Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 05-25-2011, 06:12 PM

Pliny didn't need to know anything about what Christians believed to arrest them. They were a secret society, and they refused to sacrifice to the emperor.

If Paul really did persecute anyone, it was probably on the basis of some similar criteria.

When you look at modern examples of people who are converted to Christianity (for example Lee Strobel), they might be aware of some characteristics of Christians, but the conversion is based on social and psychological factors. It is only after the conversion that the new Christian starts to learn about the theology of his new religion.

So it makes sense that Paul might have persecuted members of "The Way" because they were different. Then he had his divine visitation or psychotic break and was converted by the cosmic Jesus, and decided to join those that he had persecuted. Paul's feeling of authority would have come from inside his head.

This makes the most sense if there were no historical Jesus, if Paul just knew that members of The Way had a different view of Scripture or operated based on spiritualism. It mght also make sense if The Way followed a recently crucified historical Jesus and his identifiable disciples. Paul might have known of this Jesus, but dismissed him until he had the spirit visitation/psychotic break. But then it is hard to explain why Paul joined the movement without immediately submitting himself to the disciples who had known Jesus directly.

But the more I think about, the more it seems that these references to persecution are later interpolations, meant to bring the epistles into conformity with the story in Acts.

I have a feeling that Robert Price's forthcoming book on Paul the Colossal Apostle will shed some light on this. Perhaps someone should send a question to the Bible Geek

aa5874 · 05-25-2011, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisector

We might find ourselves "violently" agreeing on this point, regardless of how we would render "persecute." Paul, I think, knew or supposed something about the Christians to which he took great exception. It seems most unlikely (not to say it can't be true or that this is a point in argumentation) that Paul's revelation informed him, in addition to anything else, of the reasons Paul was persecuting the Christians in the first place. So the question in my mind remains, cast in - I hope - an even less contentious light, what is the minimum Paul could have known about the early Christians that would have caused him to violently persecute them?

Cheers,

V.

This is remarkable. Now that massive holes in the "Pauline writings" are discovered we are trying to find out what do these massive holes mean.

The more one analyses the Pauline writings it becomes clear that they ALL are NOT historically credible.

The ALL Pauline writings MUST follow the Gospel stories.

The Canon of the Church has provided a chronology for "Paul" and the Canon places "Paul" after the Ascension of Jesus.

A Church writer claimed "Paul" knew of gLuke.

Now, once "Paul" is PLACED after gLuke as the Church writer suggested then everything FALLS into place.

The Pauline JIG-SAW HISTORY puzzle is SOLVED.

"Church History" 6.25.4-6

Quote:

4. Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew........ The second is by Mark....... And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.

And also in "Church History" 3.4.8

Quote:

...8. And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever........ he used the words, according to my Gospel.

I find it completely mind boggling that people do NOT use information that was given about "Paul" by the CHURCH itself to quickly and easily RESOLVE the possible time that the Pauline writings were written.

It was the CHURCH that placed "Paul" after gLuke not Marcion, Celsus or Skeptics.

jgoodguy · 05-25-2011, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Pliny didn't need to know anything about what Christians believed to arrest them. They were a secret society, and they refused to sacrifice to the emperor.

If Paul really did persecute anyone, it was probably on the basis of some similar criteria.

When you look at modern examples of people who are converted to Christianity (for example Lee Strobel), they might be aware of some characteristics of Christians, but the conversion is based on social and psychological factors. It is only after the conversion that the new Christian starts to learn about the theology of his new religion.

So it makes sense that Paul might have persecuted members of "The Way" because they were different. Then he had his divine visitation or psychotic break and was converted by the cosmic Jesus, and decided to join those that he had persecuted. Paul's feeling of authority would have come from inside his head.

This makes the most sense if there were no historical Jesus, if Paul just knew that members of The Way had a different view of Scripture or operated based on spiritualism. It mght also make sense if The Way followed a recently crucified historical Jesus and his identifiable disciples. Paul might have known of this Jesus, but dismissed him until he had the spirit visitation/psychotic break. But then it is hard to explain why Paul joined the movement without immediately submitting himself to the disciples who had known Jesus directly.

But the more I think about, the more it seems that these references to persecution are later interpolations, meant to bring the epistles into conformity with the story in Acts.

