Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2012, 08:46 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(18-10-2012 08:35 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Oh, you were asking who the authors using the pseudonym "Paul" were. I was describing Paul as the character he played in the fairy tale called The Bible.

Ok. Got it, and I agree.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2012, 08:55 PM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2012 09:02 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(18-10-2012 07:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Great thread. Wrong verb. Who WERE P? aul Tongue

When I first came here, I thought this nutty Fulton dude was out of his frickin mind. Big Grin He is not. Now, I see, that if you read Acts with the idea in mind that Saul was sent by Rome to disrupt, and change the Way cult, (which he did *in spades*), he makes perfect sense. I still think, Jeebus was just a common crook, executed by "standing order" in the Pax Romana,, (that is if there ever was a real Jeebus), for trying to disrupt the temple economy, but there are other possibilities, once you let go of the propaganda.

So about one of the Pauls : The Tarsus Paul.
Beyond all the obvious stuff, about him introducing the "salvation paradigm" (which is 100 % absent in Mark, the first gospel, thus we know it was not the message of Jesus), is the more subtle case that can be made about sacrifice, atonement, and purification, and the telling origins of each. In Hebrew culture, a sacrifice was made to "atone" for one's sins. That is to "repair" a ruptured, or injured (cosmic) relationship between the (Yahweh) god, and the human, (and ONLY the *human*). In Saul of Tarsus, this is radically changed to a totally non-Hebrew idea. What sort of idea you ask ? A Zoroastrian idea. And where did THAT come from ? Tarsus...a hotbed of Mithraism. Mithraism took the concept of "personal purification of sin" from Zoroastrianism, and Paul placed that into his new cult. That concept was NOT the same as the Hebrew concept of "atonement". They are totally different. Along with "personal purification" also came other concepts relating to "free will", imperfect, (fallen creation)...not just "original sin", but ALL of nature "fallen" to an imperfect state, (which is non-Hebrew), and cosmically "repaired" by Jeebus' sacrifice, (which are TOTALLY 1000 % non-Hebrew ideas). The cultures are NOT the same. Paul grafted his ideas onto the Way cult, in an attempt to compete for followers, of the Greek mystery cults, as "the apostle to the Gentiles". He thought that was his job. "Someone might argue, 'If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner ?'"(Romans 3:7). He knew he was "changing things"..*cough cough. He admitted it. Christians practice Paulianity/Mithraism/Zoroastrianism. They just don't know it.

In fact, Saul of Tarsus existed in a tradition of "change", (deception). In all honesty, this is really called "Pious Fraud", http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c5.htm , and we cannot judge it with 21st century values. It was not seen as immoral. It was a case of "ends justifies the means". However, we cannot, just from the use of pious fraud, automatically assume we know something about motivation. They could have had "good" motives for the deceptions.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly-church

John Shelby Spong, and a number of writers, thought Paul was a guilt-ridden homosexual, and that was the "thorn" he kept complaining about, and why he was so judgmental.
http://www.liberalevangelical.org/index....Itemid=123
I'll examine some of the differences between the "Pauls", in a later post.



Re "Great thread. Wrong verb. Who WERE Paul?"
Agreed!
Paul is traditionally credited with writing thirteen of the twenty-seven titles in the New Testament. All scholars admit that a number of the letters in the Bible attributed to Paul were written at a much later date by other parties who used Paul’s name to give them credibility. This was a common practice of the time, and was, in fact, forgery. Many scholars claim only the following letters are genuine: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon and the following are considered not genuine: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. Hebrews is universally recognized as not genuine. The doubtful letters, including Hebrews, are labeled as “deutero-Pauline.”

It is thought he wrote his first surviving letter, to the Thessalonians, in 50–51 CE and his last enduring dispatch to an individual named Philemon, in 61–63 CE. The deutero-Pauline posts were penned by anonymous reporters in the second century.

Re "When I first came here, I thought this nutty Fulton dude was out of his frickin mind. Big Grin He is not." I'm still an opinionated git.

Re "Now, I see, that if you read Acts with the idea in mind that Saul was sent by Rome to disrupt, and change the Way cult, (which he did *in spades*), he makes perfect sense. I still think, Jeebus was just a common crook, executed by "standing order" in the Pax Romana,, (that is if there ever was a real Jeebus), for trying to disrupt the temple economy, but there are other possibilities, once you let go of the propaganda." Yes and yes!

