Why you should distrust all religions.

[The Grand Nudger]

Just so I'm not strawmanning you, you're referring to the Paul of Acts when you say "there was no Paul"? If so, sure, Paul is just a legendary character in Acts ... but I see the characters as based on a historical person.

Do you posit the same for every other legendary figure in a religious myth?  I trust you don't and consider this one of the few times that the assumption may be warranted, though it remains a fact that 9/10s of paul is made up regardless. That streches my ability accept without reservation, and I question the triviality of a "historic paul" in the first place. We know that he didn't have to write or do 9 out of ten things in order for the christian narrative and religion to form around those stories as it did. Why does he have to write or do the other one thing?

Remember, he's johhny come lately, we're told. He has a vision of christ on the road after all events are "history". Except no one else remembers them...no one even remembers "Paul".

4 different depictions of Paul doesn't mean one of them could not have been the authentic one. #1 is called authentic Paul, and according to scholars, some of the epistles were authored by a Jesus Christ spokesman called Paul.

Yes, it's called that...lol.  That's the problem.  That's just what it's called. Why? Because magic book.

[brewer]

I don’t see how the title of the thread, relates to the video. Certainly it doesn’t seem to follow from the video that people who have had a religious experience are mentally ill.

Of course it does!  If I lose my keys, do I just assume that a fairy took them?  How do you distinguish between someone who is a functional schizophrenic from someone who has a "genuine" religious experience?

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.

[GrandizerII]

Do you posit the same for every other legendary figure in a religious myth?  

Of course not. It's a case by case judgement.

4 different depictions of Paul doesn't mean one of them could not have been the authentic one. #1 is called authentic Paul, and according to scholars, some of the epistles were authored by a Jesus Christ spokesman called Paul.

Yes, it's called that...lol.  That's the problem.  That's just what it's called.  Why?  Because magic book.

It's not just called that, it's considered that by scholars.

[The Grand Nudger]

Of course not. It's a case by case judgement.

What, exactly, in -this- case leads to such judgement?  

It's not just called that, it's considered that by scholars.

Sure, Authentic Paul.  Authentic paul is not, however, historic paul.  It's simply the only category of paul in which there could -be- a historic paul. 

The trouble is that the search begins and ends there..because there's nowhere else for it to go.

---

Here's an interesting thing to consider.  What we see in the "categories of paul" - regardless of any bickering over the historicity of any of them (loose or hard).

The radical jewish christian of "early Paul" is transformed into the romanized christian throughout the next two, and romanized heroes need their own "Labors of Hercules"- thus, Acts.

[GrandizerII]

Of course not. It's a case by case judgement.

What, exactly, in -this- case leads to such judgement?  

It's not just called that, it's considered that by scholars.

Sure, Authentic Paul.  Authentic paul is not, however, historic paul.  It's simply the only category of paul in which there could -be- a historic paul. 

The trouble is that the search begins and ends there..because there's nowhere else for it to go.

There's no need to go anywhere else. Analysing texts for consistency in style is what these scholars have done to determine that there was probably a guy who really was called Paul who wrote those epistles which we know exist.

Even Richard Carrier (a Jesus mythicist) argues for the probability of Paul being historical.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7643

[The Grand Nudger]

There's no need to go anywhere else.

If you're content with magic book as a historical source then you're content with magic book as a historical source.  I have reservations.  Cheifly, that the christian textual apparatus is known to have produced massive fabrications out of absolutely nothing, lol.  

Analysing texts for consistency in style is what these scholars have done to determine that there was probably a guy who really was called Paul who wrote those epistles which we know exist.

They're taking magic books word for it.  A theological and -historic- explanation of the character, and changing character of "Paul"...however, does not depend upon the existence of a historical paul.

Even Richard Carrier (a Jesus mythicist) argues for the probability of Paul being historical.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7643

Perhaps you could present what you feel to be the strongest point in that argument?

[GrandizerII]

There's no need to go anywhere else.

If you're content with magic book as a historical source then you're content with magic book as a historical source.  I have reservations.  Cheifly, that the christian textual apparatus is known to have produced massive fabrications out of absolutely nothing, lol.  