I have a feeling that Robert Price's forthcoming book on Paul the Colossal Apostle will shed some light on this. Perhaps someone should send a question to the Bible Geek

I understand that there are problems with Paul's alleged persecution including jurisdiction. The following is typical of the problems I have seen.

"

Quote:

How likely is it that, as a young man, Paul – supposedly a Roman citizen and from the Hellenised diaspora – even got the job as chief policeman of the ultra-orthodox of Jerusalem? And if Paul really had secured such a position, he surely would have had far bigger fish to fry than a miniscule "Jesus group" in Damascus. We are told in Acts that the apostles continued to preach in Jerusalem even after the death of Stephen ("They all scattered abroad ... except the apostles." – Acts 8.1,2). So why didn't Paul go for the ringleaders, closer to hand?

Nothing in his letters suggests that Paul had any official standing in his treatment of Christians ... Hence, in opposition to what Luke says, he could not have used arrest, torture or imprisonment as a means of forcing Christians to recognize that they had been misled." – Murphy O'Connor, Paul, His History, p19.

Given that the Jewish High Council (the Sanhedrin) had no authority to empower a heresy hunter to operate in the independent city of Damascus, Paul's road trip is even more implausible.

link

jgoodguy · 05-25-2011, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisector

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Not to mention, how could Paul have been convinced to go after the group?

BOSS: Paul, we'd like you to persecute these people, Christians?
PAUL: Who?
BOSS: Christians.
PAUL: Why?
BOSS: I can't tell you. Just go out and violently persecute them.
PAUL: Uh. Ok. How do I know who they are?
BOSS: I can't tell you that.

We might find ourselves "violently" agreeing on this point, regardless of how we would render "persecute." Paul, I think, knew or supposed something about the Christians to which he took great exception. It seems most unlikely (not to say it can't be true or that this is a point in argumentation) that Paul's revelation informed him, in addition to anything else, of the reasons Paul was persecuting the Christians in the first place. So the question in my mind remains, cast in - I hope - an even less contentious light, what is the minimum Paul could have known about the early Christians that would have caused him to violently persecute them?

Cheers,

V.

FWIW Persecutions need legal authority and logistics. Those arrested need guards, those arresting need more guards, chains, legal papers, money to pay the guards, pay for food, lodging, pay of the jail and so. Add a clerk or two and it is not just one guy going up and beating up a Christian or two.

maryhelena · 05-26-2011, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisector

We might find ourselves "violently" agreeing on this point, regardless of how we would render "persecute." Paul, I think, knew or supposed something about the Christians to which he took great exception. It seems most unlikely (not to say it can't be true or that this is a point in argumentation) that Paul's revelation informed him, in addition to anything else, of the reasons Paul was persecuting the Christians in the first place. So the question in my mind remains, cast in - I hope - an even less contentious light, what is the minimum Paul could have known about the early Christians that would have caused him to violently persecute them?

Cheers,

V.

This is remarkable. Now that massive holes in the "Pauline writings" are discovered we are trying to find out what do these massive holes mean.

The more one analyses the Pauline writings it becomes clear that they ALL are NOT historically credible.

The ALL Pauline writings MUST follow the Gospel stories.

The Canon of the Church has provided a chronology for "Paul" and the Canon places "Paul" after the Ascension of Jesus.

A Church writer claimed "Paul" knew of gLuke.

Now, once "Paul" is PLACED after gLuke as the Church writer suggested then everything FALLS into place.

The Pauline JIG-SAW HISTORY puzzle is SOLVED.

"Church History" 6.25.4-6

Quote:

4. Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew........ The second is by Mark....... And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.

And also in "Church History" 3.4.8

Quote:

...8. And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever........ he used the words, according to my Gospel.

I find it completely mind boggling that people do NOT use information that was given about "Paul" by the CHURCH itself to quickly and easily RESOLVE the possible time that the Pauline writings were written.

It was the CHURCH that placed "Paul" after gLuke not Marcion, Celsus or Skeptics.

I'm with you here, aa5874....
Trying to hold up the argument that 'Paul' knows nothing about the JC story falls at the first hurdle - what on earth is 'Paul' persecuting? 'Paul' and the persecution question only makes sense as a follow on to the gospel JC story.

