|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 10/20/2012 : 15:52:18
|
I could ask elsewhere, and as someone who has some marginal training in this I should just be able to look stuff up, but I post here in the hopes that Christian lurkers can help me out.
My question is, why do we care about Paul? His letters to various churches are an official part of the NT, and so his writings are thought of positively-- and with authority-- among various churches. But why?
I guess his story is such that Yahweh's blinding light or whatever on the road to Damascus is compelling, but does that mean that everything he wrote from then on out is considered to be magically perfect and true?
I just don't get it.
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2012 : 23:43:40 [Permalink]
|
I agree. Paul never even met Jesus (assuming there was a historical Jesus to meet). With Paul, a thoroughly Hellenized Jew, it's all about practical evangelism, church-building, bureaucracy, and making up new rules. Maybe that's the attraction that modern Christians have for Paul, as a authority figure to emulate?
On the other hand, Paul's writings, however mundane, generally have a sense of being real historical documents, unlike the "synoptic" gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Mark is much more interesting to me, as his gospel is likeliest the first, with much of it copied into Matthew and Luke. (The gospel of John seems to be a later fake document, written around 150 CE.) Mark has much less added bullshit and miracles than do the other synoptic gospels, those of Matthew and Luke. His gospel also seems to have been added to and "corrected" a bit less over the centuries than have the other two. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 10/21/2012 00:00:01 |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2012 : 00:28:12 [Permalink]
|
I don't doubt that there was a historical Jesus (however the tales of him may have been distorted) and I don't doubt that there were real letters of a guy named Paul (or some variation) who wrote to various churches and so on. I just don't understand why his letters get to be special and "scripture" over anything else.
I ask only because I occasionally see on Facebook old high school friends (I grew up in a small town in the Bible Belt) who'll post a Bible verse for whatever reason (it gives them inspiration, or it supports some current political cause, etc.) and whenever I see NT quotes from Paul I pause and wonder why we care what the hell Paul was writing to some crummy church in Turkey and why that quote matters.
As for the synoptics, I actually like them and enjoy comparing them. It's quite interesting. But at least in those cases, one can argue this is about Jesus-- a divine being, after all-- and not just some dude writing hicks in Turkey. |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2012 : 00:34:05 [Permalink]
|
| I guess his story is such that Yahweh's blinding light or whatever on the road to Damascus is compelling, . . . |
Though it is not Paul's story. It is a made-up story by the author of Luke-Acts, whom we refer to as "Luke" for convenience and, because, no one voted for "Assmunch McBurp."
| . . . but does that mean that everything he wrote from then on out is considered to be magically perfect and true? |
Only in so far as it supports whatever preconceived notion they have.
--J.D. |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2012 : 00:40:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I don't doubt that there was a historical Jesus (however the tales of him may have been distorted) |
There was, but, as you note, the tales are not only distorted, they are utter unhistorical nonsense. The only thing known about him is he had a brother--whom Paul did not like. One can try to "infer" things--"reasonable speculations" as I like to call them--but they remain just that.
| . . . and I don't doubt that there were real letters of a guy named Paul |
There were, but some of the letters in the NT are pious forgeries.
| I just don't understand why his letters get to be special and "scripture" over anything else. |
Bit of a long story, but his views were popular. One influential thinker for a while was Marcion who contended Paul and Luke--with the "Jewish contaminations removed"--should be the sacred texts. Lot of going back and forth. However, he was influential enough for later writers to either create letters under his name or just assume other anonymous work was his.
| . . . and whenever I see NT quotes from Paul I pause and wonder why we care what the hell Paul. . . . |
As above: they say something the person wants to believe is true.
Granted, I tend to think him a loon in desperate search of a cult to lead, but that does not remove the fact he was influential in forming cults.
--J.D. |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2012 : 10:50:47 [Permalink]
|
Thanks, Doc. I guess I should clarify that I'm not ignorant of early Christian origins. I grew up in the church and studied NT material to some degree as an undergrad (not from a theological perspective, mind you, and since my main focus was the pre-Alexander Near East, I never bothered to learn Greek).
So my question was probably less of a question and more of an observation formed as a question. It seems like a lot of people are quoting stuff that-- as you note-- they like because it sounds good, without realizing that those books are really just letters from one pissy church leader to a church. And in some cases-- again something you brought up-- it's clear that those letters weren't even from the real pissy church leader, but have just been passed on as being from him anyhow.
I'm pretty sure that if I told someone this ("hey-- interesting quote, but..." they* wouldn't care-- it's mentioned in some book that someone told them was holy, so it's fair game. And for me, that's baffling.
*Unrelated topic: I hate more and more that English doesn't have a singular gender-neutral pronoun to indicate a person. In the above, it's more correct to say I'm pretty sure that if I told someone this ("hey-- interesting quote, but..." she or he [or he or she] wouldn't care." But writing "she or he" all the time is cumbersome and clumsy. |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2012 : 12:45:31 [Permalink]
|
No they tend not to care. Every so often, I meet one willing to engage the texts critically. Few and far between. Heck, you can review some of the threads here and see how Christian posters "disappear" when unable to justify their positions against the reality that is critical scholarship . . . and, sometimes . . . SCIENCE! [!--Ed.]
As for "he/she/it/not-sure-but-does-not-want-to-be-confined-by-your-preceived-gender-identities-man/woman/it/not-sure-because[GET ON WITH IT!--Ed.]" I tend to find those who use the feminine exclusively come off trying to appear "I am SO with the Sisters . . . the precious dears!" A bit like, "we changed the name from 'Manhole' to 'Personhole,' and you still want equal pay?!"
Meh. I generally recommend people vary the pronouns, have some fun with them: "As a linebacker for the Cowboys, she often felt Tony Romo needed to come out of the closet," or use generics if one must like "person," "one," "they," and the like.
Where I DO draw the "line in the sand" is with property rights and granting them the vote . . . no wait! I mean, is the gender of gods in the texts. To make a male or female deity something else because "we" are uncomfortable with gender exclusion is to force our values upon another culture and history. Obviously, this only seems relevant to Jewish and Christian deities. One may want Big Daddy to be "genderless" and all of that, but the people who wrote the texts and made the myths did not see it that way. You cannot make YHWH female any more than you can Zeus, or Hera male and Inanna male.
--J.D. |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2012 : 12:58:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I just don't understand why his letters get to be special and "scripture" over anything else. |
Because he's included in the bible, which was authored by god (using men as his instruments). If god didn't endorse Paul's views, then Paul's writings could not have ended up being included in God's holy text.
QED
Do you find that silly and circular? Welcome to religious thinking 101. They might question how to interpret scripture, but they would never think to question what qualifies as scripture. That's all been settled long ago, as far as they are concerned.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/21/2012 13:08:02 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2012 : 15:37:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
*Unrelated topic: I hate more and more that English doesn't have a singular gender-neutral pronoun to indicate a person. In the above, it's more correct to say I'm pretty sure that if I told someone this ("hey-- interesting quote, but..." she or he [or he or she] wouldn't care." But writing "she or he" all the time is cumbersome and clumsy. |
Gender-neutral pronouns. Take your pick. Xe seems to be the front-runner on the Web. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2012 : 10:39:56 [Permalink]
|
I think a lot of Paul's popularity has to do with the nature of the Christ he was talking about. He makes it very clear that that Christ dies for the remission of sins, and that to be saved you only need to accept his sacrifice. The Gospels are not so clear on it, especially Mark, Luke and Matthew. Not sure about John. Since this became THE central theme of Christianity, it is given a lot of attention.
Also, its not so clear from Paul that Christ actually existed. James was a brother, but Christians were always calling each other "brothers" and "sisters", and there is currently a great deal of debate over what James' brotherhood signifies. Note that Paul never says that Jesus was a flesh and blood person walking amoung us, teaching and performing miracles. And all his information about Jesus comes either from direct revelation or from the Bible itself. See the works of Earl Doherty or Richard Carrier. The whole historicity issue seems to be heating up. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2012 : 00:49:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by leoofno
Not sure about John. |
You have to be predestined to be saved: "born from above."
| Also, its not so clear from Paul that Christ actually existed. |
No, no evidence "the Christ" existed. Some guy referred to as "Iesou" [This forum does not handle fonts because it hates kittens.--Ed.] is not "annointed."
| James was a brother, . . . there is currently a great deal of debate over what James' brotherhood signifies. |
Not really. You basically paraphrased one of my posts; however, in the Greek the term is very specific and Paul certainly neither likes nor wishes to elevate James. He never refers to anyone else--even those he likes--as a brother to kurios.
| Note that Paul never says that Jesus was a flesh and blood person walking amoung us, teaching and performing miracles. |
Particularly since he never met him and it burns his ass that rivals remind him of this inconvenient fact.
| And all his information about Jesus comes either from direct revelation. . . . |
From whom? He claims teaching from Peter and the Merry Men, but rather eschews what they teach.
| . . . or from the Bible itself. |
The LXX really does not help Paul.
| See the works of Earl Doherty or Richard Carrier. |
No thank you: prefer scholars and not ideologues. Neither deal with Galatians responsibly.
The whole historicity issue seems to be heating up.
|
Been there . . . done that . . . for over a hundred years. Schweitzer crushed it with The Quest for the Historical Jesus--declaring that the Junior "who died for our sins," and "rose from the dead," "had no existence." Uncomfortable with that, Schweitzer declared him "an immeasurably great man," based on, basically, nothing.
You really do not need a historical figure to create a myth.
Historicity has been an issue for decades. In a way, Schweitzer has been vindicated in noting that those who seek a historical figure tend to find the one they want. This is true of the Jesus Seminar, true of Erhman, and true of just about every "recreator" I have encountered.
Erhman proves most unfortunate in that he is willing to declare "dis and dat" saying as "legitimate." ALL sayings--as he concedes--are composed in the wrong language decades after any event. So how does one justify them as accurate? Answer: you cannot. That does not mean he is wrong but his declarations of certitude prove just as flimsy as a Doherty and Carrier.
Emotion . . . no evidence.
In the rain.
--J.D. |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Paul
