Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Ricky Spanish on January 10, 2016, 11:54:44 PM
-
.. and his brand of Christology.
Let's talk about all the good things and the bad things he could see.
Let's talk about Saul/Paul.
Well... where do we start?
Let's start with: Was Saul/Paul a christian or a Christian?
-
What did he call himself? And the other believers?
-
Sorry, but what's supposed to be the difference between a "Christian" and a "christian"?
-
Sorry, but what's supposed to be the difference between a "Christian" and a "christian"?
:o
I thought it meant Christian = right sort
christian = wrong sort
:-\
-
Well... where do we start?
Let's start with: Was Saul/Paul a christian or a Christian?
As ad-o askes, what's the difference between the two terms?
Secondly, since the term 'Christian' wasn't coined until the middle of the 1st century, I doubt whether he, or several of the original apostles, would have known the word.
-
:o
I thought it meant Christian = right sort
christian = wrong sort
:-\
Rose, 'small c' christian would be the adjective; 'large C' Christian would be the noun.
-
Lets talk about Saul/Paul baby.
Why, what would be the point?
ippy
-
Lets talk about Saul/Paul baby.
Why, what would be the point?
ippy
Well, as I'm sure you're well aware, there are some who believe that it was he who 'created' the faith that we now know as Christianity. As such, trying to work out what kind of a person he was, and what he taught is quite important, as is his source.
-
.. and his brand of Christology.
Let's talk about all the good things and the bad things he could see.
Let's talk about Saul/Paul.
Well... where do we start?
Let's start with: Was Saul/Paul a christian or a Christian?
You listening to Salt and Peppar???? :o
It as if you took the lyrics and replaced one of their songs.
Christ and Paul appeared to carry the same message.
But what I want to know is why people think there is two Christianities.
Christ summed it up into two commandments..
Christ is CHRISTIANITY... so you and I both know there is no branding.
-
Well, as I'm sure you're well aware, there are some who believe that it was he who 'created' the faith that we now know as Christianity. As such, trying to work out what kind of a person he was, and what he taught is quite important, as is his source.
Wouldn't it be better if you established this as a fact first?
Which incidentally hasn't been done yet.
ippy
-
Lets talk about Saul/Paul baby.
Why, what would be the point?
ippy
Interesting psychological case, who has had a profound influence on world civilisations, for good and ill. It is important to understand people who are "purpose driven", whether they be Paul, Hitler - or other less morally controversial figures.
-
Wouldn't it be better if you established this as a fact first?
Which incidentally hasn't been done yet.
ippy
More can reasonably deduced from what Paul is supposed to have written in this regard than the gospels.
Excluding those letters of his which are considered unlikely to have been written by him, we have at least the portrait of an extraordinary mind - a man who enfuriates as often as he inspires and challenges some others (and no doubt many who are inspired by him are also incredibly enfuriated by him on some occasions).
-
Wouldn't it be better if you established this as a fact first?
Which incidentally hasn't been done yet.
ippy
I agree that no-one has managed to prove that Paul was the progenitor of the Christian faith - but there are those who like to believe that he was. If he wasn't, as I believe is the case, we still need to discover/decide who was or were. Was ity Jesus? Was it the original apostles? Was it someone(s) in the 2nd or 3rd century?
Since Christianity has arguably had a greater impact on human history than any other philosophy, this is worth investigating.
-
More can reasonably deduced from what Paul is supposed to have written in this regard than the gospels.
Excluding those letters of his which are considered unlikely to have been written by him, we have at least the portrait of an extraordinary mind - a man who enfuriates as often as he inspires and challenges some others (and no doubt many who are inspired by him are also incredibly enfuriated by him on some occasions).
If he did in fact, ever exist?
ippy
-
I agree that no-one has managed to prove that Paul was the progenitor of the Christian faith - but there are those who like to believe that he was. If he wasn't, as I believe is the case, we still need to discover/decide who was or were. Was ity Jesus? Was it the original apostles? Was it someone(s) in the 2nd or 3rd century?
Since Christianity has arguably had a greater impact on human history than any other philosophy, this is worth investigating.
I'm sure there was a time that it mattered to some; I doubt there's very little of worth or anything much to be gained it in knowing about these people nowdays.
ippy
-
I'm sure there was a time that it mattered to some; I doubt there's very little of worth or anything much to be gained it in knowing about these people nowdays.
ippy
ippy, I have long been aware that you have no sense of history or of societal development. Sadly history is full of such people who simply fall into making the mistakes their predecessors did.