Thanks for the links...they are excellent!

RE "So about one of the Pauls : The Tarsus Paul.
Beyond all the obvious stuff, about him introducing the "salvation paradigm" (which is 100 % absent in Mark, the first gospel, thus we know it was not the message of Jesus), is the more subtle case that can be made about sacrifice, atonement, and purification, and the telling origins of each. In Hebrew culture, a sacrifice was made to "atone" for one's sins. That is to "repair" a ruptured, or injured (cosmic) relationship between the (Yahweh) god, and the human, (and ONLY the *human*). In Saul of Tarsus, this is radically changed to a totally non-Hebrew idea. What sort of idea you ask ? A Zoroastrian idea. And where did THAT come from ? Tarsus...a hotbed of Mithraism. Mithraism took the concept of "personal purification of sin" from Zoroastrianism, and Paul placed that into his new cult. That concept was NOT the same as the Hebrew concept of "atonement". They are totally different. Along with "personal purification" also came other concepts relating to "free will", imperfect, (fallen creation)...not just "original sin", but ALL of nature "fallen" to an imperfect state, (which is non-Hebrew), and cosmically "repaired" by Jeebus' sacrifice, (which are TOTALLY 1000 % non-Hebrew ideas). The cultures are NOT the same. Paul grafted his ideas onto the Way cult, in an attempt to compete for followers, of the Greek mystery cults, as "the apostle to the Gentiles". He thought that was his job. "Someone might argue, 'If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner ?'"(Romans 3:7). He knew he was "changing things"..*cough cough. He admitted it. Christians practice Paulianity/Mithraism/Zoroastrianism. They just don't know it."

Bucky, you've nailed it! Beautifully written, and in my opinion this contains truths profoundly important to appreciate. I take my hat off to you sir. I will elaborate on these ideas later.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2012, 09:11 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(18-10-2012 08:01 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(18-10-2012 07:57 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Pretty spot on on but i would say he quite mentally ill!Cool

Who Mark? Naw. He's a little eccentric, maybe, but hardly mentally ill. Tongue

I think he was mildly mentally unwell. He was anxious, obsessive, insecure, a touch paranoid, and quite delusional. He was also very introspective and egocentric. I suspect he was never at ease with himself, nor comfortable in a world he couldn’t totally control.

He loved telling others how to live their lives, yet he was the one who needed the help! He would have been a difficult patient. A therapist would try to stop him talking for a minute, and get him to put his feet up and listen to the wind and birds. He may not have been well enough to follow this advice. He would corner the counselor and try to counsel him about Christ or some other rationalization of his current obsession. There would be no quiet moments in Paul’s presence.

He had no idea his writings would be picked to pieces by millions of people. He would be surprised to discover humankind still around nearly two thousand years later. He may have been more careful about the things he wrote if he had known how famous he would become and what an enormously wide audience he was writing to.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2012, 05:42 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Paul the Misogynist
Paul was blatantly sexist. He wrote:
“For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man” (1 Cor. 11:8–9 NKJ).
“Wives should regard their husbands as they regard the Lord, since as Christ is head of the Church and saves the whole body, so is a husband the head of his wife; and as the Church submits to Christ, so should wives to their husbands, in everything” (Eph. 5:22–25, NJB).

If any women are feeling their blood boil, be warned: it gets worse.
“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:34-5, KJV)
“Similarly, I direct that women are to wear suitable clothes and to be dressed quietly and modestly, without braided hair or gold and jewelry or expensive clothes; their adornment is to do the sort of good works that are proper for women who profess to be religious. During instruction, a woman should be quiet and respectful. I am not giving permission for a woman to teach or to tell a man what to do. A woman ought not to speak, because Adam was formed first and Eve afterwards, and it was not Adam who was led astray but the woman who was led astray and fell into sin. Nevertheless, she will be saved by childbearing, provided she lives a modest life and is constant in faith and love and holiness” (1 Tim. 2:9–15, NJB).

