posted
This one is more specifically directed at non-Christians. I'm not asking that you explain away Saul of Tarsus's conversion... I'd just like to hear a few theories as to why he did it. Did he just go insane? Do you think he might have had something to gain? Just what do you think... I won't be arguing... just listening. I've never heard any skeptic's ideas of what happened on the road to Damascus and I would enjoy reading a few.
Some people here doubt that Jesus was a historical figure, but there is little doubt that Paul was... and also little doubt that if he hadn't gone so nutso for Christianity and become such a news item in Rome, that Christianity might have died off quickly-- fading off into the Gnostic Stoicism of communities like the ones that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls.
I'm supposing us all to be familiar with the story... if anyone isn't, let me know and I'll give a synopsis.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually wrote a 20-some page paper on approximately this topic in college. I won't go into all the details, but basically, I argued that Paul was on a power trip, and made himself the sole authority figure for all these churches he started.
He had told them what to do, how to believe. He put himself in the position of being their only authority on the teachings of Jesus.
His letters are very interesting reading, especially if you read between the lines and try to figure out what might have been going on in the various different churches, which prompted each letter.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Basically, Saul of Tarsus was an influential Jew and a Roman citizen. He oversaw the early persecution of Christians, including the execution of the first Christian martyr, Stephen.
In the midst of this persecution, while traveling to Damascus, Saul is blinded by a vision of the Risen Jesus. Saul is the only one who hears Him and the only one who is blinded for any extended time. In Damascus, he goes to visit a Christian who "cures" Saul's blindness. Saul takes the name Paul and becomes the foremost proponent of Christianity in the Mediterranian, travelling all over the place preaching. He is arrested for doing so at several points, and eventually uses his Roman citizenship to appeal to Caesar and gets taken to Rome, where he is, presumably, martyred after bringing the message of Christianity to the capital of, well, basically, the western world for the next couple of centuries.
So my question is, on the presumption that he was wrong, why did he do all that?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Krankykat: Seems like an incongruous statement to me.
Why? I've heard the historicity of Jesus questioned repeatedly. I've never heard anyone maintain that Paul never existed...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul was incredibly ambitious. He was making a name for himself as a leading figure against the Christ followers prior to his conversion. He was also very smart. Perhaps he saw an opportunity to moev beyond being a middle wheel in the Jewish world and become one of the main guys in a region spanning movement.
Alternatively, let's say he was a true believer who lost his faith. A fast, dramatic conversion to the thing he was strongly against actually fits pretty well with that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And not to be inflammatory, but there is the possibility that Saul/Paul was...well...I don't want to say "insane". But if he was the only person to witness this vision, it is completely possible it was something that happened in his brain alone. Maybe he had a seisure, or a stroke, or a hallucination.
Which doesn't mean he wasn't necessarily sincere in his beliefs.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Saul was like a modern day televangelists... he saw an opportunity to make a name for himself by appealing to the need of people to believe, and he stepped up to refine their beliefs into something that would leave them dependent upon his guidance.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't find that inflammatory, Javert. And again, my intent here is to listen to what you have to say... not to contend with any of you.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
The whole notion that Christianity exists and came to exist without Christ is rather silly.
No more silly than the fact that the world Tolkien created exists without real orcs or dragons. Lots of stories have main characters who were fictional, or were exaggerated in the telling.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick: Besides the Bible, volumes have already been written on the subject starting about 2000 years ago with Flavius Josephus.
Posts: 1221 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You seem to be suggesting that he has to maintain those things in order to be consistent, which isn't true.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is significantly more evidence of the latter two.
Look... I don't think anyone has argued that Jesus never existed in this thread. I have seen it argued before that He didn't, most often by Lisa. Again, the point is, Jesus's existence *is* disputed by some, Paul's isn't. The existence of Paul doesn't imply the existence of Jesus.
Can you accept that, please? Because I want to hear more of what they have to say about Paul, rather than getting into a debate about whose historical documents carry how much weight.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that there remains dispute, Jim. The evidence is overwhelming that Jesus did exist.
Without Jesus there would not have been Paul's ministry.
Like I said: "The whole notion that Christianity exists and came to exist without Christ is rather silly."
Posts: 1221 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how my edit changes the meaning of my statement. And the statement that you were asserting is true did not change.
I initially said I didn't think it was reasonable to say that Paul's ministry could not exist without Jesus. I only changed it to tenable when I decidesd to expand it with a reason for saying this and didn't want to say reasonable twice.