-
I agree that no-one has managed to prove that Paul was the progenitor of the Christian faith - but there are those who like to believe that he was. If he wasn't, as I believe is the case, we still need to discover/decide who was or were. Was ity Jesus? Was it the original apostles? Was it someone(s) in the 2nd or 3rd century?
Since Christianity has arguably had a greater impact on human history than any other philosophy, this is worth investigating.
Aside from my thinking that 'philosophy' in general has had a greater impact than any particular religion, how would you seek to confirm the details of the 'progenitor of Christianity'?
It seems from what you say that this is unknown at present: so, I'd have thought this would be a highly worrying problem given that whomever it was might be mistaken or was ainclined to propaganda, both of which surely must be risks given the uncertainty you mention - would you agree?
-
It seems from what you say that this is unknown at present: so, I'd have thought this would be a highly worrying problem given that whomever it was might be mistaken or was ainclined to propaganda, both of which surely must be risks given the uncertainty you mention - would you agree?
No, I'm not saying that it is unknown, but that some people like to claim that Paul created Christianity despite evidence that there were groups of what we now call 'Christians' before he arrived on the scene. I've also seen material arguing that there was no such thing as Christianity until nearer the middle of the 2nd Century AD - though I'm not sure how the purveyors of that idea match the existence of people in Antioch in the 1st century who were given the name 'Christians' in the mid-1st century.
In other words, I am acknowledging that these various ideas, none of which seem to hold any evidentiary water to my mind, exist: not agreeing with them.
-
ippy, I have long been aware that you have no sense of history or of societal development. Sadly history is full of such people who simply fall into making the mistakes their predecessors did.
It must be such a boon to be in possession of this enormous amount of oversight over everything through the whole of history, Oh, I nearly forgot you either still are or have been a teacher, how silly of me to forget! I should have known better.
ippy
-
You listening to Salt and Peppar???? :o
It as if you took the lyrics and replaced one of their songs.
Christ and Paul appeared to carry the same message.
But what I want to know is why people think there is two Christianities.
Christ summed it up into two commandments..
Christ is CHRISTIANITY... so you and I both know there is no branding.
3
ippy
-
It must be such a boon to be in possession of this enormous amount of oversight over everything through the whole of history, Oh, I nearly forgot you either still are or have been a teacher, how silly of me to forget! I should have known better.
ippy
Oddly enough, ippy, its all in the public domain, and doesn't need a huge amount of academic ability to dicover. As I mentioned before, I realise that you aren't interested in history - a serious shortcoming when one is looking to move into the future.
-
Oddly enough, ippy, its all in the public domain, and doesn't need a huge amount of academic ability to dicover. As I mentioned before, I realise that you aren't interested in history - a serious shortcoming when one is looking to move into the future.
Yes I agree about the access to history, but the rest of that previous post of mine stands; of course you would have known that, fancy me trying to plant nasturtiums on you Hope, the cheek of it.
ippy
-
Yes I agree about the access to history, but the rest of that previous post of mine stands; of course you would have known that, fancy me trying to plant nasturtiums on you Hope, the cheek of it.
ippy
Not sure what relevance my being a qualified teacher has to your argument. Not even sure that you know.
-
Not sure what relevance my being a qualified teacher has to your argument. Not even sure that you know.
Arr, well I never.
ippy
-
If he did in fact, ever exist?
ippy
I think the critical consensus of non-believing historians is that there is considerably more evidence for Saul/Paul's existence than for Jesus himself. With the gospels which relate Jesus' supposed life and teaching, it's a very complicated business to isolate any details that may definitively originate with one Jesus of Nazareth. With Paul, we have a corpus of letters, most of them written in an idiosyncratic style which point to their origin from one highly eccentric and motivated individual of immense energy and purpose. There are various reasons why many critics reject some of the letters as non-Pauline (some refer to details about the Church which could only have been present much later than Paul was supposed to have lived, others present different doctrines, and some paradoxically just relate more or less verbatim the teachings of other letters, making them a bit too Pauline to be certain about). So, sure, it's pretty certain the guy existed.
What's your case for thinking he didn't exist? I've heard some people say they think his letters were written by Marcion, but since Marcion rejected the Old Testament, and Paul derives some of his teaching quite definitely from it, I don't see that argument holding much water. What's your point in thinking he didn't exist? Some individual guy wrote most of those letters, and it doesn't much matter whether we call him Paul, Tarquin, Caradoc or Old Uncle Tom Cobbly. Those writings have influenced human history for good or ill, and are not easily dismissed with a wave of a hand. Now, Shaker could give us a detailed assessment of why Paul's influence has been pernicious - you should try to do the same.
Or maybe discuss the main theme of this thread.
