Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 04-02-2010, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It would appear that the Pauline admitted that all men are LIARS and that he did LIE about the truth of God.

It would appear to me that you are looking at a hypothetical argument that's part of a theology, and reading it as an admission of fact.

But, you appear to fail to take into account the hypothesis that the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ of Saul/Paul did not exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, on the other hand, it can be reasonable assumed that people can lie and have lied about having visions. Only the naive would ignore those facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Sure, but there's no reason to assume that someone is lying when they say they've had a vision, given that genuine visions are common enough. Paul lied? Very good, show us the bit where you catch him out lying, and then we can look at his talk about visions in another light.

Once you understand the implication of a non-historical Jesus and disciples then it is a very simple matter to identify the lies from the Pauline writer.

Once Jesus and the disciples were non-historical and their stories were invented after the Fall of the Temple, then the Pauline writer was just a LIAR. He persecuted no Jesus believers before the Fall of the Temple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, we have Joseph Smith and now we have millions of Mormons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Oh fiddlesticks, to me Mormonism looks like the case of a sensitive kid who has visions, then the family gets all greedy and makes a big thing of it, and then the kid fails to have a correct confirming vision at the point where his dad needs it to shore up the bullshit he's built up about his kid's visions in the community. There's little reason to doubt that the boy originally did have some sort of vision - again, it happens all the time. i.e. people have hallucinations of talking to gods, spirits, demons, fairies, etc., etc. either as a result of mental dysfunction or as a result of a natural function of a healthy brain under certain conditions.

You are confusing the issue. People can claim they have visions. People can lie about their visions.

Joseph Smith claimed he had some "real golden plates" from a God and that he copied information from the "golden plates".

Joseph Smith's visions are irrelevant. His claims about the "golden plates" are most likely false.

Similarly, Saul/Paul or the Pauline writer claimed he met actual characters named Peter and James in Jerusalem and that he actually persecuted the Church.

His visions are irrelevant. The Pauline writer most likely lied about those events.

Quote:

Why was not the martyrdom of Paul included in Acts of the Apostles?
Why was Acts of the Apostles ended as though it was written while Paul was still alive?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

How do we know Paul was martyred?

Well, why do you think there was a character called Paul in the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple?

What do you know about Paul independent of the Canon and the Church writers?

Once Jesus and the disciples (apostles) were non-historical and were invented after the Fall of the Temple then all supposed historical accounts with respect to Paul and the apostles are just a pack of lies and have very little to do with mental illness.

Petergdi · 04-04-2010, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Now what that "good news" was is usually taken to be the saving grace of Jesus' vicarious sacrifice for the sins of anyone who will believe that it can happen.

I don't think that that is how it is "usually taken" by any Christians I am familiar with. I think it would be better to say that the good news is of the coming of the Kingdom of God and that Christ's obedience makes it possible for us to become heirs of the Kingdom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

That is what the text as we have received it says, anyways ... well kinda. If anyone wants to really question Paul's sanity, it is in the way he seems to have two opposed and competing schemes of salvation in his mind at the same time, all without any consciousness of this discordance.

I think the discordance is the result of trying to read some sort of magical thinking into Paul's soteriology.

Peter.

avi · 04-05-2010, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

....

Well, why do you think there was a character called Paul in the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple?

What do you know about Paul independent of the Canon and the Church writers? (my emphasis)

I think this is a crucial question for this forum to debate.

Here's what shows up if one enters
Paul
history
evidence
into Google:
http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar29.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul L. Maier from 1999

The archaeological supports in the case of Jesus’ greatest follower, Paul of Tarsus, are especially impressive. Ruins in Cyprus, Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome and elsewhere all bear out the many references about Paul in the New Testament.

That's about it.
little else.
Here is another zombie reference:
http://www.parsagard.com/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson White

Paul at Ephesus

In the ancient world, Ephesus was known both as a center of magic and as a university town. However, the city was most famous because it possessed of one of the seven wonders of the ancient world: the temple of the goddess Artemis, or Diana.

