Sheshbazzar

This would fall into the category of the "miraculous", If he didn't "receive it of (any) man", wasn't "taught" it, and didn't dream it up or fabricate it himself, but it was miraculously "revealed" to him by "Jesus Christ", a man who had allegedly died years before. If you are going to accept that as an actual and accurate account of how he came by his doctrine, you may as well accept that all the other fantastic miracles of the NT really happened just as they are written, graves opening and zombie saints roaming around the streets included.

There are actually four possibilities;
1. The stories were created by latter writers and placed in the mouth of "Paul"- He being a mostly church fabricated "talking head" to legitimize the views of church theologians.
This describes what is the most common atheist view, (mountanman here just moves the date of that composition much latter than most.)

2. "Paul" really did exist as described in the NT, and actually did have a "vision", perhaps suffering from a heat stroke or seizure, he experienced what he believed to be an actual conversation with the long since dead, and "in heaven" Jesus, who taught him all of that long, complicated and involved theology which he penned in his letters.
Interestingly, a theological teaching that the Jerusalem disciples, who had according to the NT, walked with, talked with, and had been personally taught by "Jesus" when he was alive, seem have no clue about, and do not teach the same things.

3. Everything written by Paul, and the the entire NT, came into being exactly as the NT says it did. All to be accepted, because "miracles" really DO happen, and Jesus IS coming back from heaven and your all gonna be sorry for doubting or questioning his story!!!!! Just you wait, He's gonna kick your ass and burn you in hell!

4. Paul came by his theology by totally natural means, picking up on ideas and teachings that had been bandied about, thought through, and taught by others long before his alleged "vision", adapting and perhaps adding his own unique interpretations and insights here and there.
The -ger toshav's- Jewish-Gentile proselytes had always been required to be "baptized" with a ritual full immersion in water, yet were not required to undergo circumcision. And through the LXX, they already believed in the "christ" who was to come.
Hellenized messianic Jews of the Diaspora, and these Gentile proselytes were "Paul's" primary audience, one already well primed to accept his 'no-law, justification by faith alone' doctrines.

To me the last scenario is the most parsimonious explanation, requiring no grand conspiracy theories, or "miracles" to support it.
Of course there are many more details, as the church did insert latter interpolations and create bogus pseudo-Pauline letters.

spamandham

No. All that's necessary is that Paul "thinks" it was a vision. Lots of people are delusional like that. It can still be a unique idea even if it's a delusion.

(1) and (2) also require nothing miraculous.

Paul's own description of his "vision" sounds very plausibly like a temporal lobe epileptic episode, which is also often associated with deep lasting religious experiences, and might line up with his admissions that he sounded like a crazy man at times...and might be the "thorn in his side" as well.

I also see nothing "miraculous" with a combination of (1) and (2).

Sheshbazzar

#2 covers what Paul "thinks" or might have thought; "he experienced what he believed ... I did italicise to add stress to the "believe", really, did I need to also to underline, bold it, and put it in CAPITALS?
No, nothing "miraculous" with (1) or (2) note the "or" as the #1 scenario would render #2 moot. but #2 could easily be accommodated as an actual event that coalesced the knowledge attained by means of #4, causing him to "believe" that the doctrine he believed had come to him by divine revelation.
But still, what he believed was very much at odds with what those others, who allegedly were personal associates (disciples) of "Jesus" believed and taught.

It was a brief post and there is no way that every possible possibility could be provided for. The lack of "miraculous" in 1 and 2 does not distract from the simplicity of #4.

FWIW, I accept that #2 did likely take place in combination with the natural progression suggested in #4.

J-D

The question is a basic tool of intellectual inquiry. I've been asking you a lot of questions because I feel that I don't fully understand your position, and I don't see how else to gain a fuller understanding without asking questions. Asking a lot of questions is not the 'fallacy of many questions', or any sort of fallacy at all.

You may notice that I no longer ask Pete many questions, if any at all. This is because I now feel that I have a fairly clear understanding of what his position is (I think it's wholly unsupported and spurious, but that's another matter). I am not so clear on your position, but I would like to be.

Conversely, when people ask me questions about my views and why I hold them, I do my best to answer them. When Pete actually asked me what evidence I was relying on, I indicated some of it. Pete dismissed it out of hand and shows no interest in discussing it, but I don't see how that's my fault. (He says now that it's 'hearsay'--as a matter of fact, I don't think it was, but even if it was there's no rule against hearsay in historical inquiry and no reason why there should be. (It's not clear to me that there's any good reason to have a rule against hearsay in law, and most legal systems don't have one. It appears to be a historical peculiarity of the English legal system and others deriving from it.))

