Lets talk about Saul/Paul baby..

[Hope]

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.

[Ricky Spanish]

That is because Paul is proven to be historical. You do know what historical means hopeless?

Do you know what Proven means though?

[Ricky Spanish]

But as an aside.. another observation comes to mind.

Was this Paul guy Jewish or Greco-Roman?

[Rhiannon]

Or Hellenic Jew...

[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.

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

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

[wigginhall]

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.

[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.

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   

[Hope]

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!!

[Hope]

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.

[Hope]

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!!

[ippy]

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

[jeremyp]

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.

[Hope]

"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.

[Shaker]

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!

[ippy]

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
 

[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

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

[wigginhall]

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.

[Dicky Underpants]

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)

[Hope]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[Hope]

And yet I bet you still won't have the faintest idea why.

I know why you think you responded in this way.

[Shaker]

I know why you think you responded in this way.

Which is?