Sheshbazzar

I have no problem with accepting that "Paul" (if there was a actual 'Paul' who was somewhat similar to the NTs composite character) had a 'vision',
in fact it IS my personal beliefe that there was an ORIGINAL Paul! An individual whose writings the Church writers took over, revised, interpolated, and expanded upon under the pseudonym of 'Paul', so remaking him into the official Church 'mouthpiece'.
Obviously I cannot hold the 'original' Paul responsible for what these pseudo-Paul's of the latter Church did to his writings and his perhaps formerly sensible words.
At this point, short of new discoveries of earlier, indisputably authentic un-Church 'modified' writings by Paul, The real Paul's own actual words remain unrecoverable from the Church 'doctrine' created morass of our present Paulinian corpus.

Returning to my acceptance of Paul experiencing a 'vision', or two, or three, no problem to me with accepting that.
However, my leniency towards Paul's 'vision' directed theology, does not extend to the point where it would be rational or acceptable to include visits, conversations, and contractual 'business' agreements with the original apostles, that only transpired within his 'visions', and not within the physical realm, no more than it would be sensible to accept Paul as founding 'congregations' of converted believers, that had no actual existence outside of populating his (drug influenced?) 'visions'.

I ask; This is a critical question with regards to Paul's veracity, and to the legitimacy of his claims of holding an actual and recognized, (not just internally 'visualized') position, one that was actually acknowledged and consented to by these 'Pillar' Apostles.
Really, from my perspective, all of the philosophical/theological musings and ramblings of 'Paul', and about 'Paul' are only so much hot air, if he fabricated his credentials.
J-D answers this vital question of Paul's legitimacy and authority with an "I don't know".
Whereas I upon examining the textual evidence, conclude along with aa5874, that these claimed meetings never actually took place, and that therefore, whether under the influence of some drug or not, the Paulinian writers have perjured him/their-selves, in claiming to have participated in meetings and in agreements that in fact never took place.
You may claim that they are not 'lying' in the providing of this false and misleading 'testimony',
but it is certain that what they claim to have happened, DID NOT actualy happen, and IS NOT the truth.

Funny thing is, if someone swears to you that they are going to tell you the 'Gospel Truth' about anything,
it is usually a strong indication that they intend to lie their asses off in hope that you'll be stupid enough to buy their cock-and-bull story.

J-D

You have made a false statement. I didn't say anything about Paul's 'legitimacy' or 'authority'. You didn't ask me about 'legitimacy' or 'authority'. I don't even know what those terms might mean in this specific context. What you asked me was whether I believed that Paul met with the so-called 'Pillars'. When I gave the answer 'I don't know' I meant that I don't know whether that meeting took place or not. It's possible that it did; it's possible that it did not.

Sheshbazzar

I apologise for using such an obscure word, I picked it up at some time past when a very erudite individual in these forums employed it in one of his arguments in a context that made its meaning quite apparent.

The root word would be the noun 'former' in the sense of one who 'forms', 'fashions' or 'creates' something.
combined with the spelling 'fore' to be 'at the fore', at the 'front', 'at the beginning of'_

In other words I was stating that Paul was the..." 'former'(or 'fashioner') AND the 'beginner' of recieved 'Christian' doctrine".
I believe it also contains a subtle suggestion of something that is 'brewed', 'roiling', being 'cooked-up'
Although obscure, it seemed the most appropriate word to the purpose.

Sheshbazzar

I believe the context of my statement was quite clear that the legitimacy and the authority of 'Paul' rested upon whether in fact this claimed meeting and alleged agreement did actually take place.
No actual meeting and agreement, then our writer has perjured at the beginning, so by disqualified himself/themselves, rendering any latter, or additional 'testimony' or claims to being authoritative invalid.

J-D

A genuinely erudite person would have selected the most appropriate from the many existing words available for the purpose ('former'; 'creator'; 'originator'; 'fabricator') instead of forementerisatilising an unnecessarily befuddling new one.

J-D

The immediate context of your question was the post in which you posed it, and you said nothing in that post about 'legitimacy' or 'authority'. Since you posed the question (ostensibly) to obtain a clearer understanding of my position, the larger context was composed of my earlier statements, and I said nothing about 'legitimacy' or 'authority' in any of them. I still don't know what kind of 'legitimacy' or 'authority' you're talking about and so can't express any view about them without further clarification.Not every false statement is perjury.Even if the whole of the existing text was written by a single individual (which some doubt), the fact that somebody has made one false statement (if it is false) is not enough to establish that all their statements are false and even the fact that somebody has told one lie (if it is a lie) is not enough to establish that everything they say is a lie.

Sheshbazzar

OK,....forget that word.
Lets move on to the real subject at hand, I am still waiting for that "answer" that you said you could provide way back in Post #344
I have asked you repeatedly for this "answer", and as I also said before, If 'drugs' then lets move on with the discussion of that possibility, and what difference it would make in the veracity of Paul's accounts.
My further questioning was only an attempt to forestall possible reversion to a claim that these meetings and agreements did take place. But as you do not seem to be able appreciate the difference this would make in the veracity of the Paulinian accounts, I will let that matter slide.

Now, what is this "answer" that you say you have?

aa5874

So are you claiming that it was probable that Paul was poisoned, without his knowledge, as he was writing that he and over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state and that the readers were also poisoned, unknown to them, as they read about the post-resurrection sighting of Jesus as stated by Paul?

Sheshbazzar

The context was ALSO composed of ALL of MY earlier statements, and includes ALL of my posts, such as #326, #331, #350,
ALL of which were devoted to the subject of Paul's legitimacy and his right to claim authority.

"That post" to which you are referring starts out with
"J-D, I asked you in post #345..... "
The context of that particular post rested upon post #345, and all of the previous posts, as virtually all of our ongoing discussion has been focused upon the initial inquiry that I made to you back in POST #326, which incidentally you -still- have not provided any specific "answer" to.

Sheshbazzar

I wonder, are there any other examples to be found within human history where eating moldy bread have caused the victims to have a 'vision' that they had participated in business meetings, and entered into binding business agreements with important public figures.
Is this a commonly reported side-effect of ergot poisoning?

I also wonder how these important public figures might react to the information that they had attended these imaginary meetings and had participated in, and had agreed to these imaginary business arrangements?
Perhaps, in light of this, one can understand a little better why The Jerusalem Pillars would want as little as possible to do with these sick Christians, who feasted on polluted bread, and willfully violated The Law.