Solo

Hi Andrew,
I am reminded of Henry Kissinger's quip that even paranoiacs are sometimes followed. The issue with the belief that 'God speaks to me' is the context in which it occurs. I know personally Pentecontalists who believe without a shadow of a doubt in the reality of the possession by the Holy Spirit when they bring themselves into a trance. They are obviously not mentally ill as their church tongue speaking are group controlled hypnosis and/or self-conscious displays. What counts is that they don't freak out during church money collections. When they drive home, they are sober and orderly. Satan does not interfere with the basketball games they watch on television (the family I am thinking of lived in Portland, Ore., and were all great Blazers' fans). They live settled life. Their communications with God have been learned through the family and church. They do not come in sudden, private epiphanies during aimless wanderings, that come through discoveries like: the foxes have holes and birds have nests but I have nowhere to lay my head.

Jiri

aa5874

So, is that your final answer?

Perhaps, you did not understand my question.

According to the Gospels, Jesus was on earth LIVING in Galilee with apostles including Peter during the reign of Tiberius and governorship of Pilate.

According to the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles:

1.Jesus was betrayed in the night, AFTER he supped.

2.Jesus was crucified.

3.Jesus died.

4.Jesus was resurrected on the third day.

5.Jesus ascended to heaven.

6. Jesus was expected to come back TO EARTH a SECOND TIME.

According to the Gospels, these things happen to Jesus while he was on earth living in Galilee and crucified in Jerusalem.

Please tell where did these things happen to Jesus in the Pauline writings?

A. HEAVEN

B. EARTH

Once you can deduce the location of Jesus in the NT Canon then you will be deduce the location of his apostles, including Peter during the reign of Tiberius.

Again, your methodology is absurd. You accept, IN ISOLATION in A VACUUM, the writings with probably the most forgeries under a single name "Paul" as your main source.

You will NOTfind JESUS or the apostle Peter in the Pauline Epistles using your flawed methodology.

I have found the fictitious characters Jesus and the apostle Peter who were supposedly ON EARTH in the Pauline writings and I have shown you the passages already.

Examine the Pauline writings.

The BETRAYAL in the NIGHT after He had supped.

The BURIAL and RESURRECTION of Jesus on the THIRD Day.

Examine 1 Cor.15.3-4 3 JESUS ASCENDED TO HEAVEN

Ephesians 4.8-11 The EXPECTATION OF THE SECOND COMING.

1 Thessalonians 4.14-16 The Pauline Jesus is the same fictitious Jesus character of the NT who had fictitious apostles including Peter.

The Pauline writers claimed they persecuted Jesus believers and that they met one of the apostles called Peter in Jerusalem and stayed with him for fifteen days, but it was most likely a LIE.

The Pauline writers, with their close companion Luke, attempted to historicise the fiction in ACTS where the conversion of SAUL/Paul was most likely to be fiction.

Saul/Paul, "genuine Paul", was not mad, he was a LIAR and fiction writer.

gurugeorge

I'm still waiting for your demonstration that the Jesus mentioned in the "genuine Paul" writings is mentioned in those writings as having apostles while he was supposedly alive, and I'm still waiting for your demonstrastion that the Cephas/Peter mentioned in the "genuine Paul" writings is mentioned in those writings as being a disciple of Jesus while that entity was supposedly alive.

Loomis

Me too.

Perhaps he has an attention deficit.

Or maybe you’ve just got him by the balls.

DancesWithCoffeeCups

Please leave the personal comments out of the discussion. Address the content, please.

Thanks.

aa5874

Just hold on a little.

My reply will be posted soon.

aa5874

Well, if you think that passages from the Pauline Epistles are irrelevant to determine whether the Pauline Jesus was the same as the Gospel Jesus who was on earth with apostles, including the apostle Peter, as found in the Gospels then I certainly would not entertain any speculations from you.

You say I have not demonstrated that the Jesus in "your genuine Paul" writings had apostles and have not demonstrated that Cephas/Peter was an apostle of the Jesus of "your genuine Paul".

Now, I beg of you one request in order for me to continue in my demonstration of the task you have given me, Please demonstrate that your "genuine" Paul was ACTUALLY in Jerusalem and met an apostle named Peter, and James the Lord's brother.

