Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 08-04-2008, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

I'm trying to get a point across to aa, who doesn't seem to be able to wrap his mind around the notion of visionary experience at all.

As Alan Watts once said, some people approach the religious metaphor as a steak that is to be eaten by chewing on a page from the menu with the word "steak" printed on it.

Quote:

As I've said before, I think we're roughly on the same wavelength in all this, only you prefer to take a somewhat more pathological view of religious phenomena than me (more a weighting than an absolute distinction, I do think some of it is pathological, and I do take on board your notion of religion as a "self-justifying refuge" for the troubled).

K...let's not split hairs.

Jiri

aa5874 · 08-04-2008, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You think he was sure, but the author wrote "I cannot tell", perhaps then he was faking his uncertainty.

No, the uncertainty that Paul was expressing in 2 Cr 12:2 is of the object we normally refer to as I, to which he refers as a man in Christ, and the relation to his own body during the experience of ascent to the "third heaven". He was not faking anything. Paul recounts this experience specifically to disclaim that there is anything - in and of itself - in boasting of the experiences of the Lord, or that the "knowledge" he acquired in his transport (2 Cr 12:4) can be made intelligible. He also admits in his letter of tears that he is perplexed by the business of Christ (2 Cr 4:8).

So, how can your interpretation of "Paul's out of body or in the body revelations" be tested for veracity?

Quote:

I think the author called "Paul" got his revelations about the ONCE DEAD Jesus from gLuke since the RISEN dead Christ once revealed to him the words of the author of Luke from heaven.

Quote:

You are free to think what you will, aa.

Jiri

I try to use available information to form an opinion.

I think the author called Paul really lived after gLuke was written and that is how the author called Paul managed to get the words of Jesus.

Solo · 08-05-2008, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

No, the uncertainty that Paul was expressing in 2 Cr 12:2 is of the object we normally refer to as I, to which he refers as a man in Christ, and the relation to his own body during the experience of ascent to the "third heaven". He was not faking anything. Paul recounts this experience specifically to disclaim that there is anything - in and of itself - in boasting of the experiences of the Lord, or that the "knowledge" he acquired in his transport (2 Cr 12:4) can be made intelligible. He also admits in his letter of tears that he is perplexed by the business of Christ (2 Cr 4:8).

So, how can your interpretation of "Paul's out of body or in the body revelations" be tested for veracity?

We have a disconnect about what Paul claimed, and what I am prepared to underwrite as truthful. I am not saying that I know that Paul's astral body and its association with the risen Lord is physically acsertainable, or verifiable. I am saying that I know that Paul's vision was real subjectively, because - despite the seemingly unique articulation - Paul basically interpreted a fairly common experience. Thomas Ryba summarizes Augustine's valid conclusion of the paranormal visitations in the Guide to The Study Of Religion: one may be deceived about the referentiality of a manifestation but one cannot be wrong about thinking that one has experienced a manifestation.

Jiri

aa5874 · 08-05-2008, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, how can your interpretation of "Paul's out of body or in the body revelations" be tested for veracity?

We have a disconnect about what Paul claimed, and what I am prepared to underwrite as truthful. I am not saying that I know that Paul's astral body and its association with the risen Lord is physically acsertainable, or verifiable. I am saying that I know that Paul's vision was real subjectively, because - despite the seemingly unique articulation - Paul basically interpreted a fairly common experience. Thomas Ryba summarizes Augustine's valid conclusion of the paranormal visitations in the Guide to The Study Of Religion: one may be deceived about the referentiality of a manifestation but one cannot be wrong about thinking that one has experienced a manifestation.

Jiri

I think your problem is your reluctance to entertain the notion that the author called "Paul" was invented. You seem not willing to examine evidence or information that will eliminate "Paul" from the face of the earth.

I will go through available evidence or information one more time.

Eusebius in Church History claimed "Paul" died during Nero, around 64 CE.

Eusebius in Church History claimed "Paul" was familiar with the Gospel of Luke.

Biblical Scholars have deduced that gLuke was written years after the so-called death of "Paul", possibly, at least, 16 years after the death of "Paul".

We have clear chronological problems.

The notion that "Paul" was an invention is a real possibilty that you should examine.

The author called "Paul" really did not have any OOBE, he just read the Gospels and then just claimed he had revelations from the RISEN Christ and it would appear he read the Gospels after the time of Justin Martyr.

Solo · 08-07-2008, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I think your problem is your reluctance to entertain the notion that the author called "Paul" was invented. You seem not willing to examine evidence or information that will eliminate "Paul" from the face of the earth.

I will go through available evidence or information one more time.

Eusebius in Church History claimed "Paul" died during Nero, around 64 CE.