If ahistoricists/mythicists have decided the gospel JC story is just that, a story, a pseudo-history, and not historical reality - then why stop there? Why then look to 'Paul' as though this character is historical? (that there was most probably a strong opinionated historical figure involved with early christianity is one thing - to claim that this figure goes by the name of 'Paul' and did and said all that the NT makes him do and say - is an entirely different matter). The 'Paul' of the NT is part of the NT storyline - a christian origin storyline that begins with the gospel JC. To suggest that 'Paul' was first and that the gospel JC story is secondary, is to put the cart before the horse.

What we have in the gospel JC story is, since it was 'canonized', the final version of that story. Yes, 'Paul's' letters are dated earlier than the oldest copies of the gospels. But that dating is irrelevant to the NT storyline - it does not change the order of the NT storyline. First is the JC story and then the follow on story of 'Paul'. Reversing the order of this storyline flies in the face of rationality. That the 'Paul' character ignores the JC biography re birth narratives and what this figure ate for dinner or what size shoe he wore, does not suggest that 'Paul' knows nothing about this gospel character. Firstly, 'Paul' is a follow on story. Secondly, the 'Paul' character has greater things to do than repeating a storyline already covered in the original story edition. 'Paul' is part of a sequel that will only make sense to those who know the original storyline. The 'Paul' character takes the original JC story and transforms it by means of his vision, his interpretation, and moves that story from its pseudo-historical setting into the realm of spirituality, the realm of the purely intellectual - and hence, international, activity.

The ahistoricists/mythicists should not be pursuing a line of argument re Paul first and JC story the follow on story. That's a line of argument that could be blown out of the water if some early dated gospel manuscript turned up. Lack of evidence for early (pre 'Paul') gospel manuscripts is not evidence that the 'Paul' story preceded the JC story. The dating of manuscripts is not the way forward for understanding early christian origins. It's storyline - storyline development - that holds out better options.

dog-on · 05-26-2011, 02:59 AM

The problem, MaryHelena, is that the Gospel storyline is simply a parsing of the Hebrew scriptures. As Paul himself basically says; that his Gospel is the good news hidden throughout the ages but now revealed through the sacred writings (read Hebrew scriptures).

The gospel writers, as if to verify this proposition, simply cherry picked the LXX to flesh out the story. Of course, as good fiction writers tend to do, they plucked some recent anecdotes from closer to their own time to add the "warm and fuzzy".

The elephant in the room...

avi · 05-26-2011, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

...that his Gospel is the good news hidden throughout the ages but now revealed through the sacred writings (read Hebrew scriptures).

Thank you MaryHelena for articulating clearly, support for aa5874's argument that Paul's epistles succeeded rather than preceded the gospels.

I see two issues here dog-on.
a. "hidden throughout the ages",
b. sacred writings

a. well, but, the old testament was surely not hidden at all, was it? I guess I disagree with you, dog-on, on this point, because I think that by "good news" Paul was NOT referring to anything in the old testament, but rather, the resurrection of JC, to our supposed benefit. In my opinion, as one entirely unlearned, hence worthy of the ignore status, there is no such concept expressed in the ancient Hebrew texts. These ideas are novel, and unique, in my opinion, to the new testament.

b. "sacred writings". Somewhere, sometime, I don't know when, the new testament also acquired the status of "sacred writings'. How can we be certain that Paul is referring exclusively to the old testament, when invoking "sacred writings"?

avi

maryhelena · 05-26-2011, 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The problem, MaryHelena, is that the Gospel storyline is simply a parsing of the Hebrew scriptures. As Paul himself basically says; that his Gospel is the good news hidden throughout the ages but now revealed through the sacred writings (read Hebrew scriptures).

The gospel writers, as if to verify this proposition, simply cherry picked the LXX to flesh out the story. Of course, as good fiction writers tend to do, they plucked some recent anecdotes from closer to their own time to add the "warm and fuzzy".

The elephant in the room...