-
I think the critical consensus of non-believing historians is that there is considerably more evidence for Saul/Paul's existence than for Jesus himself.
Oddly enough, DU, the non-beleiving historians I've read seem to be about equally shared amongst this viewpoint. Many O know argue that if Paul existed, Jesus must have done as well; if Jesus didn't, then Paul didn't.
Have never quite managed to work out the logic they use, though.
-
That is because Paul is proven to be historical. You do know what historical means hopeless?
Do you know what Proven means though?
-
But as an aside.. another observation comes to mind.
Was this Paul guy Jewish or Greco-Roman?
-
Or Hellenic Jew...
-
I think the critical consensus of non-believing historians is that there is considerably more evidence for Saul/Paul's existence than for Jesus himself. With the gospels which relate Jesus' supposed life and teaching, it's a very complicated business to isolate any details that may definitively originate with one Jesus of Nazareth. With Paul, we have a corpus of letters, most of them written in an idiosyncratic style which point to their origin from one highly eccentric and motivated individual of immense energy and purpose. There are various reasons why many critics reject some of the letters as non-Pauline (some refer to details about the Church which could only have been present much later than Paul was supposed to have lived, others present different doctrines, and some paradoxically just relate more or less verbatim the teachings of other letters, making them a bit too Pauline to be certain about). So, sure, it's pretty certain the guy existed.
What's your case for thinking he didn't exist? I've heard some people say they think his letters were written by Marcion, but since Marcion rejected the Old Testament, and Paul derives some of his teaching quite definitely from it, I don't see that argument holding much water. What's your point in thinking he didn't exist? Some individual guy wrote most of those letters, and it doesn't much matter whether we call him Paul, Tarquin, Caradoc or Old Uncle Tom Cobbly. Those writings have influenced human history for good or ill, and are not easily dismissed with a wave of a hand. Now, Shaker could give us a detailed assessment of why Paul's influence has been pernicious - you should try to do the same.
Or maybe discuss the main theme of this thread.
Assuming you're right, since there is no foundation in any of the letters, Jesus and any of the following references to mythical, magical or the superstition involved, having any evidence to support them, again why bother with any of it?
Find some evidence, any evidence, for the supernatural, magic and mythical elements, shure, now that would be interesting but as things are?
ippy
-
Assuming you're right, since there is no foundation in any of the letters, Jesus and any of the following references to mythical, magical or the superstition involved, having any evidence to support them, again why bother with any of it?
Find some evidence, any evidence, for the supernatural, magic and mythical elements, shure, now that would be interesting but as things are?
ippy
Never mind the magic and superstition - there's the question of psychology. What made him tick - he was an extreme case. You might say that he was a really screwed up guy. Even if that is all we can say about him, it is important to understand really screwed up people - because, presumably, they are human, just like you and me.
-
Actually, Paul has an astonishing grasp of unconscious stuff, see the section on 'I do not do the things that I want, but the things that I abhor', and so on. I also find his stuff on the law interesting, he says somewhere that the law creates sin. He was quite an original, and quite weird.
-
Never mind the magic and superstition - there's the question of psychology. What made him tick - he was an extreme case. You might say that he was a really screwed up guy. Even if that is all we can say about him, it is important to understand really screwed up people - because, presumably, they are human, just like you and me.
I'm sure there would be questions about psychology of whatever made them think, but when the whole basis of this so called christianity is based on magical, mystical and superstitional goings on, so until you can substantiate the veracity of these magical, mystical and superstition goings on, why bother?
The whole idea of christianity is baseless without finding what actually happened those millenniums ago, then if you did find the evidence it might not be what you might have liked to find; no mythical magic and superstition ruled out, no viable religion, pointless discussion.
ippy
-
I'm sure there would be questions about psychology of whatever made them think, but when the whole basis of this so called christianity is based on magical, mystical and superstitional goings on, so until you can substantiate the veracity of these magical, mystical and superstition goings on, why bother?
And you have absolute proof of this assertion, ippy? Or is this just your considered opinion, which you are wholly entitled to have; just not state it as the incontrovertible truth.?
The whole idea of christianity is baseless without finding what actually happened those millenniums ago, then if you did find the evidence it might not be what you might have liked to find; no mythical magic and superstition ruled out, no viable religion, pointless discussion.
ippy
So, suddenly, you feel that we ought to be discussing what Paul taught, what Christ taught and whether the whole resurrection thing actually occurred. That's rather a sudden volte face!!
-
Actually, Paul has an astonishing grasp of unconscious stuff, see the section on 'I do not do the things that I want, but the things that I abhor', and so on. I also find his stuff on the law interesting, he says somewhere that the law creates sin. He was quite an original, and quite weird.