Wow.

That's it.
This is the evidence of the veracity of the claim that Paul is a real person, supposedly living in the first century.

I believe he is fictional, created in the second century, post third Roman-Jewish conflict.

I too, have no evidence to support my belief.

avi

Solo · 04-05-2010, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Hi Andrew,
IIUC, Scholem believed the later Mishnaic references (mostly in Tosefta) to Merkabah mysticism and esoteric angelology related to material which had tradition back to the time of the second Temple. Are you saying that the tradition probably did not go that far back ? If so, would there be some indicator in those references (which Scholem said were fragmented) to help establish their terminus a quo ?

Best,
Jiri

Hi Jiri

I should probably first clarify what I meant by "Merkabah mysticism". Merkabah means chariot, in this context the heavenly chariot in Ezekiel. There was clearly an ancient (pre 70 CE) esoteric tradition of exegesis of these passages of Ezekiel involving speculative angelology and if one calls this type of esoteric exegesis of the Merkabah passages "Merkabah mysticism" then "Merkabah mysticism" goes back to the second Temple. However "Merkabah mysticism" usually means meditation on the heavenly chariot as part of a technique to achieve visions of an ascent into the heavens. The sort of thing that we find in the Hekkalot literature. It is "Merkabah mysticism" in this sense that I would date later (probably substantially later) than 70 CE.

One problem with the Tosefta Hagigah references about the chariot is that read on their own they don't really seem to be about mystical techniques for heavenly ascent. As amplified in the Talmud they clearly are about heavenly ascent but this may involve later reinterpretation.

I date developed "Merkabah mysticism" late partly because of the lack of solid early evidence, but also because it seems (at least in its developed form) to be a response to post 70 CE concerns. At least some "Merkabah mysticism" is answering the question about how can one appear before God in God's temple now that the earthly temple is destroyed. There is also the "Sar Torah" material (the angelic prince of Torah) in the Hekkalot texts which seems to be about how to obtain esoteric knowledge without the laborious academic study of the rabbis. This is probably a reaction to the claims by the rabbis to have a monopoly on esoteric knowledge. If so it again indicates a relatively late date for these ideas maybe 3rd century CE or slightly later.

Andrew Criddle

(I probably won't be able to respond further till after Easter.)

Thanks, Andrew. There may be connection between the appearance of the hekalot books and the loss of the temple but I am not yet convinced. The pharisee rabbinical Judaism came about in part as a revolt of educated urban laity to the levitical priestly monopoly. But the ecstatic sectaries in Jerusalem and in Paul's missions already seem to have come full circle against against the new authorities. At least that is what the gospels seem to be saying. Paul already had the esoteric 'temple of the body' while the temple was still standing.

Best,
Jiri

EastTexasinfidel · 04-05-2010, 11:54 PM

My impression of Saul is that he was experiencing some type of cognitive dissonance that precipitated his conversion. I don't know if this was directly related to his persecution of Christians or not, but I would think so. This is just my opinion from what I get out of it. On the road to Damascus, I would say he either experienced some type of sun stroke or some type of psychotic or other mental breakdown. Given his visions I would say it is likely that he was suffering from some type of psychotic disorder, but its really impossible to diagnose a mental disorder for a historical figure.

gurugeorge · 04-06-2010, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

It would appear to me that you are looking at a hypothetical argument that's part of a theology, and reading it as an admission of fact.

But, you appear to fail to take into account the hypothesis that the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ of Saul/Paul did not exist.

Gaah, once again I find myself totally baffled by your responses. My whole argument is that the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ of Saul/Paul didn't exist, and if that's not clear from what I wrote, then I don't know how to go on.

gurugeorge · 04-06-2010, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

I think the discordance is the result of trying to read some sort of magical thinking into Paul's soteriology.

It's hardly "reading in" when Paul himself says that they did magical practices (tongues, prophecy, spirit vision, spirit conversation).

Petergdi · 04-06-2010, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

I think the discordance is the result of trying to read some sort of magical thinking into Paul's soteriology.

