Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-12-2012, 09:08 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:"However, because he was ostracized, he may not have been privledged to the oral tradition of the life of Jesus like those in the Nazarene sect were, and this may help to explain his lack of knowledge on the life of Jesus."

Mmmmmmmmmm. Impossible. He lived on Jesus' home turf for some of the time. He would have had thousands of clues to pick up on. I think he was ostracized because he was a heretic. He was the enemy.

Are you ready for one of those good laughs I told you about in my second last post? Let me show you why.

All through this thread you have been claiming that Paul appeared to know nothing about Yeshua, and that is why he supposedly invented his "Jesus."

Yet here you are saying it is "impossible" for him to not have learned anything about "Yeshua" from the Nazarenes. "He would have had thousands of clues to pick up on," is absolutely correct, Mark. And some of those clues would have been the following:

1. Yeshua/Jesus was betrayed.
2. Yeshua/Jesus faced Pilate.
3. Yeshua/Jesus was crucified by Pilate.
4. Yeshua/Jesus' grave/tomb was empty.
5. Yeshua/Jesus was purported to have been raised from the dead.

So since you have agreed that Paul would have picked up on thousands of clues regarding Yeshua/Jesus from the Nazarenes, then you must agree that Paul absolutely believed that Yeshua/Jesus existed, and experienced the 5 things I listed above, and that Paul's "Jesus" was indeed modeled after what he learned from the Nazarene's about Yeshua.

Comments?

Anyways, my next post will deal with the rest of your critique.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were ...
BORN THIS WAY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2012, 02:46 PM (This post was last modified: 05-12-2012 03:53 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(05-12-2012 09:08 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:"However, because he was ostracized, he may not have been privledged to the oral tradition of the life of Jesus like those in the Nazarene sect were, and this may help to explain his lack of knowledge on the life of Jesus."

Mmmmmmmmmm. Impossible. He lived on Jesus' home turf for some of the time. He would have had thousands of clues to pick up on. I think he was ostracized because he was a heretic. He was the enemy.

Are you ready for one of those good laughs I told you about in my second last post? Let me show you why.

All through this thread you have been claiming that Paul appeared to know nothing about Yeshua, and that is why he supposedly invented his "Jesus."

Yet here you are saying it is "impossible" for him to not have learned anything about "Yeshua" from the Nazarenes. "He would have had thousands of clues to pick up on," is absolutely correct, Mark. And some of those clues would have been the following:

1. Yeshua/Jesus was betrayed.
2. Yeshua/Jesus faced Pilate.
3. Yeshua/Jesus was crucified by Pilate.
4. Yeshua/Jesus' grave/tomb was empty.
5. Yeshua/Jesus was purported to have been raised from the dead.

So since you have agreed that Paul would have picked up on thousands of clues regarding Yeshua/Jesus from the Nazarenes, then you must agree that Paul absolutely believed that Yeshua/Jesus existed, and experienced the 5 things I listed above, and that Paul's "Jesus" was indeed modeled after what he learned from the Nazarene's about Yeshua.

Comments?

Anyways, my next post will deal with the rest of your critique.
Re
"All through this thread you have been claiming that Paul appeared to
know nothing about Yeshua, and that is why he supposedly invented his
"Jesus."

Yet here you are saying it is "impossible" for him to not have learned anything about "Yeshua" from the Nazarenes."

There's no resaon to laugh at the fact you've misunderstood my argument. I'm saying that Paul must have known of a Yeshua (a recently departed very human person), so yes, he must have known Yeshua existed (assuming of course, Yeshua did exist, and he probably did). Paul appeared to know almost nothing of Yeshua because he was writing about someone else (his Jesus). I'm a little taken aback that after all these posts, and the videos, and what Bucky and numerous historians have said, you still don't seem to understand the crux of the argument.

Please back up your points 1-5 with the relevant parts of Paul's writing so we can discuss.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2012, 05:22 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(05-12-2012 02:46 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(05-12-2012 09:08 AM)Free Wrote:  Are you ready for one of those good laughs I told you about in my second last post? Let me show you why.

