Paul Borrowed Generously From Pagan Writings in His Own Epistles (crucified, Gospel)

[thrillobyte]

Shocked?

I'm not.

It appears that Paul's account of what he says Jesus said to him on the road to Damascus was taken partly from an earlier quote from the play, The Bacchae by Euripides

Euripides : "kicks against the pricks" (Euripides, Bacchae.)

So let me understand this. Paul testifies that the words Jesus spoke to him to chastise him Jesus actually borrowed from a pagan playwright written some 400 years earlier?

Say what??? Is Jesus that bereft of the language that He cannot come up with something original to scold Paul with? Or is it just possible that Paul cannot escape these pagan influences all around him? Is it even possible the whole story of his conversion was a complete fabrication?

What's the evidence?

Well, for starts, he give four conflicting accounts of what happened on the road to Damascus. That wouldn't be par for the course for anyone except a neurotic pathological liar.

Second, he calls no witnesses from the men who were with him to corroborate his story. Doesn't it say in the Law to always bring at least one witness to verify your defense testimony?

But it doesn't end there. Recognize this?

Phl 2:12 ...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Turns out Buddha said it 500 years earlier.

BUDDHA: Work out your own salvation . Do not depend on others. (Mahaparini Buddhist scripture)

The list doesn't end there.

Paul quotes freely from Pagan writings - Truthseekers.co.za

Honestly speaking, the evidence against Jesus actually having appeared to Paul is non-existent. And if someone supernatural did appear to Paul don't we have plenty of fundamentalists who have said repeatedly that satan often appears as an "angel of light" to deceive us?

Isn't it possible, even likely, given the lack of credible evidence in support of Jesus, it was actually satan that Paul met on the road to Damascus?

We have no record of testimony from anybody other than Paul himself, who, we've established, was an egoistic narcissistic braggart who really thought the world revolved around him alone. I'm afraid these voluminous revelations about the real character of Paul of late have become so commonplace they barely elicit a yawn anymore, even from the most hardcore fundamentalists who, normally, would spring into a rant of apologetics at the slightest slur against him. I think even they are resigning themselves to the truth of Paul's checkered nature.

[Cephas40]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

Shocked?

I'm not.

It appears that Paul's account of what he says Jesus said to him on the road to Damascus was taken partly from an earlier quote from the play, The Bacchae by Euripides

This is nothing new. "Kicking against the pricks" is a Greek proverb. Many commentaries long before your weak source of little research have noted the origins of this proverb.

The Pulpit Commentary in its 77 volumes written by over 100 authors over a 30 year time period and first published in 1880 had this to say about this common proverb;
Verse 14. - Saying unto me in the Hebrew language for speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, A.V. and T.R.; goad for pricks, A.V. I heard a voice saying, etc. (see Acts 9:7, note). In the Hebrew language. This is an additional detail not mentioned in Acts 9:4 or Acts 22:8; but recalled here, as tending to confirm St. Paul's claim to be a thorough Jew, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and, moreover, to represent Christianity as a thing not alien from, but rather in thorough harmony with, the true national life and spirit of Israel. It is hard for thee to kick, etc. This, also, according to the best manuscripts, is an additional detail not mentioned before. The proverb Πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζειν, to kick against the ox-goads, as the unbroken bullock does to his own hurt, instead of quietly submitting, as he must do at last, to go the way and the pace his master chooses he should go, is found in Pindar, AEschylus, Euripides, Plautus, Terence, etc. The passages are given in Bochart, 'Hierozoicon.,' part 1. lib. it. Acts 39; in Kninoel, and in Bishop Wordsworth. The passage in Eurip., 'Baach,' 1. 793, 794 (750, 751), brings out the force of the proverb, viz. fruitless resistance to a superior power, most distinctly: "Better to sacrifice to him, than, being mortal, by vainly raging against God, to kick against the goads." Saul had better yield at once to the constraining grace of God, and no longer do despite to the Spirit of grace. It does not appear clearly that the proverb was used by the Hebrews. Dr. Donaldson ('Christian Orthodoxy,' p. 293) affirms that" there is no Jewish use of this proverbial expression." And this is borne out by Lightfoot, who adduces the two passages, Deuteronomy 32:15 and 1 Samuel 2:9, as the only evidences of the existence of such a proverb, together with a rabbinical saying, "R. Bibai sat and taught, and R. Isaac Ben Cahna kicked against him" ('Exereit. on Acts,' 9:5). It is, therefore, a curious question how this classical phrase came to be used here. Bishop Wordsworth says, "Even in heaven our Lord did not disdain to use a proverb familiar to the heathen world." But, perhaps, we may assume that such a proverb was substantially in use among the Jews, though no distinct evidence of it has been preserved; and that St. Paul, in rendering the Hebrew words of Jesus into Greek, made use of the language of Euripides, with which he was familiar, in a case bearing a strong analogy to his own, viz. the resistance of Pentheus to the claims of Bacchus. This is to a certain extent borne out by the use of the words θεομάχος and θεομαχεῖν (Acts 5:39; Acts 23:9); the latter of which is twice used in the 'Bacchae' of Euripides, though not common elsewhere. It is, however, found in 2 Macc. 7:19.