In effect, Demonstrate that the passages in Galatians 1.18-19 are historical.

Galatians 1.18-19
You may have ERRED in assuming Galatians 1.18-19 was historical.

In order for me to continue with the tasks you have set for me, demonstrate that your "genuine" Paul did persecute the FAITH and that the FAITH PREDATED your "genuine Paul".

In other words, Demonstrate that Galatians 1.13 and 1.23 are historical.

Ga 1:13 - Ga 1:23 - It must be noted that "your genuine Paul" has CONFESSED that the FAITH was before HE even began to preach.

If you believe "your genuine Paul" started the FAITH, YOU BELIEVE A LIE.

Now, demonstrate that "your genuine PAUL" WAS a LIAR when he implied that he was NOT the FIRST to PREACH the FAITH.

I am waiting on your demonstration so that I can continue with the tasks you have given me.

DEMONSTRATE THAT YOUR "genuine" PAUL WAS A LIAR. DEMONSTRATE that GALATIANS 1.18-19, GALATIANS 1.13 and GALATIANS 1.23 are historical.

I have the FAITH you will.

gurugeorge

I don't need to. I'm playing your game for the moment, and just asking you to look at the intentional meaning of the text (what the text wants you to believe, as it were).

Obviously I'm not saying any and all Pauline passages are irrelevant to the broader picture - as we both agreed, it's all evidence.

The problem is, in what sense is it evidence?

For example you say above: "You say I have not demonstrated that the Jesus in "your genuine Paul" writings had apostles and have not demonstrated that Cephas/Peter was an apostle of the Jesus of "your genuine Paul"."

But this isn't quite right. What I'm saying is that you have not demonstrated that the Jesus in the "genuine Paul" writings (not mine, but those marked as "genuine" by the consensus of Biblical scholarship) "had apostles" like this: Jesus was a living entity who delegated some people whom the Paul writer wants us to believe he knew.

I think, rather, that the meaning of the Paul writings, the intentional meaning (setting aside the questin of objective fact for the moment) is that Jesus "had apostles" in another sense, like this: a bunch of people, including Paul, had a revised concept of what the Messiah actually is, and had visions of this entity, and felt compelled to spread the message about this entity.

And I am rationally allowed to consider this as a live option, as a rational option, precisely because of the lack of specific mention in any of the Paul writings, that what he's calling "apostle" is a person who was delegated by a living entity called "Jesus". I know that's what it means in the rest of the NT Canon. I'm raising doubt that that's what it means in the Paul writings.

It's rather parallel to the bigger situation: we both agree that lack of external evidence for a living Jesus means we can legitimately rationally draw conclusions (i.e. valid logical arguments) that reflect back on the texts.

Well, here, it's somewhat similar: lack of internal evidence that the meaning of "apostle" is the same in Acts as it is in the Paul writings (at least the "genuine" ones) leaves logical wiggle room to take a different perspective on the evidence.

Whew, some logorrhea from me there

I'm not assuming Galatians is historical, I'm led to think it might be historical (or some of it might be historical) by virtue of the anomaly that it's not at all obvious that the sense of "apostle" is the same, in Paul, as it is in other parts of the Canon, and that it's not at all obvious that the Cephas/Peter mentioned in the Paul writings is meant as a disciple of a living Jesus recently deceased and resurrected (in terms of the text) OR a living human being called Jesus who might have formed the basis for such a myth.

You keep saying "NT Canon", "NT Canon", but the problem with this is that the "NT Canon" is composed of a bunch of writings from various unknown sources. Now it's pretty obvious that the COMPILERS of the NT Canon WANTED YOU TO BELIEVE that the terms are consistent in meaning throughout.

But we, as historical investigators, MUST NOT take it for granted that the terms actually ARE consistent throughout. We can't simply take it for granted, either, that the writers of the several texts comprising the Canon wanted the reader to believe the same thing as the compilers of the Canon.

Isn't that critical scholarship 101?

When you have a bunch of texts like the NT Canon, that is a compilation, you can't just assume that the terms, the theology, mean the same thing from writer to writer. Now of course, obviously, in large parts of the Canon, the meaning is pretty consistent (barring storm-in-a-teacup theological infighting). But even if large parts of it are consistent, we STILL can't take it for granted that it really is consistent throughout.