It's hardly "reading in" when Paul himself says that they did magical practices (tongues, prophecy, spirit vision, spirit conversation).

Those aren't "magical" practices. They are activities that arise spontaneously out of certain types of religious excitement. The Wesleys were surprised and more than a little uncomfortable when Methodists began speaking in tongues in the mid 18th century. Paul was also clearly not entirely thrilled about the "speaking in tongues" bit.

People who wish to "explain" Christian doctrine in a funny way often pretend that Christians normally believe that sacrifices are inherently effective and that Jesus on the cross was a giant sized version of one. Often, the Christian does not have a ready answer for this, although he is quite certain that his beliefs are being made fun of. In fact, the normal Christian belief is that sacrifices are not inherently effective - if they were any good at all it was because they signified obedience or that they pointed towards Christ's obedience.

Peter.

avi · 04-06-2010, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

I think it would be better to say that the good news is of the coming of the Kingdom of God and that Christ's obedience makes it possible for us to become heirs of the Kingdom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

In fact, the normal Christian belief is that sacrifices are not inherently effective - if they were any good at all it was because they signified obedience or that they pointed towards Christ's obedience.

filial obedience?
hmm.
How can the Jesus character be at the same time "god", and also obedient to "god"? Does not the triune theory claim that all three components represent the same single entity. Doesn't Paul here refer to "good news" as the supposed resurrection of Jesus, (thereby confirming Jesus' true nature as a deity), rather than the "obedience" of the mere prophet, mortal, human Jesus, a Jew praised by all Muslims?

avi

Petergdi · 04-06-2010, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

I think it would be better to say that the good news is of the coming of the Kingdom of God and that Christ's obedience makes it possible for us to become heirs of the Kingdom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

In fact, the normal Christian belief is that sacrifices are not inherently effective - if they were any good at all it was because they signified obedience or that they pointed towards Christ's obedience.

filial obedience?
hmm.
How can the Jesus character be at the same time "god", and also obedient to "god"? Does not the triune theory claim that all three components represent the same single entity.

I personally find the doctrine of the Trinity hard to follow, but the idea that the Son can be obedient to the Father has never seemed to trouble orthodox trinitarians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Doesn't Paul here refer to "good news" as the supposed resurrection of Jesus,

The "good news" is always about the Kingdom of God. I think that Paul is often thinking of Isaiah 52 when he uses euangelion. The resurrection of Christ is a result of the gospel being true, and for Paul, a demonstration of it. The gospel is that the Kingdom of God is already being established and that you can be a child of God and an heir to the Kingdom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

(thereby confirming Jesus' true nature as a deity),

Where are you getting this? Not from Paul, and not from trinitarian theology either. I think that Paul's christology is essentially Ebionite, and that God gave his own name to Christ Jesus because of his obedience. Trinitiarian theology does not make Christ "a deity," but fully God and fully human. I don't think there is necessarily an actual contradiction between the two views; trinitarian theology is a very hard thing to get one's head around properly, but it is quite certain that Paul was unaware of later developments in trinitarian theology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

rather than the "obedience" of the mere prophet, mortal, human Jesus, a Jew praised by all Muslims?

That Jesus was fully human and truly died is a basic part of orthodox Christianity. Somehow people get the idea that Christians don't think Jesus was mortal, but that is entirely wrong. Christians not only believe that Jesus was mortal, but that he actually died.

There is nothing "mere" about a prophet in Islam either.

Peter.

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

04-05-2010, 11:54 PM	#55
EastTexasinfidel Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Daingerfield, TX Posts: 9	My impression of Saul is that he was experiencing some type of cognitive dissonance that precipitated his conversion. I don't know if this was directly related to his persecution of Christians or not, but I would think so. This is just my opinion from what I get out of it. On the road to Damascus, I would say he either experienced some type of sun stroke or some type of psychotic or other mental breakdown. Given his visions I would say it is likely that he was suffering from some type of psychotic disorder, but its really impossible to diagnose a mental disorder for a historical figure.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.