Likewise, the rest of your shocking discoveries are easily explained by anyone with basic knowledge or the desire to learn truth.
Moderator cut: delete

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by pastorALly

This is nothing new. "Kicking against the pricks" is a Greek proverb. Many commentaries long before your weak source of little research have noted the origins of this proverb.

The Pulpit Commentary in its 77 volumes written by over 100 authors over a 30 year time period and first published in 1880 had this to say about this common proverb;
Verse 14. - Saying unto me in the Hebrew language for speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, A.V. and T.R.; goad for pricks, A.V. I heard a voice saying, etc. (see Acts 9:7, note). In the Hebrew language. This is an additional detail not mentioned in Acts 9:4 or Acts 22:8; but recalled here, as tending to confirm St. Paul's claim to be a thorough Jew, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and, moreover, to represent Christianity as a thing not alien from, but rather in thorough harmony with, the true national life and spirit of Israel. It is hard for thee to kick, etc. This, also, according to the best manuscripts, is an additional detail not mentioned before. The proverb Πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζειν, to kick against the ox-goads, as the unbroken bullock does to his own hurt, instead of quietly submitting, as he must do at last, to go the way and the pace his master chooses he should go, is found in Pindar, AEschylus, Euripides, Plautus, Terence, etc. The passages are given in Bochart, 'Hierozoicon.,' part 1. lib. it. Acts 39; in Kninoel, and in Bishop Wordsworth. The passage in Eurip., 'Baach,' 1. 793, 794 (750, 751), brings out the force of the proverb, viz. fruitless resistance to a superior power, most distinctly: "Better to sacrifice to him, than, being mortal, by vainly raging against God, to kick against the goads." Saul had better yield at once to the constraining grace of God, and no longer do despite to the Spirit of grace. It does not appear clearly that the proverb was used by the Hebrews. Dr. Donaldson ('Christian Orthodoxy,' p. 293) affirms that" there is no Jewish use of this proverbial expression." And this is borne out by Lightfoot, who adduces the two passages, Deuteronomy 32:15 and 1 Samuel 2:9, as the only evidences of the existence of such a proverb, together with a rabbinical saying, "R. Bibai sat and taught, and R. Isaac Ben Cahna kicked against him" ('Exereit. on Acts,' 9:5). It is, therefore, a curious question how this classical phrase came to be used here. Bishop Wordsworth says, "Even in heaven our Lord did not disdain to use a proverb familiar to the heathen world." But, perhaps, we may assume that such a proverb was substantially in use among the Jews, though no distinct evidence of it has been preserved; and that St. Paul, in rendering the Hebrew words of Jesus into Greek, made use of the language of Euripides, with which he was familiar, in a case bearing a strong analogy to his own, viz. the resistance of Pentheus to the claims of Bacchus. This is to a certain extent borne out by the use of the words θεομάχος and θεομαχεῖν (Acts 5:39; Acts 23:9); the latter of which is twice used in the 'Bacchae' of Euripides, though not common elsewhere. It is, however, found in 2 Macc. 7:19.
Moderator cut: orphaned
.

