Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 06-19-2009, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

On a side note a hypothesis that Paul suffered from a DSM-IV disorder can be discounted if we take into account the context of Paul's boasting (which to the western mind can be seen as manic). Duan E Watson writes a chapter entitled Paul and Boasting (starting paged 77) which can be read here;

Paul and Boasting

Paul's boasting is only one of a number of indicators that Paul was bipolar. Paul's idee fixe that had been crucified with Christ (Rom 6:6, Gal 2:20, Gal 6:14) and that the euphoric, ecstasy (2 Cr 12:2-7) as revelation of paradisiac existence in afterlife is a reward for the stoic acceptance of life (in flesh) as suffering, would be today - without much of a doubt - be seen as articulation of bipolar disorder.

Watson's view you link to is interesting and he makes some important points about the Judaic traditions and boasting of one's relationship with God. But I do not agree with some of his key conclusions. Watson, for example thinks that Paul defends not only his apostolic authority in 2 Cor 10:13, which indeed he does, but also his honor. Paul himself repeats a number of times that he cares nothing about the judgment of other men, he understands the crucified Christ he preaches is folly to the Greeks. He repeatedly calls his teachings a folly (μωρία) and says that they are unavailable to the unspiritual man (1 Cr 2:14) Hence, he would not be defending his honor in the conventional sense Watson believes he did.

Watson also believes that Paul displayed irony in the "fool's speech" (2 Cor 11) using a tactic of affecting foolishness and being unskilled in an argument. I do not see Paul being ironic in the first section of the passage. He is being hortatory (11:4), then mostly defensive (5-11), saying in effect 'this is how you are repaying me for all I have done for you' , and finally expodes in a not-unfimiliar full-bore 'ad hominem' attack (12-14). A threat of divine retribution follows (15).
Paul becomes biting sarcastic in 17-18, and starts to boast of his persecutions, with an obvious fascination with the inventory of bad things that has suffered in his mission, including accidents and bad weather (23-30). Paul raves 'like a madman' (παραφρονέω) which alludes to his appearance when he is in the grips of Spirit. His boasting of weakness (the sign of genuinness of Paul's apostolic agency) ties to his 'paradoxical empowerment' by the cross (2 Cor 12:9, Gal 6:14).

Festus would concur with your concur with astute analysis that Paul was stark, raving mad; note Acts 20:19-26

However your characterization of Paul boasting of his weakness/trials (ironic or otherwise) wouldn't be classified by any modern psychiatrist as a depressive symptoms of bi-polar disorder since he presents these are a result of actual tramautic events, i.e., being shipwrecked, jailed, attempted execution by stoning, etc. If the psyciatrist believed Paul was presenting depressive symptoms due to actual events perhaps a dx of PTSD would be explored. If the doctor suspected Paul was not traumatized over actual events he may suspect that Paul was suffering from auditory/visual hallucinations and dx Paul as having schizophrenia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

The problem for the psychologist of course is that one cannot love one's enemies or boast of one's weakness, without betraying signs of cognitive fusion

Jiri

In reference to Paul suffering from cognitive fusion due to his "boasting about his weakness/loving one's enemies" this is in fact a form of reverse fighting, perhaps even modeling his reactions to adversity from Jesus;

Quote:

Reverse Fighting

It would seem that the prophetic critique of war could go no further, but it does. In the great prophecy of the exile (Isaiah 40-55) we meet one who conquers, not by dishing out punishment, but by enduring it. Vernard Eller has coined a phrase for this: "reverse fighting."4 The "reverse fighter" is the servant of the LORD. Nebuchadnezzar, the instrument of Yahweh’s antagonistic warfare, the punisher of Judah’s sins, had been called the servant of the LORD (Jer. 25:9; 27:6; 43:10). This servant, however, is no warrior. A bruised reed he will not break, and a dimly burning wick he will not quench (Isa. 42:3). He gives his back to those who strike him and his cheeks to those who pull Out his beard, not hiding his face from insult and spitting (50:6). He knows contempt and rejection, suffering and infirmity, wounds and bruises, oppression and injustice. In all this he does no violence, makes no complaint (53:3-9). Yet he wins the victory! The "reverse fighter" is honored in the sight of the LORD; God becomes his strength (49:5). Kings stand up in his presence; princes prostrate themselves (v. 7). He prospers, is exalted and lifted up, startles many nations; kings shut their mouths because of him (52:13-15). Yahweh allots him a portion with the great; he divides the spoil with the strong (53:12). This is the "warfare" to which Israel, as Yahweh’s servant (41:8-9; 43:10; 44:1-2,21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3) is ultimately called.