So, I hope you see now that it's not at all obvious, not at all clear, that we can simply take it for granted that the meaning of "apostle" is consistent between Acts and the Paul writings, even though they're officially part of the same "Canon".

And that's an interesting result - maybe it accidentally opens a window where we are glimpsing something wildly different, at the root of Christianity, from what came later on.

Or we might not be - it might just be sheer dumb luck that Paul just doesn't happen to give a piece of information. You might be totally right in your conjectures.

But OTOH, in an analogous sense, it might just be sheer, dumb luck that no contemporaries mentioned an entity that could tolerably be construed to be a human being Jesus!

Now who's being consistent, and who's being inconsistent, in their methodology?

When I say "game", I don't mean it in the sense that one is sitting in a sandpit making sandcastles for the sake of it. I mean that you can approach the truth using one consistent methodology, or you can approach it using another consistent methodology - and even then, NEITHER might get you closer to the truth.

At the end of the day, you can have a perfectly (logically) valid argument based on the existing evidence, and for all that, you still might be wrong about reality, wrong about the facts. I'm not interested in scoring points and producing arguments that are more-valid-than-thine, I'm interested in the search for objective truth, in the course of which valid arguments are merely a tool.

I want to say something I thought about a few posts back but forgot to mention at the time, to try to illuminate what our differences boil down to (despite the fact that we do have some agreements). In an earlier post, you said something about "the veracity of the texts". Maybe the difference between us is that I haven't the slightest bit of interest in the veracity of the texts, qua veracity of the texts. I'm not approaching this from the point of view of having intrinsic interest in the texts' meaning, and proving whether the texts' purport is true or false.

My interest, rather, is in what really, truly, objectively, went on in those days, and in how the texts came to exist. My interest is in the facts about what people did in those days, not in the facts about the texts (e.g. whether they report accurately what went on in those days). If establishing whether a text is accurate, honest, etc., or not, leads me to finding out the truth about what went on, then to THAT extent, the veracity of the texts is of interest; but the veracity of the texts holds no intrinsic interest for me. I'm not a Christian, I have no investment in it. The texts don't MATTER to me.

For example, I am at present persuaded that the Acts author is the liar and the Paul writer (or one of the core writers involved in the Paul texts) is honest (I do also think there are many interpolations in the Paul writings, some even lying, but I'm simply not competent, nor do I have the time, to pursue that); but for me, even were that established beyond doubt, I wouldn't be interested in stopping there. That fact alone doesn't satisfy my intellectual curiosity. To me, that's only a stage on the way to finding out what really went on. Who were these people? How did they fill their time? What did they believe? Why did they write what they did?

You are definitely a smart guy aa, with a great knowledge of the texts. But maybe the way you look at this still has a sort of lingering perfume of your believing days? Somehow the texts still matter to you, still have a sort of intrinsic interest to you? And somehow you still take for granted what you would naturally have believed as a Christian - that the "NT Canon" is of a piece, is in some sense a unified work with consistent meanings? Just something to consider ...

Doug Shaver

Yes, I think that would be a very useful distinction to make.

aa5874

Once you confess that you produced "some logorrhea", then I am vindicated.

Once you ASSUME that there was a "genuine Paul" and that "genuine Paul" wrote Galatians, it MUST be blatantly obvious that you ASSUME Galatians is historical.

Please, tell me what external source of ANTIQUITY of the Pauline writings that LED YOU to think Galatians might be historical?

But, you keep saying "GENUINE PAUL", "GENUINE PAUL" but the problem with this is that "GENUINE PAUL" is composed of a bunch of writings from uncorroborated sources.

Now, it is pretty obvious that the COMPILERS of the NT Canon WANTED YOU TO BELIEVE that ALL or EVERY SINGLE EPISTLE with the name Paul was WRITTEN BY "GENUINE PAUL".

It has now been deduced that the Pauline writings are a bunch of writings from VARIOUS UNKNOWN SOURCES.

But, you still insist on saying "GENUINE PAUL" while at the same time maintain that you are not even sure how much of "GENUINE PAUL" is actually GENUINE.

Your "GENUINE PAUL" in Galatians 1.17-19 claimed:

1. There were apostles BEFORE him.

2. He met an apostle Peter in Jerusalem and stayed with him fifteen days.

3. He met James the Lord's brother.

The NT Canon established in their stories that:
1. There were apostles of Jesus BEFORE SAUL/PAUL

2. There were apostles of Jesus of whom one was called Peter.

3. Saul/Paul met THE APOSTLES and did meet an apostle called PETER in JERUSALEM.

4. SAUL/PAUL was the AUTHOR of the Pauline Epistles.

It must be YOUR OBLIGATION to show that "apostles" in the Pauline writings SUDDENLY do not mean the same as "apostles" in the NT Canon of which the very Pauline writings belong.

I have fulfilled my OBLIGATION and have shown you the EVIDENCE.

You seem to have taken another route. You seem not to take any thing for granted once it does not LEAD YOU TO BELIEVE that GENUINE PAUL was HONEST.

In GALATIANS 1.13 and 1.23, "genuine PAUL claimed he persecuted the VERY FAITH that he was NOW was PREACHING.

In the NT Canon, SAUL/PAUL, established as the author of the Pauline Epistles, was depicted as one who persecuted Jesus believers.

If you claim that "genuine PAUL" started the FAITH and that the JESUS cult was TEENSY-WEENSY, then it is YOUR OBLIGATION to provide the EVIDENCE for your claims.


But, I have NOT ASSUMED that "apostles" mean the same throughout the NT Canon, I have provided the EVIDENCE.

It is you who have not provided any EVIDENCE to suggest that "apostles" in one part of the Canon means another thing in another part.

I hope that you see that it is YOU who take for granted that the meaning of "apostle" is NOT consistent in Acts and the Pauline writings WITHOUT without providing the Evidence.

You take for granted that "apostle" means the same thing in the Pauline writings, yet the Epistles were a bunch of writings that WANTED US TO BELIEVE that ALL the Characters called PAUL were apostles.

"Apostle" in the ENTIRE Canon must mean the same thing unless the author MAKES A DISTINCTION.


But, that is my ONLY obligation to make a logically valid argument based on the EXISTING evidence.

You do not appear to be really in search of the objective truth when you have stated all you can do is speculate.

You were LED TO BELIEVE Paul was honest and your objective appears to be to promote that "genuine Paul" was honest although you are NOT sure what is "GENUINE" about Paul.


But[b[] you DO HAVE interest[/b] in the texts' meaning. You asked me to demonstrate that "apostles" mean the same in the NT Canon.

You DO HAVE a lot of interest in the veracity of the texts. You believe that "GENUINE PAUL" was honest.

You [b]DO HAVE interest in proving whether the texts is true or false since you claim you are searching for the truth.

But, how in the world will you be able to really, truly and objectively find out what went on in those days without [b] texts that are credible and historical?

Now, "I am not a Christian" has no value whatsoever as EVIDENCE.

And the TEXTS DO MATTER TO YOU. You believe the TEXTS that claim Paul had Visions and met people in Jerusalem.

TEXTS DO MATTER TO YOU.

You cannot claim to be an "historical investigator" and still say that YOU have NO INTRINSIC INTEREST in the TEXT.

But, you are so wrong about me. I did not claim that I was LED to think Paul was honest. You are the one who displays characteristics of believers.

You are LED TO BELIEVE in PAUL'S honesty without Evidence.

You cannot show when "genuine Paul" actually wrote.

You cannot show that "genuine Paul' actually had visions.

You cannot show the actual contents of the Visions.

You cannot show that "genuine Paul" was an apostle.

You cannot show that 'genuine Paul' was in Jerusalem.

You cannot show that "genuine Paul" persecuted the FAITH.

You cannot show what source of antiquity LED YOU to think "genuine Paul" was honest.

But you become DYSPEPTIC when others make claims using EVIDENCE to show that the Pauline writings were part of a fraud, including Galatians, to deliberately distort the true history of Jesus believers.

Once Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, the Creator and Messiah did not exist, then the Pauline writings, including "GENUINE PAUL" was not MAD but a FRAUD.

That is where the EVIDENCE has LED ME.