Admirable cut and paste. And admirable whitewash of something truly blasphemous even by traditionalist Christian standards.

The truth is, right honourable pastor ALly, that the only true Christian to you is someone who defends the status quo no matter how corrupt or full of lies or rotten to the core it has degenerated to and that's exactly what has happened to to the Corporate Church Hierarchy in this country--rotten to the core with its prosperity preachers and Bibliolators and shady underlings who stoop to anything to squelch the truth from getting out.

As I have often said, it's no wonder that millions of Christians get tired of the dirty underhanded dealings that the Church Corporate structure sink toModerator cut: delete. As a Christian I retain the simple teachings of Jesus. I don't even give a second thought to this penal atonement tripe, salvation by faith alone slop and other heretical teachings like eternal torment for the piddliest of sins that are the sacred cows of the Corporate Church structure. And I call the lies and fraud when I see them. That makes me a true Christian, not a bought one.

[TRANSPONDER]

Something rather familiar there

"..But, perhaps, we may assume that such a proverb was substantially in use among the Jews, though no distinct evidence of it has been preserved; and that St. Paul, in rendering the Hebrew words of Jesus into Greek, made use of the language of Euripides, with which he was familiar,..."

Explaining away the lack of any evidence that 'kick against the pricks' was known in Jewish circles, quite apart from the Jews tending not to let their literature get lost.

Also ignoring context or evidence that does not suit - that it wasn't Paul who supposedly said this, but Jesus.
In fact, while one can claim that Jesus would have known the term (from the playwright Euripides, four hundred or so years before, while in heaven waiting to be sent to be crucified so that God could find a loophole in the Sin -condition that He had imposed on man), it is more likely that Paul, being a Jew living in a very Hellenic- cultured part of the empire would have known it and, if he used it, that would rather imply that the whole Road to Damascus episode evolved in his own head.

But in fact this is not what Paul says at all. In his descriptions of his conversion, he makes no mention of this at all. We only find it in Acts (presumably written by Luke) who was effectively writing a polemic biography of Paul and his mission to the gentiles.

Thus, it is even more reasonable to suggest that neither Jesus nor Paul said or wrote 'Kick against the pricks' but it was written and invented, by the Greek educated Luke, who probably had sat through Euripides' plays several times.

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Something rather familiar there

"..But, perhaps, we may assume that such a proverb was substantially in use among the Jews, though no distinct evidence of it has been preserved; and that St. Paul, in rendering the Hebrew words of Jesus into Greek, made use of the language of Euripides, with which he was familiar,..."

Explaining away the lack of any evidence that 'kick against the pricks' was known in Jewish circles, quite apart from the Jews tending not to let their literature get lost.

Also ignoring context or evidence that does not suit - that it wasn't Paul who supposedly said this, but Jesus.
In fact, while one can claim that Jesus would have known the term (from the playwright Euripides, four hundred or so years before, while in heaven waiting to be sent to be crucified so that God could find a loophole in the Sin -condition that He had imposed on man), it is more likely that Paul, being a Jew living in a very Hellenic- cultured part of the empire would have known it and, if he used it, that would rather imply that the whole Road to Damascus episode evolved in his own head.

But in fact this is not what Paul says at all. In his descriptions of his conversion, he makes no mention of this at all. We only find it in Acts (presumably written by Luke) who was effectively writing a polemic biography of Paul and his mission to the gentiles.

Thus, it is even more reasonable to suggest that neither Jesus nor Paul said or wrote 'Kick against the pricks' but it was written and invented, by the Greek educated Luke, who probably had sat through Euripides' plays several times.

