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 do not do the history of Islam for the same reason I do not do the history of the Medes, the American Civil war, Daoism or the history of bad arguments by Baptist Fundamentalists.
I am interested in Christian history because I was raised a Christian.
So you're saying your hatred of Christianity is purely personal?
I do not do the history of Islam for the same reason I do not do the history of the Medes, the American Civil war, Daoism or the history of bad arguments by Baptist Fundamentalists.
I am interested in Christian history because I was raised a Christian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
So you're saying your hatred of Christianity is purely personal?
You shouldn't accuse him of hating Christianity. He didn't say that.
No, my position is that we do not have enough information to know how much he lied, or if he was mentally ill or not. His letters tell us what he believed, where his knowledge came from (scripture and visions), and how passionate he was, but they do not tell us how dishonest he was or his mental health.
Well Hang on there. That is the point I am trying to make
I have read Paul's letters. Clearly, the ones he truly wrote, have an air of something which reflects a mood disorder, the highs and lows of BiPolar, and the Personality disorder of insisting that everyone agree with him all the time. When we analyze the writings, we compare this to people today who have the similar diagnoses, the mold fits. Exactly.
As for his Visions, he claimed it was Jesus, a person he says he never met, talking to him. However, I hear the same stories from people with focal seizures, who see a flash of bright light and then go post0ictal, sometimes into a semi comatose state where they must be cared for by others. Without treatment, this can last for a few days, but modern medicine is very effective at controlling and in most cases halting the seizures all together. Anyone with a psychotic level of Mood Disorder, such as Paul's, could have hallucinations, and seizures alone are enough to explain that.
So In my opinion, no, Paul did not have a vision for God, anymore than the people in the Psych wards, and no, Paul was not sane, and No Paul is not someone we should follow.
That being said, one of my biggest complaints, and you and Mystic have started to address it, Thank You, is that Paul as far as I can tell never reached that "enlightenment" level that we would see with a good leader, Jesus, Buddha, etc Paul seems to have shortcut himself into the pantheon, first approaching Jesus' followers who wanted nothing to do with him, who disagreed with his teachings and visions. Could it be because what Paul was teaching was so unlike what they observed from the company of Jesus?
As far an Honesty,. well that is debatable. And w will continue to debate that. He was a man of some intelligence, which is also quite common in many of the diagnoses, especially personality disorders. He may have at times, known what he was doing, but clearly the evidence points to a psychotic level of Mood Disorder to the point that he may not have had full function and control of his faculties . Which begs the question, why would anyone want to follow this person? None of his ideas are healthy, useful, his philosophy is repressive, uninspiring and does nothing at all to empower an individual to have and maintain control over his or her life.
1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
He is literally quoting a text we no longer have.
I rather see it as Paul saying that Jesus was the reincarnated (so to speak) messianic spirit - the spirit of David and of Adam in the beginning, coming to put right (by obedience) his original disobedience.
That (as I see ir) was Paul's theory, not something from a lots twxt, like Q.
Quote:
The fig tree represents Old Judaism and it's Temple worship*, Jesus is the New Judaism where Jesus replaces the need to worship at the temple. That is why we have the Temple ruckus between the 2 parts of the fig tree story.
* cursing the fig tree for not bearing fruit in the season when fig trees do not bear fruit does not make literal sense.
It doesn't, but then who said that Christian theology does?
I do say it fits perfectly to say that it was a symbolic act showing a retrospective awareness that the plan for Jesus to be accepted by the Jews led to them being cursed by the Jewish war. Though I admit that the idea of Old Judaism withering because it did not bear fruit has its' points. But the 'not ripe' idea doesn't quite work. I'm open to other interpretations than mine. What I am sure is though is that it never actually happened. So the Bible -believers can thank me that they don't have to explain why Jesus cursed a figtree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
I get accused daily of hating others despite having never said I do. So such a statement seems strange.
I can't recall seeing you being accused of hating anybody. I can recall you accusing someone of hating Christianity.
Well Hang on there. That is the point I am trying to make
I have read Paul's letters. Clearly, the ones he truly wrote, have an air of something which reflects a mood disorder, the highs and lows of BiPolar, and the Personality disorder of insisting that everyone agree with him all the time. When we analyze the writings, we compare this to people today who have the similar diagnoses, the mold fits. Exactly.
