Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vivisector · 05-26-2011, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

FWIW Persecutions need legal authority and logistics. Those arrested need guards, those arresting need more guards, chains, legal papers, money to pay the guards, pay for food, lodging, pay of the jail and so. Add a clerk or two and it is not just one guy going up and beating up a Christian or two.

You're right, of course, if this is the type of persecution to which Paul was referring. But I've never considered the situation of Paul as leader of a posse, mounted on swift steeds, armed with whips, ropes and letters of extraordinary authority signed by the Sanhedrin to be an accurate depiction of whatever it is that Paul meant. It's for the reasons you've mentioned that I think it likely that Paul was thinking someplace else within the range of meanings of "persecute."

Cheers,

V.

Vivisector · 05-26-2011, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

When you look at modern examples of people who are converted to Christianity (for example Lee Strobel), they might be aware of some characteristics of Christians, but the conversion is based on social and psychological factors. It is only after the conversion that the new Christian starts to learn about the theology of his new religion.

True, and I might even go further and say that some/many Christians never learn anything much about their religion outside the bare-bones basics. But Paul doesn't say he was ignorant or even that he held them in low regard, he says he actively opposed them in some sense (putting aside the interpolation issue for a moment). For some reason, he seems to have really held a grudge against this new group (as opposed to, for example, the Essenes or Samaritans).

Quote:

So it makes sense that Paul might have persecuted members of "The Way" because they were different. Then he had his divine visitation or psychotic break and was converted by the cosmic Jesus, and decided to join those that he had persecuted. Paul's feeling of authority would have come from inside his head.

No argument here; I'd only suggest that he knew why they were different.

Quote:

Paul might have known of this Jesus, but dismissed him until he had the spirit visitation/psychotic break. But then it is hard to explain why Paul joined the movement without immediately submitting himself to the disciples who had known Jesus directly.

This is a great point, because Paul obviously did not subordinate himself to those who were apostles before him. Would things fit together better if, having "persecuted" members of a perverted messianic movement led by presumably unlettered Galilean bumpkins, Paul's "revelation" (perhaps ultimately colored by his own knowledge and interpretation of the HB) informed him that perhaps this movement was somewhat on the right track but didn't carry their thoughts to their natural conclusion - that Paul understood the signficance of Jesus's death and resurrection better than even the current leaders of the movement?

Quote:

But the more I think about, the more it seems that these references to persecution are later interpolations, meant to bring the epistles into conformity with the story in Acts.

Possibly, but it might instead be that Acts (and 1 Tim) are informed by the traditions, if not the texts themselves, that you cited earlier. I'll note for others (since I'm sure you already know) that there is no variation affecting the "persecution" verses in 1 Cor, Gal and Philippians reflected in the GNT. Of course, this isn't decisive in itself, but three separate references of this nature would seem unhelpful to a case for interpolations.

Quote:

I have a feeling that Robert Price's forthcoming book on Paul the Colossal Apostle will shed some light on this. Perhaps someone should send a question to the Bible Geek

Certainly would be interesting to get his thoughts, too.

Cheers,

V.

Vivisector · 05-26-2011, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It was the CHURCH that placed "Paul" after gLuke not Marcion, Celsus or Skeptics.

It seems you find Eusebius much more credible than I.

Cheers,

V.

jgoodguy · 05-26-2011, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisector

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

FWIW Persecutions need legal authority and logistics. Those arrested need guards, those arresting need more guards, chains, legal papers, money to pay the guards, pay for food, lodging, pay of the jail and so. Add a clerk or two and it is not just one guy going up and beating up a Christian or two.

You're right, of course, if this is the type of persecution to which Paul was referring. But I've never considered the situation of Paul as leader of a posse, mounted on swift steeds, armed with whips, ropes and letters of extraordinary authority signed by the Sanhedrin to be an accurate depiction of whatever it is that Paul meant. It's for the reasons you've mentioned that I think it likely that Paul was thinking someplace else within the range of meanings of "persecute."

Cheers,

V.

I suppose it could be that he argued against them in synagogue. The description in Paul's letters are vague. Acts has "Acts 8:3
But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house, and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison."

