Sheshbazzar

The discussion is one of how 'Paul' came up with the stories that he claims to have been a first-hand witness to and a participant in. (nothing about 'Lord, Liar or Lunatic')
'Paul' is rational enough to make claims of having personally and in the flesh made visits to Jerusalem, after the Resurrection, and to have physically met with, and conversed with the 'Pillars' Peter, James, and John, and to have recieved "the right hands of fellowship".
Are you claiming that this testified of meeting was only a 'hallucination', 'vivid dream' or 'mystical experience'?
'Paul's' writings give no such indication, and his every epistle builds upon the legitimacy of his claims, and of his claim as THE pre-eminent authority in these matters.

Either he is building upon what actually and in the flesh did transpire, or he is 'making up' and 'inventing' alleged 'events' and fabricated 'conversations' that never actually took place.

At the very least this makes 'Paul' non-credible as a 'witness', and all of his further writings and claims to be highly suspect.

If it were anyone other than this forementer of recieved 'Christian' doctrine, he would upon examination, be recognised as, and accounted as being an unreliable, and a false witness, in short, one who was a liar.

Sheshbazzar

But then, I do not believe the 'Paul' of the NT was 'Paul' at all, but a fabricated character that the anonymous 'ghost writers' of the NT employed as their 'mouthpiece'.

avi

Sure, to me, the most reasonable explanation, the simplest explanation, is the latter. Tim's idea conforms with the orthodox view that Paul was a real person. I think there were problems with discrepancies in that first century, and 'Paul' became the solution. He didn't have to meet Jesus, because the spirit entered him!

What a great story line. Why can't we write good stories like the old guys did, and collect billions from billions of followers?
avi

dog-on

Or he was simply riffing on scripture and others took it the wrong way. Especially those that decided to add their own 2 cents.

aa5874

In which century was Paul riffing on scripture?

Are you claiming only Paul had access to scripture?

The writer called Paul did not see the fictitious characters, Peter, James and Jesus in Hebrew scripture, he must have seen them after the Gospel stories were written.

It was the Pauline writer that later added his two cents.

Who told Paul that Jesus was resurrected after the third day?

Barefoot Bree

Like so many others who have never experienced one, you are completely discounting the power of religious/spiritual experiences. Obviously, I don't believe those experiences are "real", as in contact with a real, living God (or Jesus). But that doesn't mean the person who experiences one made it all up ( = Lied about it).

There are any number of possible causes for these religious experiences, including deliberate drug use, inadvertent poisoning such as ergot, sleep paralysis, or any of a huge number of other ways that mystics use to bring on their trances - and I'm sure there are many more not covered here.

But the experience is "real", the person retains a memory of it. Today, they are often explained by out-of-body experiences, other paranormal stuff, alien contact, -- and still, more often than not, a religious experience. They aren't "lying", or making it up. Nor are they "on drugs" (necessarily) they way you think of dropping LSD or whatever.

Nor does it mean that Paul was "on drugs" when he started all those churches. Preachers go for the rest of their lives on a single vision. Paul could have had a single vision, or two, or a hundred, built up his theology around it, and preached about it for years.

I'm not even getting into the whole "genuine Paul" vs. "Pauline writers" thing. All it takes is one vision - whatever the true cause of it - to start a church - IF you build up the right theory around it and can sell it to a sufficient number of suckers, er, believers.

Sheshbazzar

Bree, to whom are you referring by the 'you' in your first sentence above?

aa5874

Well, let's put your theory to task.

I don't know you, I can't recognise you, but what if I told you that I and over 500 people saw you, Barefoot Bree, in a vision from God. Would you think that I am lying or what?

So why did not Paul write the truth? Maybe he was a liar then.



Can you name me an out- of-body experience that was used as a credible corroborative source of an historical event?

Paul's churches cannot be found in history. It would appear that not one single writer of the NT attended a Pauline Church.

No writer of the Gospels wrote that over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state.

But you must get into the authenticity and veracity thing of the Pauline writers.

You must try and find out when Paul supposedly started his churches and when he actually lived.

I have a vision, based on Justin Martyr, that there is at least a 100 year gap.

Paul may have had all his so-called visions long after he was supposed to be dead or what may be called a without-a-body experience or commonly called fiction at intervals of hundreds of years.

Solo

The body's natural psychadelic "drug" is called serotonin. Increased levels of serotonin (5HT) produce euphoric effects. Most mood enhancing drugs and alcohol, stimulate and/or mimic the function of this neurotransmitter. This is why many manics appear drunk or high even if they don't drink or ingest at all. (Roughly the chemistry behind Jesus turning water into wine).

Jiri

aa5874

Who was drunk? Jesus or the author of gJohn?