regulated everything, from the simple act of dressing in the morning- the 'required garments', and their 'accoutrements', each with its own 'significance' which was to be 'meditated' upon in the usage of with appropriate memorised prayers and blessings.
Thousands of -'cult'- rules and regulations controlled every single aspect of daily conduct.
This type of 'cult' cultural environment, was so carefully arranged and regulated, that there would be no room to ever question the underlying premises.
Even if a person raised under these molding cultural pressures and influences were at all momentarily able to -clear their mind- sufficiently to even consider the possibility that there might not really be any God behind it, to even suggest such a thing in that time, place, and culture would be tantamount to committing both treason and blasphemy.
The very least one could expect would be a strong rebuke from the religious authorities, and unless 'restored from such folly', be by the Law, "cut off from among the people" by complete social ostracism and exile from ones community and own family.
If this was not sufficient to silence, and to remove the traitorous blasphemer from their midst, the religious community could resort to that ultimate 'penalty';
as -required- by The Law of Moses.
Under the Biblical teachings, and the accepted social mores that prevailed, to not obey, and carry out the death penalty dictated by The Law, was to expose the entire nation to the danger of stirring up that Divine wrath so vividly illustrated throughout the Tanaka (the 'OT Bible').

One does not just simply 'walk away' and forget a life that was long lived under such stringent rules, and with the destruction of the Temple, and the dispersion of the cult into strange lands and societies, the people would inquire of their 'prophets' and of their 'preachers', an explanation for what had befell them, and it would fall on the shoulders of 'Holy men' such men as 'Paul' to have 'visions' and 'dreams' and conversations with God, and fashion a new 'explanation' for things otherwise unexplainable to a people whose lives were centred around the pleasing and appeasing of their God.
'Paul's' new 'explanation' did not sit well with many (most) adherents of the 'traditional' Jerusalem Jewish religion, (they also called it 'lies') but found a ready audience among the more Hellenized, and the more cosmopolitan ('worldly'), and among the believing converts from other nations and religions, and thus 'Paul's' writings came to be focused upon, and tuned to the assurances and the needs, and the desires of this new and receptive audience.
I believe 'Paul' forced himself (many 'Paul's) to fevrently believe that what 'he' was writing was the Gospel TRUTH, convincing himself, he succeeded in convincing others. By his lights, and by their lights, and by the lights of our present day Fundamentalist BELIEVERS, these stories were NOT 'lies', and ARE NOT 'lies', but the highest TRUTH that can be conveyed to men.

Of course to 'traditional' Jews, and to the Atheist's these stories are implausible, contradictory, and obviously fictional fabrications.
Rather than being outright lies, I believe them to be the earnest delusions of pressured, but none the less deluded men.

I, my own-self, walked for over fifty years of my life earnestly believing the NT record, and it was only after some -seven years- of the de-programing of participating in this forum, that I was finally able to break free of that hold that these fables held over me.

Barefoot Bree · 10-21-2009, 09:04 AM

Thank you for bringing this out, Shesh, -- and congratulations on your deconversion. I didn't go through that same process, but I sympathize with the pain and torture many do endure, and the triumph at the end. It's worth it.

I digress. Your depiction is dead on - for many, if not most, ancient cultures (as well as many modern ones). The major differences from the outside are the degree to which the religion has a hold on the community and the individuals therein. The insidious thing about it is how hard it is for people inside the system to really see it, and to break free, and how hard it is for people outside the system to understand the strength of the system's hold on its victims.

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

10-21-2009, 08:41 AM	#409
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Here is another thing that I forgot to include in my previous post, and that needs empathised. In addition to these Biblical writers being raised from their infancy in a religion dominated 'cult' environment, one where the existence and interaction of 'angels', 'demons', 'spirits', 'The Adversary', and 'God' were an unquestioned, FACT of their every day life. From morning to night every aspect of their life and thought was enmeshed in the observances of myrid religious rituals- ALL geared towards the recalling of, and the reinforcing of their devotion to their God. Elaborate rituals and recitations regulated everything, from the simple act of dressing in the morning- the 'required garments', and their 'accoutrements', each with its own 'significance' which was to be 'meditated' upon in the usage of with appropriate memorised prayers and blessings. Thousands of -'cult'- rules and regulations controlled every single aspect of daily conduct. This type of 'cult' cultural environment, was so carefully arranged and regulated, that there would be no room to ever question the underlying premises. Even if a person raised under these molding cultural pressures and influences were at all momentarily able to -clear their mind- sufficiently to even consider the possibility that there might not really be any God behind it, to even suggest such a thing in that time, place, and culture would be tantamount to committing both treason and blasphemy. The very least one could expect would be a strong rebuke from the religious authorities, and unless 'restored from such folly', be by the Law, "cut off from among the people" by complete social ostracism and exile from ones community and own family. If this was not sufficient to silence, and to remove the traitorous blasphemer from their midst, the religious community could resort to that ultimate 'penalty'; as -required- by The Law of Moses. Under the Biblical teachings, and the accepted social mores that prevailed, to not obey, and carry out the death penalty dictated by The Law, was to expose the entire nation to the danger of stirring up that Divine wrath so vividly illustrated throughout the Tanaka (the 'OT Bible'). One does not just simply 'walk away' and forget a life that was long lived under such stringent rules, and with the destruction of the Temple, and the dispersion of the cult into strange lands and societies, the people would inquire of their 'prophets' and of their 'preachers', an explanation for what had befell them, and it would fall on the shoulders of 'Holy men' such men as 'Paul' to have 'visions' and 'dreams' and conversations with God, and fashion a new 'explanation' for things otherwise unexplainable to a people whose lives were centred around the pleasing and appeasing of their God. 'Paul's' new 'explanation' did not sit well with many (most) adherents of the 'traditional' Jerusalem Jewish religion, (they also called it 'lies') but found a ready audience among the more Hellenized, and the more cosmopolitan ('worldly'), and among the believing converts from other nations and religions, and thus 'Paul's' writings came to be focused upon, and tuned to the assurances and the needs, and the desires of this new and receptive audience. I believe 'Paul' forced himself (many 'Paul's) to fevrently believe that what 'he' was writing was the Gospel TRUTH, convincing himself, he succeeded in convincing others. By his lights, and by their lights, and by the lights of our present day Fundamentalist BELIEVERS, these stories were NOT 'lies', and ARE NOT 'lies', but the highest TRUTH that can be conveyed to men. Of course to 'traditional' Jews, and to the Atheist's these stories are implausible, contradictory, and obviously fictional fabrications. Rather than being outright lies, I believe them to be the earnest delusions of pressured, but none the less deluded men. I, my own-self, walked for over fifty years of my life earnestly believing the NT record, and it was only after some -seven years- of the de-programing of participating in this forum, that I was finally able to break free of that hold that these fables held over me.

10-21-2009, 09:04 AM	#410
Barefoot Bree Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: East of ginger trees Posts: 12,637	Thank you for bringing this out, Shesh, -- and congratulations on your deconversion. I didn't go through that same process, but I sympathize with the pain and torture many do endure, and the triumph at the end. It's worth it. I digress. Your depiction is dead on - for many, if not most, ancient cultures (as well as many modern ones). The major differences from the outside are the degree to which the religion has a hold on the community and the individuals therein. The insidious thing about it is how hard it is for people inside the system to really see it, and to break free, and how hard it is for people outside the system to understand the strength of the system's hold on its victims.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.