Did the mythical interpolater insert persecute references into the Pauline letters to align with Acts or did the author of Acts take the simple phase and make it into a story line.

jgoodguy · 05-26-2011, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The problem, MaryHelena, is that the Gospel storyline is simply a parsing of the Hebrew scriptures. As Paul himself basically says; that his Gospel is the good news hidden throughout the ages but now revealed through the sacred writings (read Hebrew scriptures).

The gospel writers, as if to verify this proposition, simply cherry picked the LXX to flesh out the story. Of course, as good fiction writers tend to do, they plucked some recent anecdotes from closer to their own time to add the "warm and fuzzy".

The elephant in the room...

The gospels the means to "flesh out the story" - of course. The question is where did the 'story' originate? With 'Paul' or somewhere else. I don't think "Paul' invented the JC story. I think it's more likely that 'Paul' changed the direction of the JC storyline. That storyline could have remained, without 'Paul', just a pseudo-historical story. A crucified man who had followers who believed he was resurrected in some form, that he was dead only in body but lived in some spiritual form. 'Paul' transformed that story into a story of spiritual salvation. The cross was, for 'Paul', the true means to salvation. No earthly, no physical, no bodily, use of the cross as a positive element in human life is possible. Thus, without 'Paul', the gospel JC story would have, eventually, become meaningless, useless; a story about a failed messiah figure has no long term prospects - even hope can fade as the years go by and no earthly return materializes, or the judgement day fails to arrive. Long term survival of the JC story required a 'Paul' to remove the emphasis upon earthly things and place the primarily focus upon spiritual/intellectual interests. 'Salvation' now, not in the long term. Which in spiritual/intellectual terms simply relates to new ideas, new comprehension, new world outlook. In 'Paul's' case a move away from the old Jewish concepts to a more inclusive world view. The old ideas didn't work any more. Rome propelled a historical situation that required a response, a rethink. 'Paul' met the challenge. Yes, the past needed to be preserved, albeit in the pseudo-historical gospel JC story - but the new road forward was laid down by 'Paul'. Albeit a road leading to various off ramps. Travelling that road with 'Paul' is great for psychology, philosophy or just intellectual delight. It won't get one to an understanding of early christian origins. For that one has to deal with the gospel JC storyline. To really move forward we have to know where we have come from.....

In that case you have a historical Jesus with no relationship to Christianity other than Paul used it as a starting point.

IMHO Had not Constantine needed the orthodox church at Rome and its resources, Christianity would have suffered the same fast as the Jerusalem cult. Using an evolution analogy, the Pauline mutation allowed a sect of Christianity to survive beyond Judea and mutated more to survive long enough until Constantine made it the state religion.

Vivisector · 05-26-2011, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

I suppose it could be that he argued against them in synagogue.

Personally, I think it could be closer to this, including public ridicule, ostracism, things of that nature. It makes more sense to me than the Acts description but, admittedly, I don't know.

Quote:

Did the mythical interpolater insert persecute references into the Pauline letters to align with Acts or did the author of Acts take the simple phase and make it into a story line.

I think the latter is more likely, since Paul apparently mentions it on multiple occasions, though not all would agree with me.

Cheers,

V.

yalla · 05-26-2011, 08:11 PM

Who, what, when, where, why and [odd one out] how ...did Paul 'persecute" the Church of God/Christians?

The traditional newspaper reporters methodology when approaching and writing up a news story.
As pointed out above in a couple of comments there are some necessary prerequisites such as authority, power, physical means, ability to control logistics problems eg time and money to travel, to be able to identify the targets.
There a whole stack of ramifications that are not covered by the very brief references in the writings of Paul [if 'genuine'] to what is in reality an extremely complicated scenario.

Try answering the questions from the opening sentence.

Who authorized the 'persecution"?
Romans, Sanhedrin [even tho' not supposedly occurring in Judea ... and why not] a variety of other regional governing power people separately or together, a group of Jewish 'orthodox' extremists, Paul only or with some of his [unnamed] mates ....?

What did any of those political political groups above who were not involved in this authorised persecution [or was it unauthorised, or was it blanket and widespread?] eg the Romans, think and do about such?
If the Romans didn't authorise such what would their response have been to a regional authority persecuting people in their area, or reverse the roles if that was the case.