All through this thread you have been claiming that Paul appeared to know nothing about Yeshua, and that is why he supposedly invented his "Jesus."

Yet here you are saying it is "impossible" for him to not have learned anything about "Yeshua" from the Nazarenes. "He would have had thousands of clues to pick up on," is absolutely correct, Mark. And some of those clues would have been the following:

1. Yeshua/Jesus was betrayed.
2. Yeshua/Jesus faced Pilate.
3. Yeshua/Jesus was crucified by Pilate.
4. Yeshua/Jesus' grave/tomb was empty.
5. Yeshua/Jesus was purported to have been raised from the dead.

So since you have agreed that Paul would have picked up on thousands of clues regarding Yeshua/Jesus from the Nazarenes, then you must agree that Paul absolutely believed that Yeshua/Jesus existed, and experienced the 5 things I listed above, and that Paul's "Jesus" was indeed modeled after what he learned from the Nazarene's about Yeshua.

Comments?

Anyways, my next post will deal with the rest of your critique.
Re
"All through this thread you have been claiming that Paul appeared to
know nothing about Yeshua, and that is why he supposedly invented his
"Jesus."

Yet here you are saying it is "impossible" for him to not have learned anything about "Yeshua" from the Nazarenes."

There's no resaon to laugh at the fact you've misunderstood my argument. I'm saying that Paul must have known of a Yeshua (a recently departed very human person), so yes, he must have known Yeshua existed (assuming of course, Yeshua did exist, and he probably did). Paul appeared to know almost nothing of Yeshua because he was writing about someone else (his Jesus). I'm a little taken aback that after all these posts, and the videos, and what Bucky and numerous historians have said, you still don't seem to understand the crux of the argument.

Please back up your points 1-5 with the relevant parts of Paul's writing so we can discuss.
What is anyone supposed to make of the following earlier quote of you then, Mark?

Mark Fulton Wrote:-Paul's writings, and I don't think he knew of a "Jesus." His "Christ" was someone and something else....a spirit/man, a ghost.


http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid203227


You have said similar things all through this thread to indicate the Paul didn't know about Yeshua.

Consider

Are you trying to say we are speaking of 3 different Jesus' here? The Gospel Jesus, Paul's Jesus, and the Yeshua/Jesus?

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were ...
BORN THIS WAY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2012, 05:29 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:"Also, Paul insisted that he had a direct link to the Spirit of Christ and claimed his knowledge came from Christ only."

Mmmmm. I must disagree. I think he thought god spoke to him through scripture. I don't think he ever claimed Christ talked to him. I would like to know why you think it was a "Christ" who spoke to him?

Gal_1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Rom_14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Gal_1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the deadWink

1Ti_1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

Rom_15:18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,

1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

1Co_9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

1Ti_2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men is the man Christ Jesus;

What reasonable and logical conclusions should we draw from the verses listed above? Each one specifies a communication between Paul and Jesus. Paul claims that Jesus gave him revelations, persuaded Paul, called Paul to be an Apostle, and sent Paul to preach the Gospel. Also, Paul claims to have actually seen Jesus, regards Jesus Christ as a man, and that Jesus Christ is the mediator between men (including Paul) and God.

Thus, according to the textual evidence, and with the use of Occam's Razor, we can reasonably and logically conclude that Paul believed and/or claimed that he indeed had direct communication with Jesus Christ.



Quote:
Quote:"This may explain another reason why he didn't quote anything about the actual life of Jesus because if he did he may get accused from the Nazarenes of merely repeating what they were already preaching, and exposed as riding on the backs of the Nazarene, and not have a direct link to Christ at all."


Um...isn't that a bit unlikely? Isn't it more probable his Christ wasn't Jesus? If he was claiming his Christ was Jesus, don't you think he'd include anything he knew about Yeshua to help legitimize the link with his recently departed hero?

It's not unlikely when you examine the text again. Paul was indeed preaching his own version of whatever it is he learned about Yeshua, but he tended to avoid going into Nazarene occupied territories. For example:

Quote:Rom 15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation.