http://www.religion-online.org/showc...le=3270&C=2719

Solo · 06-20-2009, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Paul's boasting is only one of a number of indicators that Paul was bipolar. Paul's idee fixe that had been crucified with Christ (Rom 6:6, Gal 2:20, Gal 6:14) and that the euphoric, ecstasy (2 Cr 12:2-7) as revelation of paradisiac existence in afterlife is a reward for the stoic acceptance of life (in flesh) as suffering, would be today - without much of a doubt - be seen as articulation of bipolar disorder.

Watson's view you link to is interesting and he makes some important points about the Judaic traditions and boasting of one's relationship with God. But I do not agree with some of his key conclusions. Watson, for example thinks that Paul defends not only his apostolic authority in 2 Cor 10:13, which indeed he does, but also his honor. Paul himself repeats a number of times that he cares nothing about the judgment of other men, he understands the crucified Christ he preaches is folly to the Greeks. He repeatedly calls his teachings a folly (μωρία) and says that they are unavailable to the unspiritual man (1 Cr 2:14) Hence, he would not be defending his honor in the conventional sense Watson believes he did.

Watson also believes that Paul displayed irony in the "fool's speech" (2 Cor 11) using a tactic of affecting foolishness and being unskilled in an argument. I do not see Paul being ironic in the first section of the passage. He is being hortatory (11:4), then mostly defensive (5-11), saying in effect 'this is how you are repaying me for all I have done for you' , and finally expodes in a not-unfimiliar full-bore 'ad hominem' attack (12-14). A threat of divine retribution follows (15).
Paul becomes biting sarcastic in 17-18, and starts to boast of his persecutions, with an obvious fascination with the inventory of bad things that has suffered in his mission, including accidents and bad weather (23-30). Paul raves 'like a madman' (παραφρονέω) which alludes to his appearance when he is in the grips of Spirit. His boasting of weakness (the sign of genuinness of Paul's apostolic agency) ties to his 'paradoxical empowerment' by the cross (2 Cor 12:9, Gal 6:14).

Festus would concur with your concur with astute analysis that Paul was stark, raving mad; note Acts 20:19-26

However your characterization of Paul boasting of his weakness/trials (ironic or otherwise) wouldn't be classified by any modern psychiatrist

...any modern psychiatrists ? You sure ?

Quote:

as a depressive symptoms of bi-polar disorder since he presents these are a result of actual tramautic events, i.e., being shipwrecked, jailed, attempted execution by stoning, etc. If the psyciatrist believed Paul was presenting depressive symptoms due to actual events perhaps a dx of PTSD would be explored. If the doctor suspected Paul was not traumatized over actual events he may suspect that Paul was suffering from auditory/visual hallucinations and dx Paul as having schizophrenia.

But you see, Paul is not complaining - in a depressed state - about events that caused him pain and suffering. He brags about them ! To him, they are a badge of apostolic competence. Surely, any qualified mental health professional would spot the incongruent affect in the presentation. As for possible differential diagnosis, yes, Paul's pronounced 'moods' could have had another, organic, source. E.G. the symptomps of 'porphyria' (as per brilliant acting by Nigel Hawthorne in Madness of King George) often closely resemble manic excitement.

Quote:

In reference to Paul suffering from cognitive fusion due to his "boasting about his weakness/loving one's enemies" this is in fact a form of reverse fighting, perhaps even modeling his reactions to adversity from Jesus;

Quote:

Reverse Fighting

It would seem that the prophetic critique of war could go no further, but it does. In the great prophecy of the exile (Isaiah 40-55) we meet one who conquers, not by dishing out punishment, but by enduring it. Vernard Eller has coined a phrase for this: "reverse fighting."4 The "reverse fighter" is the servant of the LORD. Nebuchadnezzar, the instrument of Yahweh’s antagonistic warfare, the punisher of Judah’s sins, had been called the servant of the LORD (Jer. 25:9; 27:6; 43:10). This servant, however, is no warrior. A bruised reed he will not break, and a dimly burning wick he will not quench (Isa. 42:3). He gives his back to those who strike him and his cheeks to those who pull Out his beard, not hiding his face from insult and spitting (50:6). He knows contempt and rejection, suffering and infirmity, wounds and bruises, oppression and injustice. In all this he does no violence, makes no complaint (53:3-9). Yet he wins the victory! The "reverse fighter" is honored in the sight of the LORD; God becomes his strength (49:5). Kings stand up in his presence; princes prostrate themselves (v. 7). He prospers, is exalted and lifted up, startles many nations; kings shut their mouths because of him (52:13-15). Yahweh allots him a portion with the great; he divides the spoil with the strong (53:12). This is the "warfare" to which Israel, as Yahweh’s servant (41:8-9; 43:10; 44:1-2,21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3) is ultimately called.

http://www.religion-online.org/showc...le=3270&C=2719

I don't know how 'reverse fighting' relates to what I am saying here because I am not a theologian. I don't know whether Jesus loved his enemies. I only know that healthy-minded humans won't: for if you call them enemies it is not to love them and if you love them you will not call them enemies.

Jiri

arnoldo · 06-20-2009, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Festus would concur with your concur with astute analysis that Paul was stark, raving mad; note Acts 20:19-26

However your characterization of Paul boasting of his weakness/trials (ironic or otherwise) wouldn't be classified by any modern psychiatrist

...any modern psychiatrists ? You sure ?

Thanks for pointing out the hyperbole. Can you name one psychiatrist who would dx Paul as a person with 296.80?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

But you see, Paul is not complaining - in a depressed state - about events that caused him pain and suffering. He brags about them ! To him, they are a badge of apostolic competence.

Paul is braging as a rebuke to the Corinithians who have resorted to bragging concerning theological issues which are self evident in the text. The text is thick with irony; see; 1 Corinthians 4:10-14 . Of course it is understandable that modern readers who may be interpreting these texts with cognitive bias may reach a wrong eisegetical conclusion that Paul was presenting "symptoms."

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

In reference to Paul suffering from cognitive fusion due to his "boasting about his weakness/loving one's enemies" this is in fact a form of reverse fighting, perhaps even modeling his reactions to adversity from Jesus;

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

I don't know how 'reverse fighting' relates to what I am saying here because I am not a theologian. I don't know whether Jesus loved his enemies. I only know that healthy-minded humans won't: for if you call them enemies it is not to love them and if you love them you will not call them enemies.

Jiri

Spoken like a true theologian

Solo · 06-20-2009, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

...any modern psychiatrists ? You sure ?

Thanks for pointing out the hyperbole. Can you name one psychiatrist who would dx Paul as a person with 296.80?

Not many psychiatrists will go out publicly with a diagnosis on a 'patient' who has been dead for 2,000 years. They will tell you they are not in that kind of business. My research is literary; I am not out there to pin DSM tags of 296.80 or 296.89 or 296.90 on Paul of Tarsus to prove that Christianity was born in a sick mind. And I have an unbeatable argument that that is not my purpose. I myself was diagnosed with bipolar disorder after an two-month episode of hypermania (and about three years of recovery) twenty five years ago. I do not consider myself sick in the head , just having to answer to a special set of challenges

At the bottom, I have a great deal of sympathy for the kind of creativity that Paul and Mark practiced. It is not that I consider myself any wiser than they; it's just that I happen to have been born with a much larger resource toolkit to deal with Weltschmerz than they had.

Quote:

Paul is braging as a rebuke to the Corinithians who have resorted to bragging concerning theological issues which are self evident in the text. The text is thick with irony; see; 1 Corinthians 4:10-14 . Of course it is understandable that modern readers who may be interpreting these texts with cognitive bias may reach a wrong eisegetical conclusion that Paul was presenting "symptoms."

What is cognitive bias ? You are not paraphrasing Luther's sizing Reason as Devil's Whore, are you ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

I don't know how 'reverse fighting' relates to what I am saying here because I am not a theologian. I don't know whether Jesus loved his enemies. I only know that healthy-minded humans won't: for if you call them enemies it is not to love them and if you love them you will not call them enemies.

Jiri

Spoken like a true theologian

A true theologian ? Ain't no such thing !