Who paid for it?
How was the persecution physically carried out?
Where did this alleged persecution occur, if not in Judea?
When?
What was the motivation?

What does 'persecution". in this context, mean?
Killing, imprisoning, threatening, social excusion, getting a severe talking to ......?
Etc.

These questions are unanswered, possibly unanswerable

These brief references smack of someone telling a story, of a politician's spin, they lack background and details for the verisimilitude that is necessary for credibility.

I suspect there was no such 'persecution'.

Sheshbazzar · 05-26-2011, 09:11 PM

Just to refresh memory;

Quote:

Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles........

Acts 8:3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and dragging out men and women, committed them to prison.

Acts 9:1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
2. And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

Acts 22:4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.
5. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.

According to these texts it does not appear that 'Paul' was thinking someplace else within the range of meanings of "persecute."
He implies very heavy handed treatment of the victims.

Of course this raises such questions as to whether 'letters to the synagogues in Damascus' would actually permit 'Saul' to 'drag' these people of Damascus out of their homes', or to 'bind' or 'commit them to prison' with no resistance from the local authorities and community of Damascus?
Who is assisting Saul in carrying out this alleged manhunt?
Who's prisons is he claiming to be holding these prisoners until he travels?
Whose prisons back in Jerusalem, is he claiming to be 'committing' these victims into?
Does it seem at all reasonable that the ROMAN authorities would allow a religious fanatic to imprison other people in ROMAN prisons over a sectarian religious squabble?

And even if they were cast into prison', say a Jewish prison, on such shaky premises, would not the exacting rules of of Jewish legal procedure's give them adequate protections from any unjust prosecution?

The whole tale is entirely too hokey. (sounds too much like the "Gospel Truth" tm that experienced liars like to invoke whenever they are actually lying out their ass)

.

Vivisector · 05-27-2011, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

According to these texts it does not appear that 'Paul' was thinking someplace else within the range of meanings of "persecute."
He implies very heavy handed treatment of the victims.

I'd say it appears that "Luke" was thinking of a heavy-handed persecution. I'm skeptical of the factual basis of these passages for the reasons you and others have given in opposition to such a persecution. So back to Paul, and whatever it was that he meant.

Cheers,

V.

dog-on · 05-27-2011, 06:31 AM

My take is that the persecution references the theological battle between Marcion and the Catholics. The cleansing of the Apostle of the Heretics.

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

05-26-2011, 08:11 PM	#27
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	Who, what, when, where, why and [odd one out] how ...did Paul 'persecute" the Church of God/Christians? The traditional newspaper reporters methodology when approaching and writing up a news story. As pointed out above in a couple of comments there are some necessary prerequisites such as authority, power, physical means, ability to control logistics problems eg time and money to travel, to be able to identify the targets. There a whole stack of ramifications that are not covered by the very brief references in the writings of Paul [if 'genuine'] to what is in reality an extremely complicated scenario. Try answering the questions from the opening sentence. Who authorized the 'persecution"? Romans, Sanhedrin [even tho' not supposedly occurring in Judea ... and why not] a variety of other regional governing power people separately or together, a group of Jewish 'orthodox' extremists, Paul only or with some of his [unnamed] mates ....? What did any of those political political groups above who were not involved in this authorised persecution [or was it unauthorised, or was it blanket and widespread?] eg the Romans, think and do about such? If the Romans didn't authorise such what would their response have been to a regional authority persecuting people in their area, or reverse the roles if that was the case. Who paid for it? How was the persecution physically carried out? Where did this alleged persecution occur, if not in Judea? When? What was the motivation? What does 'persecution". in this context, mean? Killing, imprisoning, threatening, social excusion, getting a severe talking to ......? Etc. These questions are unanswered, possibly unanswerable These brief references smack of someone telling a story, of a politician's spin, they lack background and details for the verisimilitude that is necessary for credibility. I suspect there was no such 'persecution'.

05-27-2011, 06:31 AM	#30
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	My take is that the persecution references the theological battle between Marcion and the Catholics. The cleansing of the Apostle of the Heretics.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.