This is probably true, in which case we can forgive Paul if in fact Luke was "putting words into Paul's mouth, or embellishing the story to make it more effective. My quarrel (and not just mine but the opinion of many scholars I read on this matter, I'll admit not top-flight scholars) is that it's not so much the words themselves as it is the association created when the Son of God uses a phrase coined by a pagan writer who believed in Zeus. In the quote, Luke is asking us to believe that Jesus said to Paul, "I am Jesus. It is hard for you to kick against the pricks." Now if I were standing in front of a judge who sentenced me and I said, "Shoot if you must this old gray head." what would your reaction be: possibly "(s)he knows Besty Ross and admires her, I'd bet"?

But the problem doesn't just stop with one expression. My objection goes to a whole laundry list of quotes Paul was using from pagan theologies, the list is on that link I provided in the OP, like the one from Buddha, "Work out your own salvation." Coincidence? I'd doubt it. Buddha's writing were probably floating around the Middle East like so many others. What was Paul doing reading the writing of Buddha anyway, much less injecting them into holy scripture? It's like a pastor getting caught with pornography and saying "Well there's a lot of knowledge that can be gleaned from this to discuss coitus in my couples therapy groups." If the Buddhism philosophy says we should work out our own salvation, and Paul then inserts those words into his letter wouldn't that indicate that

a. Paul was heavily influenced by Oriental philosophy;
b. that he was, by inference, endorsing Oriental philosophy, and finally
c. actually formulating his own gospel of how a person should be saved based on Oriental philosophy?


I know of a lot of moderate-intelligent Christians who doesn't have the reasoning capacity to work out exactly what Paul was trying to say there who go to bed at night sweating they might wake up in hellfire because they didn't think they "worked out out their own salvation" properly that day. It sounds ridiculous, I know, but it's the truth.

I think the Holy Bible, if it going to claim to be the inerrant Word of God, should be above reproach if it is to be taken seriously. We can forget about that right quick for other problems in the Bible that surface, but this kind of stuff like scriptures that derive from pagan literature and philosophy and are often word-for-word plagiarisms go way too far, IMHO.

[DRob4JC]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

We have no record of testimony from anybody other than Paul himself, who, we've established, was an egoistic narcissistic braggart who really thought the world revolved around him alone. I'm afraid these voluminous revelations about the real character of Paul of late have become so commonplace they barely elicit a yawn anymore, even from the most hardcore fundamentalists who, normally, would spring into a rant of apologetics at the slightest slur against him. I think even they are resigning themselves to the truth of Paul's checkered nature.

No... we just know you.

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

No... we just know you.

Yes, but it's obvious you don't know Paul.

[Choir Loft]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

Shocked?

Honestly speaking, the evidence against Jesus actually having appeared to Paul is non-existent. And if someone supernatural did appear to Paul don't we have plenty of fundamentalists who have said repeatedly that satan often appears as an "angel of light" to deceive us?

Isn't it possible, even likely, given the lack of credible evidence in support of Jesus, it was actually satan that Paul met on the road to Damascus?

We have no record of testimony from anybody other than Paul himself, who, we've established, was an egoistic narcissistic braggart who really thought the world revolved around him alone. I'm afraid these voluminous revelations about the real character of Paul of late have become so commonplace they barely elicit a yawn anymore, even from the most hardcore fundamentalists who, normally, would spring into a rant of apologetics at the slightest slur against him. I think even they are resigning themselves to the truth of Paul's checkered nature.

"If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.
- Mark 9:42

Beware of conceited cleverness and wisdom opposing the Word of God. It is written that terrible judgment shall befall those that cause the children of the Most High to stumble.

You risk bringing the wrath of heaven itself against you. Do not be so foolish any more.

Repent and be saved in the name of Jesus.

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

[Jerwade]

Philosophy and Art have always been a part of Religion.

[wade345]

so you think that the masochistic paul lied concerning his encounter with Jesus in order to live a life of hell on earth. I can't believe that. what other motive would he have? surely not fame or fortune.