Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have always wondered, had Paul been sane, who then would have become the next big advocate for Jesus' teachings, (not that Paul followed any of those anyway) But who would have stepped up, or would anyone have even bothered?
"for God gives us, not a spirit of timidity, but of power and of love and of sanity." The apostle Paul to Timothy. 2 Tim.1:7
Barnabas stood with Paul and was chosen along with Paul to the ministry according to the historically accurate Book of Acts. And that in front of the leaders of that church in Jerusalem.
Timothy took over from Paul as Paul became too old.
Well, Eusebius, I removed you from the block list because I see your attitude has taken a more professional and less emotional turn
Your point about Paul's apprenticeship with the pharisees is valid, he would have had to have spent many years with religious teachers, and also, he had one advantage that the others lack, that being literacy. We have no evidence that fishermen and such would have been literate or had the opportunity or need for it. But Paul being educated in religion and language would have been taught how to read and write. Yes he had the basic training, I simply do not see anything he wrote as profound, but then again when Peter and others, who were followers of a faith but perhaps not able to record it met Paul, they may have said'WOW look someone who can communicate Let's make use of him" We saw no other recordings of any of his contemporary phariseees reaching any great leadership positions in the jewish faith, though. Paul is the only name we have from that particular circle.
And what about the question of Paul and Jesus during the time of Jesus' ministry ? Some have suggested that Paul was never in Jeruselum, being more likely in Rome or Damascus, but I find it odd that since the pharasees were so opposed to Jesus' ministry and teachings (as they were to the Essenes and Nazarreans in general) that at some point in time, it never crossed Paul and that Paul never went to meet or hear what Jesus or his followers were doing at the time. (So far as we know.) It is only after the fact, and mainly after the conversion that Paul admits that he never met Jesus and we see only reference to Paul's prior persecutions of the Christians which was only a small cult at the time. We know Paul was present at the stoning of St Stephen but we do not know a whole lot of other details. But it does help us paint a picture of Paul's personality, along with his writings.
Also keep in mind that scholars only accept 7 of the letters to have been actuallly authored and written by Paul. Paul's writings are unique because they survive as some authentic, first hand accounts of the early aspects of the CHristian movement.
I think the biggest opposition I had to Paul back when I was involved in Christianity (Aka I identified myself to others as Christian) was that Paul had a hand in a political turmoil of Rome and Christianity that took Christianity away from being the great mystical personal experience (like what we see in Buddhism for example) and made it a one size fits all, "do it this way or you are wrong" THAT more than hijacking of the movement and I have issues with the political biase of what has become the "orthodoxy" as much as what I consider the Hijacking of it by evangelical/fundamentalism. (please see the works of Bishop Spong for a more thorough reference)
Finally, in regard to the older patient in the intitution, and I apologize for being so long winded . As I recall, and this was many years ago, the guy had been brought in under baker act by the police, I guess his smashing the graven images was seen as threatening to himself Mental Sisorders. now as wor others, and when I reviewed his case (We had these sometimes interesting casse meetings where the whole team of students, interns, residents, everybody involved basically would have a case presented and someone presented his case prior to our meeting him) I thought at some point for some reason "Well that explains Paul"
The idea stuck over the years and I am more convinced now.
Here is why. What the old welder did in the late 20th century was unacceptable, and understood as a mental illness. The criteria for diagnosis were spelled out in detail in the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual for Mental Disorders. Now as you know, we cannot bring someone in and say "OH they are crazy" What must happen is that a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist must evaluate the person and make the diagnosis based on exactly what is spelled out in the manual. I cannot say OF Esuebius, you are crazy. I cannot do that. BUT If you came in and said "Oh help me I have trouble sleeping and I get anxious in front of crowds (NOT THAT YOU DO but I AM making and example) I would have to say "Let me send you over to testing and then you will see Dr so and so who will go over your results and see if you have a diagnosis based on our criteria, then I will help you set up help)
OK I can't say "Well you probably have a mental illness so see Dr So and so for meds" AGAIN I am speaking Rhetorially, I am not accusing or suggesting that you are in need of this, I am only making an example of what I cannot do.
SO I took some time to look at Paul and look at Paul in the situation of the imtes.
SUperstition was very evident in the time of Jesus and Paul. Also, medical knowledge, while advanced by the Ormans over what it had been, was still lacking amongst the Jewish tribes and surrounding nations. There is evidence that for example, demon possession was blamed for many illness. Leprosy was not understood, although the contagion of it was observed. Many believed illness to be a result of divine punishment , as evidenced by Jesus or another healer saying "Your sins are forgiven, arise, walk sin no more" and healing rresulting from that
Now consider what was known about psychology. The answer was not much until Frued came along centuries later. So early Romans, Jews, Egyptians had no real idea of any variation in personality or traits of waht is normal or not. Tribes in fact, may well have favored a very aggressive personality, which would explain why the strongest and toughest became the chief. Rome was a great example, ROme for all of it's cultural advancements and achievements rested under the force of the then unstoppable Roman Legion. SO Peter, and the otehrs, would have said , as I mentioned, here is a very aggresive, literate, educated man, yes get him to work for us. And who would not have? But Peter and the others had no idea of the how and why of the workings of what we now know as psychology. They still attributed the rotation of the sun around the earth as "God's doing" and probably grew up with stories of God stopping the sun so that the tribe would have more time to fight in a war (Joshua 10) Who then would have known, outside of a blatant schizophrenic disorder with it's bizarre delusions, what was even normal? And we have evidence throughout history of those who are schizophrenic taking the the role of religious leader (aka Diekman's Mystical Psychosis). In ancient Hindu writings , schizophrenia was viewed as a metaphysical attribute.