Women of the world, here we have what the founder of Christianity (and those who wrote in his name) really thought of you. You were made to be playthings for men. You were to always submit to your men folk. You were to remain silent unless spoken to. Your opinions were not important. You were not to make yourselves look attractive. You were inherently evil and had led men into sin. The best way you could save your wicked selves from going to hell was to shut up, accept your second-class status and bear your husbands’ children!

There are no excuses for this misogynistic nonsense. Paul disliked women and feminine sensuality, thought they were intellectually inferior, and that they were their husband’s property. Anyone who advertises this discriminatory drivel today should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Most Christians quite rightly ignore Paul’s opinions, yet in their next breath insist his theology was inspired by God. That makes no sense.

One of the reasons Christianity has been so successful over the centuries is that it aims to degrade and hold back half of its own congregation! Churches resent strong women because the control of women is vital to their success. Churches have always encouraged subordination of women, pregnancy and their exclusion from the workforce and higher education. As soon as women get educated and have a voice, their families become empowered too. Consequently, it's well-recognized that societies in which women are emancipated become more successful, better educated and less likely to go to church. So churches prefer to keep the plebs poor. The empowerment of women throughout much of Europe over the last fifty years has meant a marked rise in standards of living and a sharp fall in church attendance.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mark Fulton's post
19-10-2012, 06:36 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:Without his influence it is probable that Christianity, as we know it, would not exist today.


Who was this Paul guy?
A cunt.

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
19-10-2012, 07:21 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(19-10-2012 06:36 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Without his influence it is probable that Christianity, as we know it, would not exist today.


Who was this Paul guy?
A cunt.

Yep! Even judged by the standards of his own time.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2012, 08:03 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(19-10-2012 05:42 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

Oh oh. So much for the old law ending with Jeebus.
(Shhh. Just pretend, you didn't see that. No one will notice).

There's really hilarious quote in Aquinas where he says the reason why the snake got Eve to eat the apple first was "For the light of reason shone less brightly in her". Then there's all this mental gymnastics about why a human, (a *manifestation* of an "idea" of god) is never as perfect as the "idea. If that's not proof that religion sanctions culture, and not culture "receiving" values from religion, I don't know what is.

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
19-10-2012, 11:03 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(19-10-2012 08:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(19-10-2012 05:42 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

Oh oh. So much for the old law ending with Jeebus.
(Shhh. Just pretend, you didn't see that. No one will notice).

There's really hilarious quote in Aquinas where he says the reason why the snake got Eve to eat the apple first was "For the light of reason shone less brightly in her". Then there's all this mental gymnastics about why a human, (a *manifestation* of an "idea" of god) is never as perfect as the "idea. If that's not proof that religion sanctions culture, and not culture "receiving" values from religion, I don't know what is.

Yeah. Good point. Paul couldn't make his mind up about the Jewish law.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 02:39 PM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2012 02:49 PM by cufflink.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(19-10-2012 06:36 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Who was this Paul guy?
A cunt.

I beg your pardon??? Angry [ETA: Oh, OK, it's "was," not "is." Carry on.]

But seriously . . . It's always struck me as odd that "Paul" is considered an appropriate name for a Jewish kid. I wonder if my parents realized they were naming me after the Founder of Christianity. Ohmy

Great posts, Mark and Bucky. And Mark: nice to see you back and active!

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cufflink's post
20-10-2012, 04:23 PM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2012 04:30 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(20-10-2012 02:39 PM)cufflink Wrote:  
(19-10-2012 06:36 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Who was this Paul guy?
A cunt.

I beg your pardon??? Angry [ETA: Oh, OK, it's "was," not "is." Carry on.]

But seriously . . . It's always struck me as odd that "Paul" is considered an appropriate name for a Jewish kid. I wonder if my parents realized they were naming me after the Founder of Christianity. Ohmy

Great posts, Mark and Bucky. And Mark: nice to see you back and active!

Thanks Cufflink. He changed his original name, Saul, to Paul, in honor of a Roman governor. Some scholars have suggested that Paul may not have been a Jew, because his theology is so obviously influenced by gentile ideas. Yet Paul passed himself off as a Jew, and wrote that he was Jewish. He claimed,
“I was circumcised when I was eight days old. As for the law I was a Pharisee; as for working for religion, I was a persecutor of the Church, as far as the Law can make you perfect, I was faultless” (Phil. 3:5–6, NJB). He declared he was educated in what he called the “traditions of my ancestors” (Gal 1:14, NJB), and he clearly had some understanding of Jewish beliefs. Whether he had a genuine respect for those beliefs is another matter.