This is the statement you said was true:
quote:Without Jesus there would not have been Paul's ministry.
How is asserting that this is true not saying that Paul's ministry couldn't exist without Jesus existing?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not being an orthodox Christian doesn't make you a "skeptic." I dismiss orthodox Christianity for entirely philosophical reasons, not historical ones.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: This one is more specifically directed at non-Christians. I'm not asking that you explain away Saul of Tarsus's conversion... I'd just like to hear a few theories as to why he did it. Did he just go insane? Do you think he might have had something to gain? Just what do you think... I won't be arguing... just listening. I've never heard any skeptic's ideas of what happened on the road to Damascus and I would enjoy reading a few.
Insufficient data. But assuming the story is a true one, it may have been guilt. Or he may have had a seizure, and interpreted it as a sign. Or some combination of the two.
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Some people here doubt that Jesus was a historical figure, but there is little doubt that Paul was... and also little doubt that if he hadn't gone so nutso for Christianity and become such a news item in Rome, that Christianity might have died off quickly-- fading off into the Gnostic Stoicism of communities like the ones that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls.
<dreamy sigh> That would have been lovely.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I initially said I didn't think it was reasonable to say that Paul's ministry could not exist without Jesus.
Not true. You initially said that you didn't think it was reasonable to say that Paul's ministry would not exist without Jesus. A very different statement.
quote:
quote: Without Jesus there would not have been Paul's ministry.
How is asserting that this is true not saying that Paul's ministry couldn't exist without Jesus existing?
It's saying that Jesus did exist, that his visitation to Paul on the road to Damascus is what caused Paul to begin his ministry, and that without the power of the Holy Spirit the ministry would not have succeeded.
I'm making a statement about what happened: Paul was motivated by words he received directly from Christ. Without those words, he would not have begun his ministry. Could someone of Paul's ability have done this without the visit and without the Holy Spirit? Possibly. Therefore it "could" have happened, but it wouldn't have.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As to the thread's actual subject, it's entirely possible that Saul/Paul did have a vision of some kind, and so his conversion was genuine; it's also entirely possible that he didn't, and MrSquicky/David Bowles' views are more accurate. I don't think having had a vision necessarily makes him insane; the human brain is capable of all sorts of interesting things under the right conditions.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Basically, Saul of Tarsus was an influential Jew and a Roman citizen.
Where do you get that he was an influential Jew? Before his little trip to Damascus, he seems to have been a lot like radical college students in the 60s who were willing to commit or aid in violence for the sake of their extreme views. And who were used by others because they were so... well, usable.
As a Roman citizen, he probably was above average in wealth. Which fits again with the image of the spoiled kid going off to be a radical.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Krankykat: The whole notion that Christianity exists and came to exist without Christ is rather silly.
Why? Does the existence of Scientology imply that Xenu was real? That the story of JC exists is incontrovertable (or we wouldn't be talking about it). That it's historically true is something else entirely.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Krankykat: Squick: Besides the Bible, volumes have already been written on the subject starting about 2000 years ago with Flavius Josephus.
Discussing Paul w/o acknowledging Jesus is like trying to discuss a scientific theory w/o the acknowledging the scientist who developed the theory, the religion w/o acknowledging the founder of it, a philosophy w/o the acknowledging philosopher etc.
I will bail so the thread can discuss Paul w/o Jesus.
Doubting Lisa:
Josephus did mention Jesus.
"The following passage appears in the Greek version of Antiquities of the Jews xviii 3.3, in the translation of William Whiston:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Not being an orthodox Christian doesn't make you a "skeptic." I dismiss orthodox Christianity for entirely philosophical reasons, not historical ones.
Granted... I was generalizing trying to catch many different people under one term to attract them to the discussion, not to convey anything pejorative.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: As to the thread's actual subject, it's entirely possible that Saul/Paul did have a vision of some kind, and so his conversion was genuine; it's also entirely possible that he didn't, and MrSquicky/David Bowles' views are more accurate. I don't think having had a vision necessarily makes him insane; the human brain is capable of all sorts of interesting things under the right conditions.
So it was the mushrooms on the veal marsala from the night before?
Summarizing... so far we have, essentially: Paul saw a means to expand his personal power, influence, and "legacy".
and
Paul was seeing things (for whatever reason) and had an internally consistent, but mistaken, conversion experience.
is that a fair summation?
Oh... left out Squicky': he was deeply Jewish, suffered a crisis of conscience of some sort, and latched onto what he saw as the opposite course.