Not sure that his teaching that the law creates siin was particularly original, wiggi. I'll have to do a bit of delving, but I seem to remember that sentiment being expressed - albeit in somewhat different words - by some of the autors of the Old Testament books.
Furthermroe, its not even all that profound. 'Sin' (aka 'doing wrong') can only exist within a context that acknowledges right and wrong, and law tends to codify that acknowledgement.
-
But as an aside.. another observation comes to mind.
Was this Paul guy Jewish or Greco-Roman?
You can't even provide appropriate options, TtB!!
-
And you have absolute proof of this assertion, ippy? Or is this just your considered opinion, which you are wholly entitled to have; just not state it as the incontrovertible truth.?
So, suddenly, you feel that we ought to be discussing what Paul taught, what Christ taught and whether the whole resurrection thing actually occurred. That's rather a sudden volte face!!
"Here we go again, happy as can be", la la la la, etc etc
Does that mean the rising from the dead really did happen, so at last we're going to see the evidence, what's that expression? Hold the presses?
ippy
-
If he did in fact, ever exist?
Seven of Paul's letters were written by the same person. That the writer of those letters existed is true by definition.
-
"Here we go again, happy as can be", la la la la, etc etc
Does that mean the rising from the dead really did happen, so at last we're going to see the evidence, what's that expression? Hold the presses?
ippy
The evidence has been around for nigh on 2000 years, ippy. Have you found evidence that contradicts said evidence? - in which case you will have found stuff that no-one else has found in the intervening centuries.
-
The evidence has been around for nigh on 2000 years, ippy. Have you found evidence that contradicts said evidence?
Yaaaaaay, there we go, I knew it wouldn't be long!
-
Seven of Paul's letters were written by the same person. That the writer of those letters existed is true by definition.
Yes and that's why my call for evidence was specifically for evidence that would support the magical , mythical and superstition content of these religions, no more or any less, another long wait, no doubt.
ippy
-
Yaaaaaay, there we go, I knew it wouldn't be long!
Shakes I was ahead of him there, as per my post 40 on this thread, we all misread from time to time, even I do.
ippy
-
Actually, Paul has an astonishing grasp of unconscious stuff, see the section on 'I do not do the things that I want, but the things that I abhor', and so on. I also find his stuff on the law interesting, he says somewhere that the law creates sin. He was quite an original, and quite weird.
wiggi
I do indeed acknowledge all that: I was just trying to paint Paul in the blackest possible colours in the hope that it might entice ippy away from his interminable "we can't discuss any aspect of this religious bollocks until we have managed to find a method to prove that the supernatural exists etc or whatever". There's only a certain number of ways you can reasonably introduce such matters into threads about religious figures, and such things are best said in threads arguing for basic questions about the existence or the non-existence of God (and I, you and a number of others on the atheist/agnostic/buddhist spectrum would agree that there is no incontrovertible methodology for doing such things).
However, there are other things that can be said about religion in its social and psychological aspects which may still be profitably discussed, as can the matter of the origins of Christianity, which is the subject of this thread. I just wish ippy would belt up about his eternal refrain of 'pointless, meaningless, not worth discussing' (sentiments from him of which we're all too well aware), and allow those, whether believing or not, to get on with discussing something if it happens to interest them.
-
Very good, Dicky. It is very stupid to say that we should not discuss someone because their beliefs are outmoded. Good-bye Aristotle and Plato, for example.
Some people see Paul as a genius, I don't know about that, but he was obviously a deep thinker, who tried to grapple with very complicated ideas. I can't say that I would sit down of a Sunday afternoon and read him for fun. But then I wouldn't read Wittgenstein either.
-
Very good, Dicky. It is very stupid to say that we should not discuss someone because their beliefs are outmoded. Good-bye Aristotle and Plato, for example.
Some people see Paul as a genius, I don't know about that, but he was obviously a deep thinker, who tried to grapple with very complicated ideas. I can't say that I would sit down of a Sunday afternoon and read him for fun. But then I wouldn't read Wittgenstein either.
Very much my own sentiments (especially about Sunday afternoon reading) :)
-
Yaaaaaay, there we go, I knew it wouldn't be long!
I was expecting this response from you, Shakes. The problem is that ippy loves to make assertions about this, that and the other, yet (rather like Floo) seldom manages to produce any evidence to support those assertions.
-
I was expecting this response from you, Shakes.
And yet I bet you still won't have the faintest idea why.
The problem is that ippy loves to make assertions about this, that and the other, yet (rather like Floo) seldom manages to produce any evidence to support those assertions.
