Calling out ThinkOfOne

@FMF

Paul, who never met or knew Jesus. Thirteen books? Well, well.

Everybody knows that Paul claimed to have met the resurrected and glorified Jesus Christ.

Everybody (mostly) knows that he went from a fierce persecutor taking the initiative to wipe out the new teaching, to its most laboring and prolific defender and writer.

Everybody knows that the turning point came when he was stopped and knocked to the ground by the appearance of Jesus Christ in blinding glory telling him that he would be a chosen vessel to spread the gospel.

YOU assume that "meeting Jesus" has to mean meeting Jesus before His resurrection and glorification.
YOU assume that that is the ONLY way a man of the first century could meet Jesus.

Between the four biographies and the epistles and Revelation is the book of Acts written by a traveling companion of Paul Luke who heard Paul, knew Paul, wrote the Gospel of Luke and did journalistic research on the eyewitness men and women who knew Jesus before His ascension to heaven.

Saul became Paul BECAUSE he met Jesus.

@sonship said
Everybody knows that Paul claimed to have met the resurrected and glorified Jesus Christ.

I am unable to accept this as a historical fact.

@sonship said
@FMF

You may send it if you wish.

It's not some breathless tabloid anti-Christian tract. [Indeed, I cannot ever recall reading such a book.] Even if your eyebrows are going up and down, I am pretty sure you will find the scholarly approach interesting. Human nature being what it is, it will most likely strengthen your faith!

@Philokalia

Interesting to this is the archeological vindication that has taken place with Luke's writing.

For years skeptics dismissed Luke's account because they could not locate some pavement he spoke of in the examination of Jesus by Pilate. Then one day archeology turned up the pavement that Luke had spoken of.

The final straw that broke the camel's back was when the high priest demanded that Jesus tell them if He was the Son of God or not. He tied Himself to the prophecy of Daniel about the Son of Man coming in power and glory to establish the kingdom of God.

This was too much for them to hear. They thought His life was completely in thier hands to snuff out or release. Didn't He realize the mortal danger his soul was in? Didn't he realize that the wrong answer of His tongue would mean torture and execution.

In the face of this demand to tell them if He was Son of God, He said He was and that far from being subject to them, they would see Him coming supernaturally on the right hand of power according to Daniel's prophecy.

"What further need do we have for witnesses. You have heard the blasphemy out of His own mouth" said the infuriated high priest. So he was turned over to the Romans. And pressure was heaped on Pilate to have him killed.

"We have no king except Caesar".

The Roman conquerors were preferred to this Teacher's penetrating exposure of the corruptness of their hierarchical traditional Judaism.

@sonship said
Everybody (mostly) knows that he went from a fierce persecutor taking the initiative to wipe out the new teaching, to its most laboring and prolific defender and writer.

Everybody knows that the turning point came when he was stopped and knocked to the ground by the appearance of Jesus Christ in blinding glory telling him that he would be a chosen vessel to spread the gospel.

Yes. Paul changed his tune for some reason.

@FMF

Yes. Paul changed his tune for some reason.

Some of us let him speak for himself.

Some letters traditionally attributed to Paul are disputed.
However, even skeptical NT scholars accept as authentic, Galatians Romans and First and Second Corinthians. and a few more.

Second Corinthian is his most autobiographical.
epistle. We let the man speak for himself and tell us why he changed.

Same in Galatians. We let Paul himself TELL the world why he changed.

@sonship said
@FMF

Yes. Paul changed his tune for some reason.

Some of us let him speak for himself.

Some letters traditionally attributed to Paul are disputed.
However, even skeptical NT scholars accept as authentic, Galatians Romans and First and Second Corinthians. and a few more.

Second Corinthian is his most autobiographical. ...[text shortened]... l us why he changed.

Same in Galatians. We let Paul himself TELL the world why he changed.

Maybe he was a Roman operative. It fits what happened [not to mention things like Romans 13] and is less far-fetched than the claim attributed to him that he somehow met "the resurrected and glorified Jesus Christ" while he was walking down a road. His change of tune points towards a change of tactics by the Romans.

@fmf said
Maybe he was a Roman operative. It fits what happened [not to mention things like Romans 13] and is less far-fetched than the claim attributed to him that he somehow met "the resurrected and glorified Jesus Christ" while he was walking down a road. His change of tune points towards a change of tactics by the Romans.

FMF doesn't mind engaging in runaway speculation & jumping to conclusions when it advances his agenda of disparaging Christianity.

But the second you do it yourself, you better watch out.

It's the classic motte & bailey tactic: insist you are a rational materialist with a very, very high threshold for belief but occasionally throw out ridiculous and inflammatory material to draw in attention, and then retreat back to the original position.

@philokalia said
FMF doesn't mind engaging in runaway speculation & jumping to conclusions when it advances his agenda of disparaging Christianity.

But the second you do it yourself, you better watch out.

It's the classic motte & bailey tactic: insist you are a rational materialist with a very, very high threshold for belief but occasionally throw out ridiculous and inflammatory material to draw in attention, and then retreat back to the original position.

I'm just sharing my perspective.

@FMF

You go and believe that.

@sonship said
@FMF

You go and believe that.

"Go" where?

'Here' is surely the right place for you and me to air our beliefs.

I used to believe that Paul claimed to have had a vision of the resurrected Jesus Christ.

But I don't believe it anymore. I don't believe it is a historical fact.

This, for me, creates a credibility problem with his writings ~ which make up a huge proportion of texts your religion is founded on.

I welcome your perspective about Paul and I am not suggesting you "go" anywhere.

@philokalia said
FMF doesn't mind engaging in runaway speculation & jumping to conclusions when it advances his agenda of disparaging Christianity.

I don't think sharing one's non-Christian beliefs or pointing to Christian assertions or claims that one does not find credible is "disparaging Christianity".

I don't mind Christians engaging in runaway speculation and jumping to conclusions about the realities of life and of history in order to advance their theist or specifically religious agenda as long as it's up for debate and discussion.

To characterize the dissent and different perspectives that arise in such debate and discussions as "disparaging" the beliefs of those disagreed with is little more than 'poisoning the well'.

If this were a Christianity Forum, I would not be here.

@philokalia said
It's the classic motte & bailey tactic: insist you are a rational materialist with a very, very high threshold for belief but occasionally throw out ridiculous and inflammatory material to draw in attention, and then retreat back to the original position.

Characterizing what I posted as "ridiculous and inflammatory material" presumably ~ because you did not say anything specific about it ~ so, presumably, it simply means that you disagree with it and disapprove of me saying it.

The word "ridiculous" indicates to me that you feel it does not warrant any response. Fair enough. But in what way was it "inflammatory"? What I said about Paul has aroused angry or violent feelings in you, is that what you mean?

@fmf said
I don't think sharing one's non-Christian beliefs or pointing to Christian assertions or claims that one does not find credible is "disparaging Christianity".

I don't mind Christians engaging in runaway speculation and jumping to conclusions about the realities of life and of history in order to advance their theist or specifically religious agenda as long as it's up for deba ...[text shortened]... is little more than 'poisoning the well'.

If this were a Christianity Forum, I would not be here.

Referring to someone's God as a 'torturer God' is not disparaging?

Saying that a Saint was actually a Roman agent that was meant to subvert the totality of their religion and turn it into a manageable, impotent, and politically expedient social movement isn't disparaging their religion?

It's impossible for you to think that. You are telling boldface lies or you simply do not understand the English language.

@philokalia said
Referring to someone's God as a 'torturer God' is not disparaging?

No. "Torturer god ideology" is a description of an ideology. The god figure in this ideology tortures people for eternity for not being Christians after they 'die'. I don't think it's "disparaging" to call a spade a spade. I think it's accurate and honest.