Paul didn't preach his gospel to the Jews because, as he says, he didn't want to build on another man's foundation where Christ was declared, which was in all likelihood, James' Nararene sect. Even if he did go there, considering what we both know about Paul's beliefs and the differences he had with the Nazarenes, could you imagine him going around James, Peter, and the others and saying, "I have a direct link to Jesus, and he talks to me?" Or even, "I have a direct link to God, and he talks to me?"

They would laugh him back to the Gentiles as they would dispute his claim and negatively affect his credibility. Paul had a good thing going with the Gentiles and the last thing he would need is the brother of Jesus learning about his so-called "direct link" and making a fool of Paul.

So it is likely that Paul would distance himself from the Nazarene sect and not preach much about anything they said since his beliefs contrasted totally with theirs, and also, he didn't want to build his church on the foundation of the Nazarenes in any way, shape, or form.

As far as "Isn't it more probable his Christ wasn't Jesus," is concerned, for the most part this is true. But there's far too many similarities between what Paul asserts regarding Jesus, and the common claims from all other sources regarding Jesus, to not come to a reasonable and logical conclusion that the Jesus whom Paul spoke about was modeled after the historical Yeshua.

After all, why would Paul pick a Jesus who:

1. Was a man?
2. Confessed before Pontius Pilate?
3. Was crucified?

Paul had to base his Jesus upon something and not absolutely nothing. It makes no sense to me that he could get so many people to buy into his bullshit unless there was some semblance of truth to his claims. He was indeed riding on the backs of the Nazarene with his own gospel, but he put his own spin on things to create a religion for the Gentiles based upon the very same Yeshua the Nazarenes laid claim to.

I'll post more later, busy at work.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were ...
BORN THIS WAY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2012, 07:02 PM (This post was last modified: 05-12-2012 08:25 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
There continues to be a conflation of (Paul's) idea of Yeshua, (the actual person), with quotes in which Paul refers to the post resurrection (raised)
Christ. They are not the same ideas. Humans do not "reveal" things to other humans. The "Lord" Jesus, is the "Risen Lord", not the human Yeshua. The Risen Christ is not the human Jesus. The "Savior" Christ is not the human Jesus. The human Yeshua "wrought" nothing in him. Paul "believed" (or claimed), that a "Risen Lord" had made changes. The "Christ" who sent him, was the figment he "saw" in the vision, (or how he justified it to himself and the others), to give himself equal (apostolic) status. It was inconceivable to Paul he would just one one of the followers. His ego would not allow it. When Paul says he saw Jesus, it's just the vision. We've been over and over all this before. Paul does not regard "the Christ as a man". He regards the *man as having been raised to BECOME the Christ*. Paul *says* he communicated with the Christ, as he needs to give himself apostolic status.Paul conned people into believing what he was saying. No one actually "checked it out". In fact one could actually see that maybe Paul had paid off the the apostles. It says in Acts that they agreed to Paul preaching to the Gentile only if "he continued to remember the poor". (The "poor" were the apostles in Jerusalem). That meant Paul had to bring MONEY to the apostles. He bought and paid for his office. Paul claims of his activity in his letters 110 % conflicts with the accounts in Acts. Either one lying, OR, they are not the same dude.
In Dr. Dale Martin's course (Yale, prominent NT scholar, and friend of Ehrman) session #5, http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies
he posts on the blackboard, the completely impossible timelines as presented in Acts, and the Letters of Paul. They are not reconcilable, in any way, what-so-ever. Paul claims one thing, Acts a different thing, totally. In the class setting, Martin asks for an explanation. No one actually says it, but it's obvious. Either they are lies, OR there are TWO DIFFERENT people named Paul. Martin chooses, (as a believer), to ignore that. Nothing they say about anything is reliable. "Pseudoepigraphia" was the norm throughout the time. NOTHING is reliable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigraph

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
05-12-2012, 08:20 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(05-12-2012 05:22 PM)Free Wrote:  
(05-12-2012 02:46 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re
"All through this thread you have been claiming that Paul appeared to
know nothing about Yeshua, and that is why he supposedly invented his
"Jesus."

Yet here you are saying it is "impossible" for him to not have learned anything about "Yeshua" from the Nazarenes."