Thanks for all the contributuions. Keep 'em coming.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Where do you get that he was an influential Jew? Before his little trip to Damascus, he seems to have been a lot like radical college students in the 60s who were willing to commit or aid in violence for the sake of their extreme views. And who were used by others because they were so... well, usable.
As a Roman citizen, he probably was above average in wealth. Which fits again with the image of the spoiled kid going off to be a radical.
Fair enough. I took it as granted that Roman citizenship implied that he was at least from an influential family.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If non-Christians either don't believe Jesus was more then a mortal man, or don't believe he existed at all, I'm not sure why we would even have opinions on Paul?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because Christianity has, for good or ill, been a gigantic part of Western History and without Paul it probably wouldn't have?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Krankykat: Squick: Besides the Bible, volumes have already been written on the subject starting about 2000 years ago with Flavius Josephus.
It's unlikely that Josephus ever mentioned JC.
Well, he didn't call him by name. He mentioned the incident with Pilate, though. As for the rest you've said about insufficient evidence, I've heard from some that there could easily have been more than one person who was amalgamated into the single character. There was no shortage of people around that time who did the whole preaching-in-the-streets-about-messianic-prophecy in that region, right?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What was Joseph Smith seeing, that made him willing to go to jail for it? Power, prestige, and yes, chicks. Paul has had the advantage that we basically only know him through his own writings, so we see him in a more flattering light than a recent character like Smith. If other people had written anything about Paul that survived to the present day, we might know about his five concubines.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: As to the thread's actual subject, it's entirely possible that Saul/Paul did have a vision of some kind, and so his conversion was genuine; it's also entirely possible that he didn't, and MrSquicky/David Bowles' views are more accurate. I don't think having had a vision necessarily makes him insane; the human brain is capable of all sorts of interesting things under the right conditions.
So it was the mushrooms on the veal marsala from the night before?
Summarizing... so far we have, essentially: Paul saw a means to expand his personal power, influence, and "legacy".
and
Paul was seeing things (for whatever reason) and had an internally consistent, but mistaken, conversion experience.
is that a fair summation?
Oh... left out Squicky': he was deeply Jewish, suffered a crisis of conscience of some sort, and latched onto what he saw as the opposite course.
Thanks for all the contributuions. Keep 'em coming.
It could also have been a combination of any two of those, or all three. Actually, I think Squick's crisis of conscience could quite possibly have triggered the kind of "vision" we're talking about, even without the mushrooms. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chaim Potok actually has an interesting version of that as a possibility for Moses's vision of the burning bush in Wanderings.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note that Chaim Potok was a Conservative rabbi. A member of a movement which denies the authenticity of the Torah.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:on the presumption that he was wrong, why did he do all that?
I think that for all prophets/ religious founders/ etc. there are a great many reasons for why they believed as they did. It's my own opinion that the vast majority were sincere in their beliefs. That's not really based on anything, but I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. I think though that all of them have an incredibly high ability to deceive themselves and live in cognitive dissonance. They can say something that feels somewhat true and then they become utterly convinced of its truth. Then they can easily find rationalizations that make everything still feel consistant. I don't think this is a rare trait. In fact, I think that many, many people do it to an alarmingly large extent. I don't know what happend on the road to Damascus, but I would assume the story was greatly exaggerated and I would not be suprised if Paul believed that the greatly exaggerated story happened verbatim.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim-Me: I've usually heard Acts attributed to Luke.
This thread made me think of something interesting (sorry Jim-Me, it's a little off topic) - Do people who don't believe the existence of Jesus but accept Paul point to Paul as the person who made Jesus up? Kind of like people who don't believe Mormonism or Scientology point to Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard (I think I got the Scientology guys name right). Just kind of a random thought that this thread created.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't mind a little drift... I just didn't want to get sidetracked onto a discussion of whose sources were more correct.
Edit to add: The Josephus above was quoted by Eusebius. The accuracy of this quote has been disputed by multiple scholars, citing that Early Christians familiar with Josephus seemed not to be aware of the particular quote (notably Origen and Clement). Nonetheless, they do seem to be aware of another, less dramatic quote regarding Jesus. So it's a case of my authority is bigger/better than your authority, which, IMO, threatened to bog down the whole thread... and which, for the moment, I'd like to continue to leave behind.
I think there's very few who would say that Paul made the whole thing up, but I could be wrong. It's not something I've heard alleged before (of Paul).
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