Meister Eckhart taught:

Quote:

If I say that "God is good", this is not true. I am good, but God is not good! In fact, I would rather say that I am better than God, for what is good can become better and what can become better can become the best! Now God is not good, and so he cannot become better. Since he cannot become better, he cannot become the best. These three are far from God: "good", "better", "best", for he is wholly transcendent. If I say again that "God is wise",
then this too is not true. I am wiser than he is! Or if I say that "God exists", this is also not true. He is being beyond being: he is a nothingness beyond being. Therefore St. Augustine says: "The finest thing that we can say of God is to be silent concerning him from the wisdom of inner riches." Be silent therefore, and do not chatter about God, for by chattering about him, you tell lies and commit a sin. If you wish to be perfect and without sin, then do
not prattle about God. Also you should not wish to understand anything about God, for God is beyond all understanding. A master says: If I had a God that I could understand, I would not regard him as God. If you understand anything about him, then he is not in it, and by
understanding something of him, you fall into ignorance.

http://www.buttercupconnections.com/...newsheet10.pdf

Jiri

arnoldo · 06-20-2009, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Thanks for pointing out the hyperbole. Can you name one psychiatrist who would dx Paul as a person with 296.80?

Not many psychiatrists will go out publicly with a diagnosis on a 'patient' who has been dead for 2,000 years. They will tell you they are not in that kind of business. My research is literary; I am not out there to pin DSM tags of 296.80 or 296.89 or 296.90 on Paul of Tarsus to prove that Christianity was born in a sick mind. And I have an unbeatable argument that that is not my purpose. I myself was diagnosed with bipolar disorder after an two-month episode of hypermania (and about three years of recovery) twenty five years ago. I do not consider myself sick in the head , just having to answer to a special set of challenges

At the bottom, I have a great deal of sympathy for the kind of creativity that Paul and Mark practiced. It is not that I consider myself any wiser than they; it's just that I happen to have been born with a much larger resource toolkit to deal with Weltschmerz than they had.

Characertizing Paul (even if incorrectly) with bipolar disorder is fine; if it helps people w/ bipolar relate to Paul is. I would dare state that Paul also wouldn't minds this as he states "I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

What is cognitive bias ?

There are text books on the subject but I was getting that it's hard to understand how ALL people perceived Paul thousands of years ago be it sane, insane (or somewhere in between), or something else. Some even thought that Paul was a god according to; Acts 14:12.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

You are not paraphrasing Luther's sizing Reason as Devil's Whore, are you ?

Never heard of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

A true theologian ? Ain't no such thing !

Meister Eckhart taught:

Quote:

If I say that "God is good", this is not true. I am good, but God is not good! In fact, I would rather say that I am better than God, for what is good can become better and what can become better can become the best! Now God is not good, and so he cannot become better. Since he cannot become better, he cannot become the best. These three are far from God: "good", "better", "best", for he is wholly transcendent. If I say again that "God is wise",
then this too is not true. I am wiser than he is! Or if I say that "God exists", this is also not true. He is being beyond being: he is a nothingness beyond being. Therefore St. Augustine says: "The finest thing that we can say of God is to be silent concerning him from the wisdom of inner riches." Be silent therefore, and do not chatter about God, for by chattering about him, you tell lies and commit a sin. If you wish to be perfect and without sin, then do
not prattle about God. Also you should not wish to understand anything about God, for God is beyond all understanding. A master says: If I had a God that I could understand, I would not regard him as God. If you understand anything about him, then he is not in it, and by
understanding something of him, you fall into ignorance.

http://www.buttercupconnections.com/...newsheet10.pdf

Jiri

Zen?

storytime · 06-20-2009, 02:46 PM

When Jesus spoke of enemies he told his disciples that their enemies would be those of their own household. (Household of Jews/Israel) "Love thy enemies" might be seen in Jews disagreeing with Jews on interpretation of law, for example. Pharisees were sons of Abraham but they and Jesus were enemies[separated] concerning law and prophet sayings.

Solo · 06-20-2009, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Characertizing Paul (even if incorrectly) with bipolar disorder is fine; if it helps people w/ bipolar relate to Paul is. I would dare state that Paul also wouldn't minds this as he states "I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some."

....which of course assumes that I would have gone to Paul for salvation in the first place.

Quote:

There are text books on the subject but I was getting that it's hard to understand how ALL people perceived Paul thousands of years ago be it sane, insane (or somewhere in between), or something else. Some even thought that Paul was a god according to; Acts 14:12.

What's cognitive bias, arnoldo ?

