Did anybody refute A. Victor Garaffa article on Paul?

[shadowman]

are there links for the free texts of Victor's book, and Del Tondo?

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

A. Victor Garaffa had written the Pauline Conspiracy that is posted among the articles on this web site.

Sorry I can't locate the article or access the article "The pauline Conspiracy" by A.Voctor Garaffa.In fact I don't see any article section on CR. Could you please help it locate or access?
Thanks

[Dor]

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...ne_conspiracy/
There is the link.

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by Dor

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...ne_conspiracy/
There is the link.

Thank you very much.Dor
inhumility

[Excaliburton]

Originally Posted by shadowman

are there links for the free texts of Victor's book, and Del Tondo?

Douglas Del Tondo's book may be freely accessed at

http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/freechapters.html

[cyberpi]

Excaliburton,
I agree with you that Matthew and John comprise most of the message from Jesus (pbuh). I see nothing wrong with Mark and Luke. Paul simply adds his thoughts and logic, be it guided or misguided. He was applying the teaching in a time of change... no different than any other Christian reading the Gospels and trying to apply them to their lives and the world. With respect to him, I don't think his intended audience was the bible. Do you? How could he envision his letters being read like a Gospel? He faithfully tried to apply the words from Jesus (pbuh) and it is in the bible because it was a part of history. He appeared to have had devoted his life to being a Christian. To discount his words is to discount your words, and everyone who posts here. His words are only more valuable because of the time, and the history. Just consider him one of the first notable Christian scholars.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Excaliburton,
I agree with you that Matthew and John comprise most of the message from Jesus (pbuh). I see nothing wrong with Mark and Luke. Paul simply adds his thoughts and logic, be it guided or misguided. He was applying the teaching in a time of change... no different than any other Christian reading the Gospels and trying to apply them to their lives and the world. With respect to him, I don't think his intended audience was the bible. Do you? How could he envision his letters being read like a Gospel? He faithfully tried to apply the words from Jesus (pbuh) and it is in the bible because it was a part of history. He appeared to have had devoted his life to being a Christian. To discount his words is to discount your words, and everyone who posts here. His words are only more valuable because of the time, and the history. Just consider him one of the first notable Christian scholars.

Perhaps it is more like Matthew and John provided most of the message of Jesus, and Paul played mediator for the fledging churches, thus insuring the "foundation" set solid for the future church of Christ.

However, Paul did put in excess of 20,000 miles under his sandals over the next 40 years of his life, doing what he did, and never took a penny for his efforts. In short, he taught, and at the same time, worked for his keep...hardly the behavior of a charlatan, I should think.

[juantoo3]

While we're at it, here is a link to bob x's thesis on redaction theory as applied to the Old Testament:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...h_torah_torah/

[Excaliburton]

When you suggested that my criticisms of Paul would result in the gutting of the whole New Testament, I had said:
"I never said that. I never said we should gut the entire NT."

Alleging that I said something stronger than my actual words is called a "straw man" argument, an argument that is thereby easy to knock down.

But I do thank you for the time you have taken to convey your thoughts.

I realize that believing in any religion takes a certain amount of faith, and my acceptance of the OT as the foundation for the NT is a premise I have chosen to accept on faith (or if one is more cynical, "for the sake of argument"). Given that the OT is accepted as a starting point, it is then reasonable to view the NT in a light wherein it must be consistent with the rules of the established premise. . . the acceptance that the OT is valid.

So while external consistency with the "real world" makes it tough to verify the events of the Bible, we still expect the events and doctrines to be internally consistent. (We all must agree that even an admittedly fictitious novel must be consistent within its own contrived reality.) Even if we viewed the Bible as blatant fiction, we would still expect it to make sense and be internally consistent. And that is the problem I have with Paul and Luke. The books of Acts and the Pauline epistles are not consistent or even cross-referenced with the rest of the NT and they could be read as a new religion without any real basis in the gospels or the OT, because even when Paul quotes from the OT in an attempt to legitimize his new religion, he misquotes those passages from the OT or fails to realize their context is unsupportive of his agenda. And most believers do not see Paul's theological mistakes because they have already accepted him in advance by faith, and this faith is like a lock nut that keeps them trapped in their belief system. Their faith acts like a "firewall" that preserves their doctrine from any real questioning. This might be a fine way of life. . . .unless it turns out to be a false belief, and then there might be some wailing and gnashing of teeth on Judgment Day if they were to discover that salvation is based on righteous works and repentance of sin in addition to the blood of Jesus. . . rather than mere mental assent or belief that Jesus died for their sins and no works of repentance are necessary. And if Paul was the false apostle Jesus condemned in Rev 2:2, he will not be present at the pearly gates to argue in behalf of those who think they are saved by faith alone "lest anyone should boast".