On the specific issue of whether there were large numbers of (or any) people who adhered at least to part of Jewish law but stopped short of circumcision and full conversion to Judaism, I have seen this suggested before. (Indeed, I have seen it suggested that Paul was originally one such, and not the Jew he claimed himself to be.) I would put the suggestion in the category of 'could easily be true'. However, since you brought it up, I was interested to see whether you could supply any evidence. The fact that Jewish texts (including Scripture) make rules for such people is intriguing, but it's not direct evidence that there were such people at any given time, still less that there were large numbers of them. The one example you did give was the case of the royal family of Adiabene (which, as it happens, I was already aware of)--but they did make full conversion to Judaism. So I still haven't seen any evidence bearing directly on this point. I'm not asking for 'reams'--I'd be interested to see anything.

Still, on balance, if I had to bet, I'd bet that more likely than not there were significant numbers of such people two thousand years ago. Even if there were, however, that would still leave points unclear to me. As far as I can make out, your view starts with large numbers of people who, as previously mentioned, adhered at least partly to Jewish law (for whatever reasons) but stopped short of circumcision and full conversion to Judaism. Then, apparently, according to what you're saying (if I've understood you this far), there was a change of attitude among these people which led to them ceasing to regard circumcision, or adherence to Jewish law in general, as being of any importance. What I don't understand is what it is that is supposed to have caused this change of attitude.

Sheshbazzar

At this late date, barring discovery and publishing of actual 1st and 2nd century B.C. temple and synagogue records, any statement regarding the numbers of proselytes in those times must remain conjectural and can only be based upon circumstantial evidence drawn from The Bible, and early Jewish writings.
Certainly The Torah, whenever it was written, contains quite a few specific rules, and evidences of Jewish interaction with proselytes.
I referenced The book of Job, which by most scholars is accepted as being a quite ancient work, some even placing it as the oldest book in the Bible.
Ezekiel writing in approximately 600 BCE made reference (Ezek. 14:14 & 20) to righteous Job, whom because of being both a Gentile, and a believer in YHWH (Job 1:21) was by definition and example a proselyte, as were Jethro, Moses' father in law, and The Queen of Sheba, among others.
So while it might be easy to disregard the internal evidence, it is there, and unquestionably ancient and integral with the texts.
Then there is the Talmud with its myriad references, which admittedly relatively late in composition, has been accepted by most to be what it purports to be, a written account of the oral laws that were in effect during the Second Temple period, and earlier, and the details of how the Law of The Torah was to be carried out, and a record of the judgements that were arrived at by the Temple Priesthood (Deut. 17:8-11)
Only "circumstantial evidence" to be sure, but none the less, STRONG circumstantial evidence.
If you are going to doubt the existence of proselytes, you may as well also doubt the very existence of both The Temple and the Priesthood, as all are interrelated.
Jerusalem in the 1st century was a quite cosmopolitan place, a center of culture and trade, with a very diverse population. I wouldn't consider it a good "bet" to dismiss a quite large measure of cultural and religious interaction. Travelers would be full of questions and Jews would be intense in their efforts to win proselytes (Matt 23:15)

Not so much a "change in attitude", as a long time festering undercurrent of Gentile resistance to the Law, to circumcision, and to the always implied Jewish primacy. (natural born Jews who were the direct lineal descendants of the Patriarchs, were the superior people who would eventually rule over all nations- and proselytes would simply then have the "honor" of surviving to become the servant slaves of this "real" Israeli lineage.)
Of course such a second-class status would grate, and grind-the-craw of devout Gentile converts. But they hung in there for the sake of their own religious convictions, all the while slowly developing and refining a Gentile believers view and interpretation of The Scriptures, and of their own place in God's plans, one that finally brought those high and mighty Jewish authorities down to the common level.
(The Jewish concern with the keeping of genealogies and pure bloodlines would always prevent mere "converts" from ever attaining to an equal standing, so they must be "brought down" as there was no way for converts to ascend beyond their permanant second-class station, not even in The Kingdom to Come)
Thus it was, that when the Jews rebelled against Roman authority, that it was easy for Gentile converts to quickly abandon their messianic but "Jewish" brethren.
The natural born messianic Jews, "Nazarenes", continued on in the Observances of The Law. But the faction which abandoned The Law, consisting mostly of Gentiles, contrived endless stories to explain their departure from the ways of Judaism, these eventually became that group identified by the term "Christian".
The Nazarenes, (Jewish believers) however, DID NOT become "Christians", but rather remained thoroughly "Jewish" in all major beliefs, and in practices.
Hope this helps.

Iskander

Don't know/don't care/don't understand/want another option

spin

Why exactly did you choose that? Was it:

1. don't know (why not)?
2. don't care (why vote)?
3. don't understand (where's my other foot)?
4. want another option (please specify)?

spin

Iskander

There are only three choices. I have chosen one of them.

spin

The third was a cover-all for four sublimatable choices and I asked you which of these -- given all the debate that had already appeared --, in order to know why at this late stage you felt the need to choose something that doesn't enter into a simple contention: is or isn't the proposition falsified? This is a strict binary taxonomy. Foreseeing at least four possible "alternate" responses I included them in the third poll alternative. If you don't want to answer, that's your prerogative.


spin

mountainman

Dear all,

About these wands. Do we have a collection somewhere?







Best wishes,


Pete