There's no resaon to laugh at the fact you've misunderstood my argument. I'm saying that Paul must have known of a Yeshua (a recently departed very human person), so yes, he must have known Yeshua existed (assuming of course, Yeshua did exist, and he probably did). Paul appeared to know almost nothing of Yeshua because he was writing about someone else (his Jesus). I'm a little taken aback that after all these posts, and the videos, and what Bucky and numerous historians have said, you still don't seem to understand the crux of the argument.

Please back up your points 1-5 with the relevant parts of Paul's writing so we can discuss.

What is anyone supposed to make of the following earlier quote of you then, Mark?

Mark Fulton Wrote:-Paul's writings, and I don't think he knew of a "Jesus." His "Christ" was someone and something else....a spirit/man, a ghost.



http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid203227


You have said similar things all through this thread to indicate the Paul didn't know about Yeshua.

Consider

Are you trying to say we are speaking of 3 different Jesus' here? The Gospel Jesus, Paul's Jesus, and the Yeshua/Jesus?



You just don't get it. I'll try again. I know you're not stupid, so just read this slowly...real slowly....

Yeshua is the real, flesh and blood person who probably existed.

"Jesus" is a fiction, a story, a miracle working son of god who rose from the dead. "He" was created when the gospels were written. It's just possible some of the more "down to earth" facts about Yeshua are incorporated in the gospels (ie in the Jesus) story.

Paul must have known of a Yeshua, but didn't write about him.

Paul knew nothing of "Jesus"...because Paul wrote before the gospels were written, and includes almost none of the Jesus story in his writing.

Paul's mythical son of God, the Christ, wasn't Yeshua and wasn't Jesus. Paul was writing about a spiritual intermediary between man and god (Yahweh). There were many similar miracle working, crucified sons of God in other cults in the empire. Paul was creating his own. I think it was only in the second century that Paul's mythical Christ was merged into the gospel stories.

So yes...there are 3 "Jesus's"....one is real ( Yeshua), the other 2 are the gospel's "Jesus" and Paul's "Christ."

This is what numerous historians, including the narrator in the video (although he thinks there probably wasn't a Yeshua) believe.

This is the 5th or 6th time I've talked about this. If you don't understand the argument I'm going to have to hand you over to someone else, as there are a lot of people reading these blogs, and I don't want them getting bored with my repitition.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2012, 08:52 PM (This post was last modified: 05-12-2012 08:58 PM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(05-12-2012 08:20 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(05-12-2012 05:22 PM)Free Wrote:  What is anyone supposed to make of the following earlier quote of you then, Mark?




http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid203227


You have said similar things all through this thread to indicate the Paul didn't know about Yeshua.

Consider

Are you trying to say we are speaking of 3 different Jesus' here? The Gospel Jesus, Paul's Jesus, and the Yeshua/Jesus?



You just don't get it. I'll try again. I know you're not stupid, so just read this slowly...real slowly....

Yeshua is the real, flesh and blood person who probably existed.

"Jesus" is a fiction, a story, a miracle working son of god who rose from the dead. "He" was created when the gospels were written. It's just possible some of the more "down to earth" facts about Yeshua are incorporated in the gospels (ie in the Jesus) story.

Paul must have known of a Yeshua, but didn't write about him.

Paul knew nothing of "Jesus"...because Paul wrote before the gospels were written, and includes almost none of the Jesus story in his writing.

Paul's mythical son of God, the Christ, wasn't Yeshua and wasn't Jesus. Paul was writing about a spiritual intermediary between man and god (Yahweh). There were many similar miracle working, crucified sons of God in other cults in the empire. Paul was creating his own. I think it was only in the second century that Paul's mythical Christ was merged into the gospel stories.

So yes...there are 3 "Jesus's"....one is real ( Yeshua), the other 2 are the gospel's "Jesus" and Paul's "Christ."

This is what numerous historians, including the narrator in the video (although he thinks there probably wasn't a Yeshua) believe.

This is the 5th or 6th time I've talked about this. If you don't understand the argument I'm going to have to hand you over to someone else, as there are a lot of people reading these blogs, and I don't want them getting bored with my repitition.
Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand that I got it the first time ... 25 years ago ... long before you ever considered getting interested in it.

