Lets talk about Saul/Paul baby..

[Ricky Spanish]

.. 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?

[Bubbles]

What did he call himself?  And the other believers?

[ad_orientem]

Sorry, but what's supposed to be the difference between a "Christian" and a "christian"?

[Bubbles]

Sorry, but what's supposed to be the difference between a "Christian" and a "christian"?

 

I thought it meant Christian = right sort
                            christian = wrong sort

 

[Hope]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[ippy]

 Lets talk about Saul/Paul baby.

Why, what would be the point?

ippy

[Hope]

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.

[Sassy]

.. 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?

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.

[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.

Wouldn't it be better if you established this as a fact first?

Which incidentally hasn't been done yet.

ippy

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

[Dicky Underpants]

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).

[Hope]

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.

[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).

If he did in fact, ever exist?

ippy

[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

[Hope]

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.

[Gordon]

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?

[Hope]

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]

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

[ippy]

You listening to Salt and Peppar?

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

[Hope]

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.

[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.

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

[Hope]

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.

[ippy]

Not sure what relevance my being a qualified teacher has to your argument.  Not even sure that you know.

Arr, well I never.

ippy

[Dicky Underpants]

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.