The gospels the means to "flesh out the story" - of course. The question is where did the 'story' originate? With 'Paul' or somewhere else. I don't think "Paul' invented the JC story. I think it's more likely that 'Paul' changed the direction of the JC storyline. That storyline could have remained, without 'Paul', just a pseudo-historical story. A crucified man who had followers who believed he was resurrected in some form, that he was dead only in body but lived in some spiritual form. 'Paul' transformed that story into a story of spiritual salvation. The cross was, for 'Paul', the true means to salvation. No earthly, no physical, no bodily, use of the cross as a positive element in human life is possible. Thus, without 'Paul', the gospel JC story would have, eventually, become meaningless, useless; a story about a failed messiah figure has no long term prospects - even hope can fade as the years go by and no earthly return materializes, or the judgement day fails to arrive. Long term survival of the JC story required a 'Paul' to remove the emphasis upon earthly things and place the primarily focus upon spiritual/intellectual interests. 'Salvation' now, not in the long term. Which in spiritual/intellectual terms simply relates to new ideas, new comprehension, new world outlook. In 'Paul's' case a move away from the old Jewish concepts to a more inclusive world view. The old ideas didn't work any more. Rome propelled a historical situation that required a response, a rethink. 'Paul' met the challenge. Yes, the past needed to be preserved, albeit in the pseudo-historical gospel JC story - but the new road forward was laid down by 'Paul'. Albeit a road leading to various off ramps. Travelling that road with 'Paul' is great for psychology, philosophy or just intellectual delight. It won't get one to an understanding of early christian origins. For that one has to deal with the gospel JC storyline. To really move forward we have to know where we have come from.....

dog-on · 05-26-2011, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The problem, MaryHelena, is that the Gospel storyline is simply a parsing of the Hebrew scriptures. As Paul himself basically says; that his Gospel is the good news hidden throughout the ages but now revealed through the sacred writings (read Hebrew scriptures).

The gospel writers, as if to verify this proposition, simply cherry picked the LXX to flesh out the story. Of course, as good fiction writers tend to do, they plucked some recent anecdotes from closer to their own time to add the "warm and fuzzy".

The elephant in the room...

The gospels the means to "flesh out the story" - of course. The question is where did the 'story' originate? With 'Paul' or somewhere else. I don't think "Paul' invented the JC story. I think it's more likely that 'Paul' changed the direction of the JC storyline. That storyline could have remained, without 'Paul', just a pseudo-historical story. A crucified man who had followers who believed he was resurrected in some form, that he was dead only in body but lived in some spiritual form. 'Paul' transformed that story into a story of spiritual salvation. The cross was, for 'Paul', the true means to salvation. No earthly, no physical, no bodily, use of the cross as a positive element in human life is possible. Thus, without 'Paul', the gospel JC story would have, eventually, become meaningless, useless; a story about a failed messiah figure has no long term prospects - even hope can fade as the years go by and no earthly return materializes, or the judgement day fails to arrive. Long term survival of the JC story required a 'Paul' to remove the emphasis upon earthly things and place the primarily focus upon spiritual/intellectual interests. 'Salvation' now, not in the long term. Which in spiritual/intellectual terms simply relates to new ideas, new comprehension, new world outlook. In 'Paul's' case a move away from the old Jewish concepts to a more inclusive world view. The old ideas didn't work any more. Rome propelled a historical situation that required a response, a rethink. 'Paul' met the challenge. Yes, the past needed to be preserved, albeit in the pseudo-historical gospel JC story - but the new road forward was laid down by 'Paul'. Albeit a road leading to various off ramps. Travelling that road with 'Paul' is great for psychology, philosophy or just intellectual delight. It won't get one to an understanding of early christian origins. For that one has to deal with the gospel JC storyline. To really move forward we have to know where we have come from.....

Perhaps, though I would probably lean more towards a derivation of the Hellinic concept of the Logos, a concept Philo seemed to be able to extract from the Jewish writings. If Philo could, why not Paul?

Besides, the timing of Philo's imaginings do seem to wonderfully coiincide with the hidden mystery, now revealed meme.

maryhelena · 05-26-2011, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The problem, MaryHelena, is that the Gospel storyline is simply a parsing of the Hebrew scriptures. As Paul himself basically says; that his Gospel is the good news hidden throughout the ages but now revealed through the sacred writings (read Hebrew scriptures).

The gospel writers, as if to verify this proposition, simply cherry picked the LXX to flesh out the story. Of course, as good fiction writers tend to do, they plucked some recent anecdotes from closer to their own time to add the "warm and fuzzy".

The elephant in the room...