As for his Visions, he claimed it was Jesus, a person he says he never met, talking to him. However, I hear the same stories from people with focal seizures, who see a flash of bright light and then go post0ictal, sometimes into a semi comatose state where they must be cared for by others. Without treatment, this can last for a few days, but modern medicine is very effective at controlling and in most cases halting the seizures all together. Anyone with a psychotic level of Mood Disorder, such as Paul's, could have hallucinations, and seizures alone are enough to explain that.
So In my opinion, no, Paul did not have a vision for God, anymore than the people in the Psych wards, and no, Paul was not sane, and No Paul is not someone we should follow.
Except Paul also says others had visions, just like he did. Was he is lying about that, were they also mad, or were they doing things that made them have visions? And to be the devil's advocate, were they genuine visions? These are also possibilities one must think about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LargeKingCat
That being said, one of my biggest complaints, and you and Mystic have started to address it, Thank You, is that Paul as far as I can tell never reached that "enlightenment" level that we would see with a good leader, Jesus, Buddha, etc
He hints he got to the third heaven, and is dogmatic about how one must believe. Paul appears to have thought he was enlightened, although possibly in a different way to how Buddhists see enlightenment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LargeKingCat
Paul seems to have shortcut himself into the pantheon, first approaching Jesus' followers who wanted nothing to do with him, who disagreed with his teachings and visions. Could it be because what Paul was teaching was so unlike what they observed from the company of Jesus?
Paul says he did not go to Judea until 3 years after his vision, so he could not have approached the Jerusalem church first. And he must have known what the earlier Christians believed, otherwise how could he persecute them? So did Paul teach something similar but without the laws on diet and circumcision, or did he teach something completely different and lied about the pillars giving him permission to do something he was already doing? We do not know because we only have Paul's letters, and later, fictional stories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LargeKingCat
As far an Honesty,. well that is debatable. And w will continue to debate that. He was a man of some intelligence, which is also quite common in many of the diagnoses, especially personality disorders. He may have at times, known what he was doing, but clearly the evidence points to a psychotic level of Mood Disorder to the point that he may not have had full function and control of his faculties . Which begs the question, why would anyone want to follow this person? None of his ideas are healthy, useful, his philosophy is repressive, uninspiring and does nothing at all to empower an individual to have and maintain control over his or her life.
His belief was a branch of Judaism with no temple worship, no circumcision, and no dietary laws, 3 advantages over Temple worship Judaism in lands far away from Jerusalem. And people at that time considered Judaism as philosophically interesting. Who knows what Paul was like when he was not writing letters? But maybe you are correct, and Paul was a failure. After all, the church at Corinth appeared to have disappeared for the next 100 years.
I rather see it as Paul saying that Jesus was the reincarnated (so to speak) messianic spirit - the spirit of David and of Adam in the beginning, coming to put right (by obedience) his original disobedience.
That (as I see ir) was Paul's theory, not something from a lots twxt, like Q.
1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Paul is actually quoting a text, he is literally saying it is written. But what text? Philo also had a two man theology, so was it a text from Philo? We do not know?
Paul is actually quoting a text, he is literally saying it is written. But what text? Philo also had a two man theology, so was it a text from Philo? We do not know?
But in my Bible it is written thus:
1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam was made a living soul". The last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Thus the way they (and I) read it is that the OT has 'man' incarnated as Adam. That it became Jesus is Paul's view, and it may be the view of the Disciples and even Jesus. It seems to be supported by the 'who is David's son' passage (which I don't think the gospel -writers understood) that the Messianic spirit was the spirit of David and the disciples and Paul understood that. Paul seems to have worked it out that David's spirit was Adams that descended on him to make him a king and Priest by the order of Melchizedek (God says so, so he doesn't need anyone to elect him), just as it descended on Jesus at the baptism. Though in accordance with later doctrine it became God rather than Davidic messiah. And that of course was backdated (in the Nativities) to foetus -messiah.
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.
I love him. He's worth two divisions to us.