Eusebius in Church History claimed "Paul" was familiar with the Gospel of Luke.

Biblical Scholars have deduced that gLuke was written years after the so-called death of "Paul", possibly, at least, 16 years after the death of "Paul".

We have clear chronological problems.

The notion that "Paul" was an invention is a real possibilty that you should examine.

The author called "Paul" really did not have any OOBE, he just read the Gospels and then just claimed he had revelations from the RISEN Christ and it would appear he read the Gospels after the time of Justin Martyr.

I thought you resolved the problem with chronology in Eusebius some time ago. So, yesterday you were beating the drum here with your thesis that Eusebius was a blatant liar, and today on finding a trivial bit of his about Paul's knowledge of Luke, you ready to re-write the history of the church's monumental deceptions yet again.

What do you think: am I surprised ?

Jiri

aa5874 · 08-07-2008, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I think your problem is your reluctance to entertain the notion that the author called "Paul" was invented. You seem not willing to examine evidence or information that will eliminate "Paul" from the face of the earth.

I will go through available evidence or information one more time.

Eusebius in Church History claimed "Paul" died during Nero, around 64 CE.

Eusebius in Church History claimed "Paul" was familiar with the Gospel of Luke.

Biblical Scholars have deduced that gLuke was written years after the so-called death of "Paul", possibly, at least, 16 years after the death of "Paul".

We have clear chronological problems.

The notion that "Paul" was an invention is a real possibilty that you should examine.

The author called "Paul" really did not have any OOBE, he just read the Gospels and then just claimed he had revelations from the RISEN Christ and it would appear he read the Gospels after the time of Justin Martyr.

I thought you resolved the problem with chronology in Eusebius some time ago. So, yesterday you were beating the drum here with your thesis that Eusebius was a blatant liar, and today on finding a trivial bit of his about Paul's knowledge of Luke, you ready to re-write the history of the church's monumental deceptions yet again.

What do you think: am I surprised ?

Jiri

You think 14 so-called letters from "Paul" that were canonised by Eusebius to be trivial?

The letters are a fundamental part of what I consider to be deliberate erroneous and mis-leading information.

But, again, you have failed to present a method to check the veracity of your interpretation of "Paul's in or out of the body revelations".

xaxxat · 08-07-2008, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

He's talking about him being in or out of the body - i.e. he's not sure whether his visionary experience took the form of what we would nowadays call an OOBE (a meeting in the "seventh heaven" perhaps) or more like a plain vision (hallucination-like appearance) of meeting someone on the road.

Oh, I think he was quite sure of his experience, gg, and nowhere in Paul's letters you will find anything to support the later naive tale of hallucinated Jesus' paying back Saul for his misdeeds on the road to Damascus. Paul in 2 Cor 12 plainly states that the experience of "man in Christ" was euphoric (at first, at any rate). When he says he was not sure whether he was in or out of his body, he indeed is decribing an OBE , a paradoxical mental state, in which the brain "loses" its body map but semi-conscious, often resulting in a feeling of being abducted, or manipulated by some external agent, in people who do not induce such states purposely, e.g. through meditation.

Jiri

Maybe he was a Merkabah Rider...

Solo · 08-08-2008, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaxxat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Oh, I think he was quite sure of his experience, gg, and nowhere in Paul's letters you will find anything to support the later naive tale of hallucinated Jesus' paying back Saul for his misdeeds on the road to Damascus. Paul in 2 Cor 12 plainly states that the experience of "man in Christ" was euphoric (at first, at any rate). When he says he was not sure whether he was in or out of his body, he indeed is decribing an OBE , a paradoxical mental state, in which the brain "loses" its body map but semi-conscious, often resulting in a feeling of being abducted, or manipulated by some external agent, in people who do not induce such states purposely, e.g. through meditation.

Jiri

Maybe he was a Merkabah Rider...

maybe...at minimum, he would have been moving in circles, where numerization of heavens had some currency.

Jiri

bacht · 08-27-2008, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Again, I'm trying to get a point across to aa, who doesn't seem to be able to wrap his mind around the notion of visionary experience at all.

I think you've explained your ideas clearly, patiently and with good humour.

What you're describing seems entirely plausible to this layman: that there really was a founder like Paul, and probably Cephas, both of whom were remembered later, and had to be accommodated in the developing official church history.

The other idea about Paul is that he was used (misused?) by Marcion, thus some reclamation of Paul's ideas and reputation was considered necessary. I can't evaluate this one.

I have no idea about the epistles, I can't read Greek. Why couldn't there have been some writing from the Judeans that survived? Or was the Christian teaching always gentile-directed from the start?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.