The gospels the means to "flesh out the story" - of course. The question is where did the 'story' originate? With 'Paul' or somewhere else. I don't think "Paul' invented the JC story. I think it's more likely that 'Paul' changed the direction of the JC storyline. That storyline could have remained, without 'Paul', just a pseudo-historical story. A crucified man who had followers who believed he was resurrected in some form, that he was dead only in body but lived in some spiritual form. 'Paul' transformed that story into a story of spiritual salvation. The cross was, for 'Paul', the true means to salvation. No earthly, no physical, no bodily, use of the cross as a positive element in human life is possible. Thus, without 'Paul', the gospel JC story would have, eventually, become meaningless, useless; a story about a failed messiah figure has no long term prospects - even hope can fade as the years go by and no earthly return materializes, or the judgement day fails to arrive. Long term survival of the JC story required a 'Paul' to remove the emphasis upon earthly things and place the primarily focus upon spiritual/intellectual interests. 'Salvation' now, not in the long term. Which in spiritual/intellectual terms simply relates to new ideas, new comprehension, new world outlook. In 'Paul's' case a move away from the old Jewish concepts to a more inclusive world view. The old ideas didn't work any more. Rome propelled a historical situation that required a response, a rethink. 'Paul' met the challenge. Yes, the past needed to be preserved, albeit in the pseudo-historical gospel JC story - but the new road forward was laid down by 'Paul'. Albeit a road leading to various off ramps. Travelling that road with 'Paul' is great for psychology, philosophy or just intellectual delight. It won't get one to an understanding of early christian origins. For that one has to deal with the gospel JC storyline. To really move forward we have to know where we have come from.....

Perhaps, though I would probably lean more towards a derivation of the Hellinic concept of the Logos, a concept Philo seemed to be able to extract from the Jewish writings. If Philo could, why not Paul?

Besides, the timing of Philo's imaginings do seem to wonderfully coiincide with the hidden mystery, now revealed meme.

Philo? I'm with you all the way.....If anyone had the wherewithal to get the JC story off the ground, I'd put my money on Philo....so it's back to Alexandria...(I'm still going with Rachael Elior re Philo's Essenes being a philosophical ideal and not historical - testing the waters maybe? ). That would put the early pseudo-historical JC story pre 50 ce (when Philo died). Post 70 ce and 'Paul' had the momentum to turn on the spiritual/intellectual transformation...Oh well - something like that....

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

05-25-2011, 06:12 PM	#11
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Pliny didn't need to know anything about what Christians believed to arrest them. They were a secret society, and they refused to sacrifice to the emperor. If Paul really did persecute anyone, it was probably on the basis of some similar criteria. When you look at modern examples of people who are converted to Christianity (for example Lee Strobel), they might be aware of some characteristics of Christians, but the conversion is based on social and psychological factors. It is only after the conversion that the new Christian starts to learn about the theology of his new religion. So it makes sense that Paul might have persecuted members of "The Way" because they were different. Then he had his divine visitation or psychotic break and was converted by the cosmic Jesus, and decided to join those that he had persecuted. Paul's feeling of authority would have come from inside his head. This makes the most sense if there were no historical Jesus, if Paul just knew that members of The Way had a different view of Scripture or operated based on spiritualism. It mght also make sense if The Way followed a recently crucified historical Jesus and his identifiable disciples. Paul might have known of this Jesus, but dismissed him until he had the spirit visitation/psychotic break. But then it is hard to explain why Paul joined the movement without immediately submitting himself to the disciples who had known Jesus directly. But the more I think about, the more it seems that these references to persecution are later interpolations, meant to bring the epistles into conformity with the story in Acts. I have a feeling that Robert Price's forthcoming book on Paul the Colossal Apostle will shed some light on this. Perhaps someone should send a question to the Bible Geek

05-26-2011, 02:59 AM	#16
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	The problem, MaryHelena, is that the Gospel storyline is simply a parsing of the Hebrew scriptures. As Paul himself basically says; that his Gospel is the good news hidden throughout the ages but now revealed through the sacred writings (read Hebrew scriptures). The gospel writers, as if to verify this proposition, simply cherry picked the LXX to flesh out the story. Of course, as good fiction writers tend to do, they plucked some recent anecdotes from closer to their own time to add the "warm and fuzzy". The elephant in the room...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.