You're in no positon to complain about this in others, given that it's all you do.
-
Yes and that's why my call for evidence was specifically for evidence that would support the magical , mythical and superstition content of these religions, no more or any less, another long wait, no doubt.
ippy
As I said earlier, the evidence is in the New Testament documents. I have yet to see any evidence from you or anyone else that disproves it. I've seem evidence that contradicts it, but then, that has never had the same clout as evidence that disproves something.
The main problem is that you and others like you understand reality differently from how others understand it.
-
And yet I bet you still won't have the faintest idea why.
I know why you think you responded in this way.
-
I know why you think you responded in this way.
Which is?
-
What nobody seems to grasp... not even the author of the thread... is that Paul was a follower and doer rather than an author and king as Christ.
It is clear from Paul's treatment of the first Christians he was a Jew who felt that Christianity was not from God.
However it was personal experience of the Christ that soon changed his mind and he became a follower.
Even today, many fail to grasp that Paul would have had to have living relationship with Christ and the One true God to be able to be able to understand the key role of Christ.
-
No, I'm not saying that it is unknown, but that some people like to claim that Paul created Christianity despite evidence that there were groups of what we now call 'Christians' before he arrived on the scene.
Christian is only Greek for Messianic. But there were other Messiahs, who had their own cults, which were also called Christians.
Those other Christians didn't disappear - they fused. Which is why Irenaeus had to treat their leaders as Christian heretics. Simon Magus thought he was the Messiah himself, and his views were still current within what Irenaeus regarded as the Church. That Church certainly wasn't Orthodox.
Nowadays Christians like to have it both ways. They'll claim for Jesus early cults and movements about whose beliefs we know nothing. Then the next minute, any modern movement that's slightly off-line will be deemed not Christian.
As for Paul, he started Jesus cults in small places, but every major city he visited, even Damascus, had a small Jesus cult already. I don't think he or his views were widely known until his letters were circulated.
But the massive contribution of his letters was the whole theory that salvation was possible because of the sacrifice of Jesus.
-
Christian is only Greek for Messianic. But there were other Messiahs, who had their own cults, which were also called Christians.
I'm not sure whether the folk at Antioch who first coined the term were necessarily Greek, RG - and as far as I'm aware there was no other group who were referred to as Christians. Do you have any evidence for this suggestion?
-
Which is?
It saves you having to attempt to make a rational argument against my stance. Remember, Shakes, that asking someone for evidence to support an assertion is something that most people here have done over the last few years.
-
It saves you having to attempt to make a rational argument against my stance.
Pointing out when somebody is employing the negative proof fallacy (which is a form of defective reasoning), the fallacy you obviously love best and employ the most, is the rational response in that circumstance.
Remember, Shakes, that asking someone for evidence to support an assertion is something that most people here have done over the last few years.
Fantastic. I look forward to the day when you start to provide evidence for your innumerable assertions for once. It'll make a very pleasant change.
-
I'm not sure whether the folk at Antioch who first coined the term were necessarily Greek
"Christ" is greek for "Anointed one". Messiah is Hebrew for Anointed one.
In a way, everybody in that region was Greek since it had been conquered by Alexander three hundred years previously.
-
It saves you having to attempt to make a rational argument against my stance.
Since your stance seems to be "it was impossible to write fiction in the first century", the rational argument makes itself.
-
Since your stance seems to be "it was impossible to write fiction in the first century", the rational argument makes itself.
If that was my stance, I'd agree that the rational argument makes itself - but that isn't my stance. The reason I argue against opinions like yours is that they assume that the people concerned have to be making the story up. They also assume that any deity has to adhere to naturalistic principles that we - as humans - have established based on our own understandings.
Unless you can prove to us that there is no such thing as a deity, (and, no, that isn't any sort of fallacy by the way, since it is you and others like you who have asserted that there isn't a deity and I'm asking for the evidence behind that assertion) I will continue to believe that human reality goes beyond the purely physical that science deals with. I do that because I have experienced things in my life that science not only hasn't explained to this day, but which scientists have said are beyond the 'remit' of science.
-
Unless you can prove to us that there is no such thing as a deity, (and, no, that isn't any sort of fallacy by the way, since it is you and others like you who have asserted that there isn't a deity
Where was that, then?
I will continue to believe that human reality goes beyond the purely physical that science deals with. I do that because I have experienced things in my life that science not only hasn't explained to this day, but which scientists have said are beyond the 'remit' of science.
So instead of the negative proof fallacy, you've moved on to the argument from ignorance ... alias the negative proof fallacy. How do you do it, Holmes?