andrewcriddle

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.)

spamandham

Was Paul mentally ill? How many sane people do you know who write stuff like what Paul wrote?

I'm no psychiatrist, but my layman's perspective is that he a definite nutjob.

aa5874

Paul was Not a nutjob once he wrote after the Fall of the Temple, perhaps a con-man or a very good actor.

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.

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.

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.

How do we know Paul was martyred?

mountainman

We can be sure that the tradition that Paul was martyred is an absolutely and impeccably true historical account because we are assured by Tertullian about the integrity of the author of the account reporting upon this event.

"The falsely written Acts of Paul was authored by a presbyter in Asia who added something of his own to the prestige of Paul and was removed from his office after he had been convicted and had confessed that he had done it out of love for Paul."

In later centuries the author became known as "Leucius Charinus". He attracted some bad press from Photius who read the compendium of books under the name of "Leucius Charinus". Photius "blows the whistle".

In a word, his books contain a vast amount of

childish,
incredible,
ill-devised,
lying,
silly,
self-contradictory,
impious, and
ungodly statements,

so that one would not be far wrong in calling
them the source and mother of all heresy.

It was thus left to the later gnostic authors to embellish the canonical storyline and fill out all the wonderful accounts of "The Travels of the Apostles" and in fine Homerian Style.

Of course Eusebius contributes to the traps and pitfalls by citing Tertullian as some sort of an authority.

Will someone break out the violins ....

Solo

Let's just say that there was a method to his madness:

Applying Klein's theory, Paul developped manic preoccupation with dead "Jesus" (whether actual person or myth) as a way of coping with his loss of his fetish object (whatever that was in his childhood) and as a way of denying his own mortality. Through Christ, Paul controlled death (or so he fanatically believed):

Here is Paul's articulation of Klein's trinity of "control, triumph, contempt":

Jiri

ramoss

And what evidence external to the bible that shows that there were 'thousands of Jews' that believed in Jesus?

aa5874

You must first understand that the poster, rhutchin, believes the NT is history yet contradicts his own history books when he claimed, " Given that the Jews largely rejected Christ, greater numbers of gentiles believed in Christ.." when Acts of the Apostles, one of rhutchin's history book, shows that there were thousands upon thousands of Jews who believed in Jesus before Saul/Paul was blinded by a bright light.

Now, we have numbers for the Jews, at least 8000 Jews converted in two days, where are the numbers for the Gentiles?

It is my view that the Canon with respect to Jesus, the disciples and Paul are all after the Fall of the Temple, circa 70, and are fiction stories.

rhutchin

Yep, there were many Jews who recognized that Jesus was the Messiah for whom they waited.

Paul said, "I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles." (2 Timothy 1:11)

Also, "But contrariwise, when [the apostles] saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles)" Galatians 2:7-8

Paul said to Titus, "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:" (Titus 1:5)

Paul was largely responsible for the gospel extending beyond the Jews. Great numbers of gentiles believed even if we aren't given the numbers. So Freud could attribute the real founding of Christianity to Saint Paul.

I don't see where the NT contradicts me as you claim.

aa5874

So, you now inadvertently have confessed that you gave bogus information.

You have produced information that contradicts your post.

You have failed to show that Jews rejected Christ. Paul himself was a Jew and the disciples in your own history book. You have failed to produced any figures for Gentile converts.

Your statement appear to be false based on your own history book "Acts of the Apostles".

And it was Paul or Saul/Paul who appeared to have had a very serious NEGATIVE influence on the early Church.

Acts 8.1-3