So superstition was still alive and well and mental disorders, and seizure disorders were not understood at the time, but could have been revered as mystical properties. Why not, everything else was explained superstitiously as "God's doing" ?! As I mentioned, the dissociative disorder referred previously as psychogenic fugue is rare. I saw one case. The case did have hallucinations. SO I am just saying Paul probably suffered from a neuroleptic seizure disorder, which could explain the bright light/voice, and Paul obviously suffered from some thing that he himself was aware of (He prayed to God to heal him but never was healed) And his writings, the boasting (grandiose) alternating with periods of self-loathing and guilt, indicate a mild to moderate bipolar disorder. And that diagnosis is today very common, probably was then as well. Today it is treatable. So are neuroleptic seizures. Dissociative disorder is more difficult to treat. Back then, they were not even realized but again they were seen as mystical or metaphysical traits anyway. And the name change Saul/Paul hints at that one too. And we know today, many patients have multiple diagnosis. That probably was not any differrent, as the brain has not evolved that much in 2000 years.
Just saying, Paul can be explained away apologetically as such.
And Paulinity is alive and well in the movement today.
I find some things we agree on and some things I don't.
What do you think of the man anyone in their right mind today would say was insane which Jesus cast demons out of and those demons went into a herd of pigs which in turn ran over a cliff into the water and drowned? And the man was sane afterward? I think with all our sophistication today and higher learning there are some things which cannot logically be explained scientifically. I mean, how could a scientist account for demons leaving a body and entering pigs? But yet, back in Jesus' day it was written so matter-of-factly as if it were an every day occurrence. I'm curious what you think of that?
Also just a little heads up on who chose Paul and Barnabas. It wasn't Peter or the eleven but the Holy Spirit told them to sever Paul and Barnabas for a work. So Peter and the eleven didn't have Paul work for them. Rather, and according to Galatians 2, Peter, James and John, pillars in the church back then agreed that Paul and B. would be for the nations yet they for the Circumcision.
If Paul really was insane I think the twelve would have seen it. Rather, they gave him the right hand of fellowship.
I'll just say there is a ton of misinformation in the OPs thread. Anyone truly interested, please look further.
Where to look? Following is a suggestion.
Remember that Paul was a Pharisee. Pharisees are depicted in the Gospels as the enemies of Jesus. Pharisees were the guardians of the Oral Tradition. Jesus appears to be a guardian of the written LAW, putting Him more in line with the Sadducees, who were the guardians of the written tradition.
For those interested in the relevant history, I recommend giving a listen to Brent Walters' lectures, as presented on KGO Radio recently.
No, Jesus's background was that of the Pharisee tradition, not Sadducee. You see this in his teaching (the style of "You have heard it said... but I say to you...") and the fact that he regularly interacted with them, but rarely the Sadducees. Because that's where he came from (and/or was trained in).
(Obviously he disagreed with their Midrash and presented an alternative of his own, but that's not my point)
I think Jesus was more likely Nazarean, not pharisee or saducee. This would have put him in line with the Essenes and placed him in a more mobile and less traditional ministry, which seems to be evidenced by the four gospels. There is also a passage in Matthew refering to "Jesus of Nazareth" and it has long been maintained that Nazareth was not occupied during Jesus life, so the translation has been suggested as "Jesus ofthe Nazareans" This would explain Jesus' traveling ministry and also conveniently fill stories of early prophets.
Esuebius, I Really think you made a good point, the only thing I can suggest is that early writers wrote based on what they believed. It would have been a common belief that demons cause certain illness. We know in science that demons do not cause illness. I also believe that most of the miracles and such mentioned by the gospel writers were later embellishments, and I personally would not place a literal interpretation on the story but ask what personal demons does one have which are solved by the Christ Consciousness? This if anything would be a deeper meaning of these writings and I still maintain that these were written as allegory/hreo stories and not so much as literal historical narrative. I also would refer you to a book by Matt Baglio regarding his interiews and followings of catholic exorcists and the information contained in. He admits that he sees no evidence of "demons" in any of these cases. However today, we know that there are certain people out there who shy away from doctors and would run to a priest or clergy first with their problems. For these people, the rite of exorcism may be appropriate but we would need to question the validity of it and ask if the cure is as effective as the belief perhaps. Since science and religion though, cannot truly prove and disprove each other, far as we know, then well, we may never know.
I think Jesus was more likely Nazarean, not pharisee or saducee. This would have put him in line with the Essenes and placed him in a more mobile and less traditional ministry, which seems to be evidenced by the four gospels. There is also a passage in Matthew refering to "Jesus of Nazareth" and it has long been maintained that Nazareth was not occupied during Jesus life, so the translation has been suggested as "Jesus ofthe Nazareans" This would explain Jesus' traveling ministry and also conveniently fill stories of early prophets.
Huh? False dichotomy. Nazareth is a place; Pharisee is a tradition of Judaism in the ANE. There is no equivalent to Pharisees or Sadducees for "Nazarean" unless you are going for "Nazirite" or something.
I'm also not following the "not occupied" statement. If you mean heavily occupied by the Roman garrison, and thus most Jews wouldn't have had any association with it, I can follow, otherwise...
As for the rest - look at what Matthew 2 states:
Quote:
Then after being warned by God in a dream, [Joseph] left for the regions of Galilee, and came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: “He shall be called a Nazarene.”
Not sure of your distinction between "Nazareth" and "of the Nazareans", but that kind of covers both...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