At the end of the day, this is important: the Lord revealed to Paul and Paul was telling all who would listen that the world was going to end and the Lord himself would descend with the cry of an archangel and the trumpet of God, would raise everyone and meet Paul's flock in the air. It did not happen, did it now ?

You know why ? Because God fools us all; only the fools deny it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

You are not paraphrasing Luther's sizing Reason as Devil's Whore, are you ?

Never heard of it.

Here is what I was referring to (note 19).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

A true theologian ? Ain't no such thing !

Meister Eckhart taught:

Zen?

Zen, Sufi, Jewish, Christian, Hindu....God covered the planet with wise guys and gals, and made the truth he speaks through them sound like gibberish. Like the Meister said, if we could figure God, we would have, and there would be no God.

Imagine that ! Atheists would have noone to complain about.

Jiri

arnoldo · 06-20-2009, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Zen?

Zen, Sufi, Jewish, Christian, Hindu....God covered the planet with wise guys and gals, and made the truth he speaks through them sound like gibberish. Like the Meister said, if we could figure God, we would have, and there would be no God.

Imagine that ! Atheists would have noone to complain about.

Jiri

arnoldo · 06-20-2009, 07:37 PM

Despite the opinion of an individual in this thread, Paul was a well educated individual and took advantage of all the learning available to him and was not in the least autodidactic. Throughout Paul's writings there is references to greco-roman maxims and other nuances which give a fair indication of his primary, secondary, and possible post secondary education. In reference to the topic of this thread Ronald F Hock (in the book previously cited) writes;

Quote:

Evidence of Paul's secondary education is also evident, alhough more obviously in his ability to cite and interpret literary texts-which were, in his case, the Greek Jewish scriptures, or Septuagint-than in the more technical study of grammar. Still, some signs of grammatical study appear, such as Paul's careful distinction between the singlular nad plural of a word in his understanding of the promise to Abraham (Gal 3:16) . . . But it is Paul's many quotations from the Septuagint--almost ninety explicit quotations...that mark him as a product of the secondary curriculum and indeed as an educated person. Paul's familiarity with the Septuagint allowed him, as needed, to quote apt passages that would add persuasiveness and grace to his arguments. It is in this context that Paul's quoting of the maxim from Euripides or Menander in 1 Cor 15:33 should again be seen, as well as Luke's portrait of Paul in Athens, in which he has the apostle quote briefly from the philospher Epimenides and the poet Aratus (Acts 17:23). . .

Solo · 06-21-2009, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Despite the opinion of an individual in this thread, Paul was a well educated individual and took advantage of all the learning available to him and was not in the least autodidactic. Throughout Paul's writings there is references to greco-roman maxims and other nuances which give a fair indication of his primary, secondary, and possible post secondary education. In reference to the topic of this thread Ronald F Hock (in the book previously cited) writes;

Quote:

Evidence of Paul's secondary education is also evident, alhough more obviously in his ability to cite and interpret literary texts-which were, in his case, the Greek Jewish scriptures, or Septuagint-than in the more technical study of grammar. Still, some signs of grammatical study appear, such as Paul's careful distinction between the singlular nad plural of a word in his understanding of the promise to Abraham (Gal 3:16) . . . But it is Paul's many quotations from the Septuagint--almost ninety explicit quotations...that mark him as a product of the secondary curriculum and indeed as an educated person. Paul's familiarity with the Septuagint allowed him, as needed, to quote apt passages that would add persuasiveness and grace to his arguments. It is in this context that Paul's quoting of the maxim from Euripides or Menander in 1 Cor 15:33 should again be seen, as well as Luke's portrait of Paul in Athens, in which he has the apostle quote briefly from the philospher Epimenides and the poet Aratus (Acts 17:23). . .

Not all scholars think that one allusion to Menander - which Paul could have picked up in a public recitation, - anywhere really - and another attributed to him by Luke amount to a proof of formal schooling. James S. Jeffers (p.257 in excerpt) , e.g. does not think Paul had formal advanced training based on his relatively unsophisticated Greek and sparsity of classical allusions in his writing.

Jiri

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

06-20-2009, 02:46 PM	#46
storytime Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 2,608	When Jesus spoke of enemies he told his disciples that their enemies would be those of their own household. (Household of Jews/Israel) "Love thy enemies" might be seen in Jews disagreeing with Jews on interpretation of law, for example. Pharisees were sons of Abraham but they and Jesus were enemies[separated] concerning law and prophet sayings.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.