Analysing texts for consistency in style is what these scholars have done to determine that there was probably a guy who really was called Paul who wrote those epistles which we know exist.

They're taking magic books word for it.  A theological and -historic- explanation of the character, and changing character of "Paul"...however, does not depend upon the existence of a historical paul.  

Even Richard Carrier (a Jesus mythicist) argues for the probability of Paul being historical.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7643

Perhaps you could present what you feel to be the strongest point in that argument?

There are books (or copies of manuscripts, rather) which we know exist. Some of them are letters written to the various churches. Among these letters are letters attributed to a single person called Paul with consistency in style of writing/language (as determined by scholars). So, according to scholars, it's reasonable to assume (in the absence of controversial evidence) there was a single guy who authored these letters. Now, there were other letters also attributed to Paul, but using textual analysis, scholars were able to detect inconsistencies and/or forgeries, considering several other factors (such as agenda of the author, the theologies described, the aim of the message), so they reason that this could not have been the same Paul who authored the other letters. For specific details on this and that, refer to the scholars of course.

You can read Richard Carrier at your own pace, when you're in the mood for it.

[RoadRunner79]

Of course it does!  If I lose my keys, do I just assume that a fairy took them?  How do you distinguish between someone who is a functional schizophrenic from someone who has a "genuine" religious experience?

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.

That was the part in the video, that I found interesting (the psychological tendencies).  Difficulties in abstract thinking, anti-social behavior.
Looking at some list online, it seems that many with this condition are attracted to an occupation which is artistic in nature. Which I am guessing follows from these issues in thinking.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you're content with magic book as a historical source then you're content with magic book as a historical source.  I have reservations.  Cheifly, that the christian textual apparatus is known to have produced massive fabrications out of absolutely nothing, lol.  

They're taking magic books word for it.  A theological and -historic- explanation of the character, and changing character of "Paul"...however, does not depend upon the existence of a historical paul.  

Perhaps you could present what you feel to be the strongest point in that argument?

There are books (or copies of manuscripts, rather) which we know exist.

Yep.  Magic book.

Some of them are letters written to the various churches. Among these letters are letters attributed to a single person called Paul with consistency in style of writing/language (as determined by scholars). So, according to scholars, it's reasonable to assume (in the absence of controversial evidence) there was a single guy who authored these letters.

Sure.  The "letters" were authored by a single guy.

Now, there were other letters also attributed to Paul, but using textual analysis, scholars were able to detect inconsistencies and/or forgeries, considering several other factors (such as agenda of the author, the theologies described, the aim of the message), so they reason that this could not have been the same Paul who authored the other letters. For specific details on this and that, refer to the scholars of course.

You can read Richard Carrier at your own pace, when you're in the mood for it.

Well, I read his conclusion and found nothing in it that provides criticism of the position that early or authentic paul is legendary.  We're only discussing items that exist on a continuum from "obviously legendary" -to- "marginally less legendary".  Carrier himself posits that..limited to early paul, there is still no vouching for the accuracy of the details of the text.

per your link-

The logically correct conclusion is that Paul probably existed and wrote the six authentic letters in the 50s A.D. (albeit we are now seeing only fractions of the actual letters he wrote, and somewhat meddled with). And that conclusion follows even when the same logic and methodology leads to the conclusion that, unlike Paul, Jesus probably did not exist. Except, originally, in the fevered imaginations of the revelators of a schizotypal cult (OHJ, Chapter 4, Elements 15 and 16, pp. 124-41).

The crux of the entire essay is why his standard for mythicism doesn't apply to paul.  I agree.  I don't think that the character of paul was ever taken to be a myth.  I think it's been a legend from the getgo. Carrier thinks there's a probable paul, somehow related to some of early paul, though not every detail, or any detail in specific - and whomever this cypher is supposed to be would be the "historic paul".

Whereas Carrier thinks that paul began as someone who was or was at least taken to be a real person in history (to whatever extent he'd entertain the notion), his standard of mythicism for christ proposes that christ -began- as myth.

[Jehanne]

Of course it does!  If I lose my keys, do I just assume that a fairy took them?  How do you distinguish between someone who is a functional schizophrenic from someone who has a "genuine" religious experience?

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.