I'll keep rambling...

Paul on Sex and Marriage

Paul describes the loathing he felt about his own sexuality.
“The fact is, I know of nothing good living in me—living, that is, in my unspiritual self—for though the will to do what is good is in me, the performance is not, with the result that instead of doing good the things I want to do, I carry out the sinful things I do not want. When I act against my will, then, it is not my true self doing it, but sin which lives in me…I can see my body follows a different law that battles against the law which my reason dictates…What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body doomed to death” (Rom. 7:18–24, NJB).

Poor, pathetic Paul! He was so deluded with puritanical ideas he was repulsed by his own libido and miserable. He was a suppressed, toxic little man, totally ill at ease with himself.

It is not surprising he was celibate:
“I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn” (1 Cor. 7:8–9, KJV). To be single was quite unusual for a Pharisee, as they were expected to marry. I guess that Paul would have had difficulty finding a woman willing to live with him. Or he may have been homosexual, yet ashamed of the fact, and therefore not willing to admit it. Whatever the case, he quite clearly had a neurosis about sex:
"For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live” (Rom. 8:6–13, KJV).

"He wants you to keep away from fornication and each one of you to know how to use the body that belongs to him in a way that is holy and honorable, not giving away to selfish lust like the pagans who do not know God, He wants nobody at all to ever sin by taking advantage of a brother in these matters; the Lord always punishes sins of that sort, as we told you before and assured you. We have been called by God to be holy, not to be immoral” (1 Thess. 4:3–7, NJB).

“Yes, it is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman. But since sex is always a danger, let each man have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband must give his wife what she has the right to expect, and so too the wife to the husband. The wife has no rights over her own body; it is the husband who has them. In the same way, the husband has no rights over his body; the wife has them. Do not refuse each other except by mutual consent, and then only for an agreed time, to leave yourselves free for prayer; then come together again in case Satan should take advantage of your weakness to tempt you” (1 Cor. 7:1–6, NJB).

Commentary here is almost superfluous. Paul had a sour, jaundiced perspective. He was convinced sex was something distasteful and unclean, an annoying body function, like going to the toilet. He thought one should dump the toxic load when necessary, and quickly, so as to get on with something more important, like praying. He implied marriage existed so people had a quick way to get sex over and done with.

Paul must have been disappointed that people had sex on their minds, as that made it difficult to teach them his more spiritual profundities. I suspect he didn’t approve of people having an aspect of their lives that wasn’t under his supervision.

There is nothing to suggest the average person had such a sick, negative attitude. One wonders where he got it. He may have been sexually abused as a child, he might have had erectile difficulties of his own, he may have been horrified by his own attraction for other males, or he could have been brainwashed with Platonic ideas about the superior nature of the spirit compared to what were considered base bodily functions. He was obsessed with the idea the end of the world was imminent, which may be why he thought it was pointless for people to marry. None of these reasons are good excuses for writing what he did.

Most people today quite rightly dismiss this dogma as deluded. Others don’t. We should consider the psychological damage inflicted on millions of innocent people through their Christian upbringings. All youngsters explore their sexuality; yet the Christian is often told that such behaviors—even thoughts—are sins! The consequence is guilt and fear, which is totally unnecessary.

Some of today’s churches still promote a disgust of sex. They introduce embarrassment and shame into the most natural aspect of our humanity. Their agenda is to destroy people’s self respect by making them dislike themselves. When an ego is wounded, a person is easier to control. The savior is clean and pure, so Jesus jumps to the rescue, and the church has won another customer. The victim is saved from a problem he never had in the first place.

Their teaching is a filthy stain that is hard to wash out of people’s minds once it has taken root. Shame on churches for still promoting this as the word of God!

Sex is a special, wholesome, and beautiful aspect of life. It strengthens relationships and is nature’s way of ensuring we reproduce. It is an affair between two people, so religious authorities should ipse facto butt out of people’s private business.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: