Why you should distrust all religions.

[The Grand Nudger]

Have you, by chance, read the list of things we take to be potentially historic about a historic paul, from Tabor?  

"Authentic paul" contains a paul that claims to see ghosts and then performs miracles to prove his apostleship.  We don;t believe he actually did them...we simply notice that he was the sort of guy who claimed them.  If -that- paul is the one that wrote the authentic paul.....whose word are we taking for the other...seemingly mundane details, again?

The "historic paul" appears to be code for "whoever wrote this shit", and little more.

[GrandizerII]

Have you, by chance, read the list of things we take to be potentially historic about a historic paul, from Tabor?  

"Authentic paul" contains a paul that claims to see ghosts and then performs miracles to prove his apostleship.  We don;t believe he actually did them...we simply notice that he was the sort of guy who claimed them.  If -that- paul is the one that wrote the authentic paul.....whose word are we taking for the other...seemingly mundane details, again?

You're being hyper-skeptical, lol. There's still someone who authored those Epistles, regardless of what they claim. It wasn't a ghost that wrote them.

The "historic paul" appears to be code for "whoever wrote this shit", and little more.

Aha, and "whoever wrote this shit" calls himself Paul. So Paul it is. Until there is evidence the whole thing is forgery or whatever.

[brewer]

By diagnostic interview. Not all schizophrenics have religious experiences. If they do, you'll find that the schizophrenic thought process is fractured and tangential with inconsistencies and disorganization. Also the affect will often not be appropriate to the conversation.

Some schizophrenics are mostly coherent, able to hold jobs, etc.  Paul could have had some sort of schziophrenia with some epileptic seizsures that led him to believe that he was having out of body experiences with divine beings.  These things do happen, and given the artificial selection of religion, such would explain their genesis.

And he could also have eaten some moldy bread, been sleep deprived, dehydrated, ......... Or it could have all been made up for attention/manipulation. Who knows. The fact the people seemed to believe him indicates that he was probably not schizophrenic. Look at all of the others things people believed back then, (some even now) that we now know is crap.

[GrandizerII]

Some schizophrenics are mostly coherent, able to hold jobs, etc.  Paul could have had some sort of schziophrenia with some epileptic seizsures that led him to believe that he was having out of body experiences with divine beings.  These things do happen, and given the artificial selection of religion, such would explain their genesis.

And he could also have eaten some moldy bread, been sleep deprived, dehydrated, ......... Or it could have all been made up for attention/manipulation. Who knows. The fact the people seemed to believe him indicates that he was probably not schizophrenic. Look at all of the others things people believed back then, (some even now) that we now know is crap.

Or perhaps he never said he had a vision.

Edit: Nevermind. Forgot about 2 Corinthians, lol. Still, that doesn't seem related to the vision in Acts.

[The Grand Nudger]

Obviously whatever is in acts is going to differ from what we find in "authentic" paul, as the transformation from authentic paul to the paul of acts is a progression in time and theology through three other categories of paul.  Increasingly anti-pauline and decreasingly informative as to any historic paul.   By acts, "Paul" is a blatant work of fiction.  The contention is that some portion of "authentic paul" is a historic paul..but which might that be?  

If we take the word of the supposed man of authentic paul, and especially if we insist there was such a man - we are taking the word of a man who claimed to have seen ghosts and performed miracles.  A less than credible witness, prone to exaggeration and self aggrandizement.  Do we expect him to be otherwise honest about himself, his importance, or his achievements?  No, we do not.  

Could paul, if there was a paul (rather than "some guy who wrote this shit") separate the man from the legend in his own mind, or was he simply writing a version of himself as the hero of his own story?

What, then...does it mean to discuss "the historical paul" of the new testament?

[henryp]

Have you, by chance, read the list of things we take to be potentially historic about a historic paul, from Tabor?  

"Authentic paul" contains a paul that claims to see ghosts and then performs miracles to prove his apostleship.  We don;t believe he actually did them...we simply notice that he was the sort of guy who claimed them.  If -that- paul is the one that wrote the authentic paul.....whose word are we taking for the other...seemingly mundane details, again?

You're being hyper-skeptical, lol. There's still someone who authored those Epistles, regardless of what they claim. It wasn't a ghost that wrote them.

The "historic paul" appears to be code for "whoever wrote this shit", and little more.

Aha, and "whoever wrote this shit" calls himself Paul. So Paul it is. Until there is evidence the whole thing is forgery or whatever.

Defending the bible.  Probably what you figured you'd be spending your time doing as an atheist on an atheist forum, eh?

[Jehanne]

Have you, by chance, read the list of things we take to be potentially historic about a historic paul, from Tabor?  

"Authentic paul" contains a paul that claims to see ghosts and then performs miracles to prove his apostleship.  We don;t believe he actually did them...we simply notice that he was the sort of guy who claimed them.  If -that- paul is the one that wrote the authentic paul.....whose word are we taking for the other...seemingly mundane details, again?

You're being hyper-skeptical, lol. There's still someone who authored those Epistles, regardless of what they claim. It wasn't a ghost that wrote them.

The "historic paul" appears to be code for "whoever wrote this shit", and little more.

Aha, and "whoever wrote this shit" calls himself Paul. So Paul it is. Until there is evidence the whole thing is forgery or whatever.

The Gospel of Peter claims, explicitly, to have been written by the Apostle Peter; no scholar believes that to be true.

---

Some schizophrenics are mostly coherent, able to hold jobs, etc.  Paul could have had some sort of schziophrenia with some epileptic seizsures that led him to believe that he was having out of body experiences with divine beings.  These things do happen, and given the artificial selection of religion, such would explain their genesis.

And he could also have eaten some moldy bread, been sleep deprived, dehydrated, ......... Or it could have all been made up for attention/manipulation. Who knows. The fact the people seemed to believe him indicates that he was probably not schizophrenic. Look at all of the others things people believed back then, (some even now) that we now know is crap.

Or, maybe he had eaten the wrong mushrooms; the possibilities are nearly endless.

[GrandizerII]

You're being hyper-skeptical, lol. There's still someone who authored those Epistles, regardless of what they claim. It wasn't a ghost that wrote them.


Aha, and "whoever wrote this shit" calls himself Paul. So Paul it is. Until there is evidence the whole thing is forgery or whatever.

The Gospel of Peter claims, explicitly, to have been written by the Apostle Peter; no scholar believes that to be true.

Yep, and? Are you going to start strawmanning me?