What you have been doing is obfuscating this discussion to avoid dealing with the evidence and attempting to make people think I don't understand an argument that is older than dirt.

So stop repeating yourself, and get on with dealing with the evidence. How the fuck you can arrive at a conclusion that i don't understand the argument after 25 pages of discussion is astounding.

You have been saying ad nausium that Paul's Jesus is not Yeshua. How fucking hard is that to understand? We all get it, we have always gotten it, you have made it abundantly fucking clear.

Seriously? Start debating the evidence and drop the pretense that you argument is not understood.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were ...
BORN THIS WAY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2012, 09:58 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
"Gal_1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

"of Jesus Christ" is not the same as "from Jesus Christ."

"Rom_14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean."

I'm not sure which bible you are quoting here. Here are 2 other bible versions of this

1. "14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for any one who thinks it unclean." (RSV)
2." I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself." (NIV)

"in the Lord jesus" suggests a story about, not from, Jesus. Which translation is correct? I dunno.

"Gal_1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead" Not convincing either. God the dad plays a role here. He sent his son, the Christ, hence "but by Jesus Christ"

"1Ti_1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;" NOT written by Paul...you should know this!

"Rom_15:18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed," I accept that here he is suggesting his Christ (who he doesn't call Jesus)was achieving things through him. Chalk up 1/2 a point to you. However...let's not forget that Christians have messed with all of these texts.

"1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."As above. Give yourself another 1/2 point, but note he's not referring to Jesus.

"1Co_9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?" INTERPOLATION...as discussed in the video.

"1Ti_2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men is the man Christ Jesus;" Come on...you know Paul didn't write this epistle.

"What reasonable and logical conclusions should we draw from the verses listed above?" See my comments on each.

"Each one specifies a communication between Paul and Jesus." No they don't. Ro 15;8 and 1 Cor 1;17 go closest to supporting your theory that "Christ" instructed Paul, but they don't mention "Jesus."

"Paul claims that Jesus gave him revelations," NO HE DOESN"T...NOT ONCE! "persuaded Paul, called Paul to be an Apostle," WRONG, IT WAS CHRIST, NOT JESUS, WHO ALLEGEDLY TALKED HIM IN TO BEING AN APOSTLE "and sent Paul to preach the Gospel." WRONG, IT WAS CHRIST, NOT JESUS,

Also, Paul claims to have actually seen Jesus,INTERPOLATION!, AND IF HE DID "SEE" JESUS, WHY DIDN"T HE DESCRIBE HIM?

"regards Jesus Christ as a man," BUT YOUR QUOTES DEMONSTRATE THAT HE THOUGHT CHRIST WAS A SPIRIT!!!!

"and that Jesus Christ is the mediator between men (including Paul) and God." Yes, agreed, a mediator of sorts.

"Thus, according to the textual evidence, and with the use of Occam's Razor, we can reasonably and logically conclude that Paul believed and/or claimed that he indeed had direct communication with Jesus Christ." NO WE CAN"T. YOU ARE GUESSING. YOUR PRESUMTIONS ARE CLOUDING YOUR JUDGEMENT.

You still haven't addressed the fact Paul says almost nothing about the specifics of Jesus' life, such as his mother (the mother of god!), his miracles, his home town etc etc.

Also, why would Paul fight with the brother and disciples (James, Peter and John) of the son of god? Surely even he wasn't that arrogant!

Take your blinkers off!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2012, 10:01 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Re


"Paul didn't preach his gospel to the Jews"

WRONG! check your facts and i await your response.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2012, 10:41 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Re

"Paul didn't preach his gospel to the Jews because, as he says, he didn't want to build on another man's foundation where Christ was declared, which was in all likelihood, James' Nararene sect."

Paul did preach to Jews. I could launch in to the proof of that....but I'll leave it to you to realise it for yourself.

You seem to have no comprehension of a certain fundamental point. Jews, including the Nazarenes, never, ever believed in a Christ. They wouldn't be Jews if they did.

If there was another Christ being taught it wasn't a Jewish Christ.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: