dog-on

Everything considered, I think Zion, for Paul, equals some level of Heaven.

The stumbling block for the Jews being that, as they cannot ever be justified by the law, they will never gain salvation, unless they accept Christ.

Foolishness for the "Greeks", is due to the fact that, for the "Greeks" themselves, the entire concept, itself, is simply ridiculous.

aa5874

So when the letter writer claimed over 500 persons saw Jesus after he was resurrected was that also a CURRENT event?

It is evident that the writer called Paul is not credible and is either fabricating events about Jesus or just believed that there was a creature called Jesus who was resurrected and ascended to heaven.

The writer called Paul is an non-corrobarative incredible source for the historicity of Jesus.

Romans 10:9 - 1Thessalonians 4:14 It is now clear the writer wrote about his BELIEFS, and it must be so, since a resurrection cannot be a recent event but a non-event.

Ben C Smith

I for one can grant that Paul may mean the crucifixion in Jerusalem; in fact, I think that he does have the crucifixion in Jerusalem in mind, but that is only because I have other reasons for thinking he knew of a crucifixion in Jerusalem. However, if it were proved that crucifixion in Jerusalem never happened (or if it were proved that Paul did not know about it), I think the reference to Zion would still be explicable on mythicist terms; this is why I do not regard the Zion references as real evidence of a Jerusalem venue.

I certainly understand that, but in this case I think it is okay to reach for various possible explanations in the face of too little evidence for any one of them. Saying that you are not sure which of several explanations is correct, and pointing out that at least two or three of them are compatible with your other, larger views, seems legitimate to me.

We know from the epistle to the Galatians that the churches preceding Paul were based in Jerusalem, and from the epistle to the Romans itself that Paul bought into the salvation is from the Jews idea. Could the stumbling stone being laid in Zion be the preaching of the crucified messiah, starting in Jerusalem?

Ben.

aa5874

As soon as you admit that you cannot prove what "Zion" really means, then your case immediately become less cohesive, very weak.

It is absurd to think that an actual event can occur in a mythical place.

Your suggestion is seriously flawed.

The writer called Paul is just not credible, in a letter he claimed the resurrection of Jesus occurred within three days of his death.

1Co 15:3.4 - This statement is either fiction or the belief of the writer.

The writer called Paul presented Jesus as the son of a God who was resurrected and ascended, never at all as just human.

The writer's Jesus is not a figure of history but a creature of implausibility.

aa5874

You mean Jesus was swallowed by a big fish or crucified in the fish?

And Jesus was short by a night.

Jonah was in the big fish's belly for three days and three nights.

But in any event, the Jonah story is another presentation of fiction and implausibilities from the Scriptures.

aa5874

When I examine the letters of the writer called Paul, it is most startling that his preaching, his gospel, is based on a non-event, the implausible fictitious resurrection of Jesus.

The gospel of the writer is not at all based on an actual plausible event but on fiction.

1 Cor.15.14 It is clear now, the letter writer called Paul has based his gospel on fiction.

And that is not all, his conversion as written by the author of Acts, is implausible and filled with fiction. See Acts 9.

The history of Paul's conversion and preaching is rooted in fictitious and implausible events.

But what is even more tragic, the salvation of the letter writer's converts, the forgiveness of their sins, is also based on the very same fictitious and implausible resurrection, the same fiction that Paul claimed over 500 people witnessed.

1Cor 15:17 - The letter writer called Paul is not credible, his conversion, his gospel and the salvation of the Jews and Gentiles are based on a non-event, a most implausible fiction called the resurrection.

The writer called Paul has no credible history, he cannot help to find Jesus whom he presented as an implausible creature, resurrected, ascended and coming back a second time for dead believers when God sounds some kind of trumpet.

And who told the letter writer called Paul that Jesus rose on the third day?

Even in the Gospels, it is really not known when Jesus supposedly rose from the dead. The women found the tomb empty. The supposed event could have been the Friday night.

The writer called Paul is just not credible, he represents fiction and implausibilities.

Solo

This is what one of the most respected psychologists of the last century had to say (quoting another prominent investigator) on a subject which you keep insisting is completely alien to you:

In the book review link I provided above, you will find reference to "Adamic" ecstasy which fits Paul very well. My guess is that, had Marghanita Laski followed more systematically the relation of the "peak" ecstasies with the "desolation" ones, she might have been drawn to the same conclusion as I have. They bespeak of bi-polar challenges.

Jiri

aa5874

So, the letter writer called Paul is irrelevant to the historicity of Jesus.

He may have been bi-polar.

He presented Jesus as a mythical implausible creature that resurrected, ascended and is coming back a second time from heaven.

His gospel is based on an implausible non-event called the resurrection.

The salvation of the Jews and Gentiles is based on the very non-event, the resurrection.

The conversion of the writer called Paul is implausible, he is blinded by a bright light and heard the voice of some creature, the resurrected one.

Who told /Saul/Paul that Jesus had resurrected?

How did Saul/Paul figure out that the bright light came from Jesus?

Who told Saul/Paul how to recognise the voice of Jesus while Saul/Paul was blind?

And who told the writer called Paul that over 500 people saw the non-event called the resurrection of Jesus?

Saul/Paul is irrelevant to the historicity of Jesus.

The writer called Paul presented himself as an incredible creature, a fiction writer.

Solo

No, I would not say that. He may be a witness, albeit one who has his own view and approach to historical events based on his condition.

Well, yes. He knew a man in Christ (himself) who was in third heaven and still has a great sorrow and unceasing anguish in his heart.

Will you, at long last, learn the meaning of the word 'metaphor' ?
What is logically an 'implausible non-event' ? If it is a non-event, how can it have adjectives ?


All I would advise in the matter is to repent your sins, just in case.

Well, let's just say that is the way some folks naively pictured his conversion.

Perhaps, more germane would be to ask what was it that Paul associated with the concept ?

This is again Acts and not Paul himself, but anyways:

A spontaneous change in perception such as high elation (glory), photism (seeing bright light; being illuminated) sudden torrents of thought, or even sensing a mysterious "presence" would be interpreted in Paul's time as coming from God, as having some universal, communicable meaning. These experiences would be validated in groups of people similarly gifted and/or afflicted. The connection to Jesus was probably pre-established in Paul's mind because he had contact with the Jesus movement and was virulently opposed to it. So when Paul experienced his first hypermanic high (likely with some temporal lobe events such as seizure) he would be interpreting it as God getting in touch and reevealing to him the enormous secrets and cosmic import of the events about the man he previously despised. Internally, these experiences, although very uplifting at the start, have a way of turning into nightmarish and incredibly painful mess, often accompanied by temporary physical disability. They are accompanied by feverish mentation, which Paul would not have recognized as his own. Even though Paul did not necessarily hallucinate, the torrents of revelatory thought had the quality of them as issuing from an external agent (the process is spontaneous and analogous to dreaming - one does not realize that the thoughts and ideas originate inside one's own head). When Paul's mind was restored to 'more or less' normal mind and he was able to speculate about the meaning of the episode, he would convince himself that: a) the transport was real and coming from God, b) that it actually related to the ordained mission of Jesus (preached by other men), faithfully executed on earth and his reward for his sacrifice in heaven, and c) that he was to spread the news of Jesus Christ in heaven and his return among all who would hear it, that is - first and foremost - people who came back from experiences like Paul, essentially untouched and mentally highly functional, and who were, like Paul, morally upright.

Jiri

aa5874

So, who told you these things about the letter writer called Paul?

The author of Acts of the Apostles?

Now, if what you wrote is true, the writer called Paul is still irrelevant to the historicity of Jesus.

The writer may have had bi-polar, or mental problems or simply problems with veracity. Or perhaps he just believed what he wrote was true. Or maybe he was writing in the 2nd century.

The writer called Paul is irrelevant.