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

When you suggested that my criticisms of Paul would result in the gutting of the whole New Testament, I had said:
"I never said that. I never said we should gut the entire NT."

Alleging that I said something stronger than my actual words is called a "straw man" argument, an argument that is thereby easy to knock down.

But I do thank you for the time you have taken to convey your thoughts.

I realize that believing in any religion takes a certain amount of faith, and my acceptance of the OT as the foundation for the NT is a premise I have chosen to accept on faith (or if one is more cynical, "for the sake of argument"). Given that the OT is accepted as a starting point, it is then reasonable to view the NT in a light wherein it must be consistent with the rules of the established premise. . . the acceptance that the OT is valid.

So while external consistency with the "real world" makes it tough to verify the events of the Bible, we still expect the events and doctrines to be internally consistent. (We all must agree that even an admittedly fictitious novel must be consistent within its own contrived reality.) Even if we viewed the Bible as blatant fiction, we would still expect it to make sense and be internally consistent. And that is the problem I have with Paul and Luke. The books of Acts and the Pauline epistles are not consistent or even cross-referenced with the rest of the NT and they could be read as a new religion without any real basis in the gospels or the OT, because even when Paul quotes from the OT in an attempt to legitimize his new religion, he misquotes those passages from the OT or fails to realize their context is unsupportive of his agenda. And most believers do not see Paul's theological mistakes because they have already accepted him in advance by faith, and this faith is like a lock nut that keeps them trapped in their belief system. Their faith acts like a "firewall" that preserves their doctrine from any real questioning. This might be a fine way of life. . . .unless it turns out to be a false belief, and then there might be some wailing and gnashing of teeth on Judgment Day if they were to discover that salvation is based on righteous works and repentance of sin in addition to the blood of Jesus. . . rather than mere mental assent or belief that Jesus died for their sins and no works of repentance are necessary. And if Paul was the false apostle Jesus condemned in Rev 2:2, he will not be present at the pearly gates to argue in behalf of those who think they are saved by faith alone "lest anyone should boast".

Ah, I begin to understand. In order for "fiction" to work, it must make sense. However, truth and reality do not (have to make sense). There could be a miriad of reasons (least of which might be missing pieces to the puzzle), that that which is true makes no sense when taken into context with the whole, that might.

If one considers the Bible fiction, then of course it verywell may make no sense. But then, neither do the fragments of the dead sea scrolls, because pieces are missing.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Excaliburton!

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

When you suggested that my criticisms of Paul would result in the gutting of the whole New Testament, I had said:
"I never said that. I never said we should gut the entire NT."

Alleging that I said something stronger than my actual words is called a "straw man" argument, an argument that is thereby easy to knock down.

While I might probably quibble with the definition of "straw man," for the moment that is unnecessary. I think my point may have been lost on you. You didn't need to say "gut the New Testament," it was the natural conclusion once one applies the methods of dismissal to *all* of the writers. If anything, this might be considered a slippery slope argument, but it is not without basis as I have tried to show repeatedly.

But I do thank you for the time you have taken to convey your thoughts.

You're welcome, and I appreciate you taking the opportunity to expand on this subject.

I realize that believing in any religion takes a certain amount of faith, and my acceptance of the OT as the foundation for the NT is a premise I have chosen to accept on faith (or if one is more cynical, "for the sake of argument"). Given that the OT is accepted as a starting point, it is then reasonable to view the NT in a light wherein it must be consistent with the rules of the established premise. . . the acceptance that the OT is valid.

OK, in this we agree.

So while external consistency with the "real world" makes it tough to verify the events of the Bible, we still expect the events and doctrines to be internally consistent. (We all must agree that even an admittedly fictitious novel must be consistent within its own contrived reality.) Even if we viewed the Bible as blatant fiction, we would still expect it to make sense and be internally consistent.

But see, this is fallacious reasoning, it is an assumption that is not based on fact. Goodness knows I am not versed well enough to speak to the issue, but I have just gotten done reading some posts between bananabrain (our resident Jewish, and by default Old Testament, scholar) and another. Not only does he *acknowledge* inconsistencies in the Old Testament, he embraces them as constructive to his religious teachings, via the Jewish Oral Traditions. Again, I am not versed well enough to speak, but it is very easily shown that there are "inconsistencies" in the Old Testament as well.

And that is the problem I have with Paul and Luke. The books of Acts and the Pauline epistles are not consistent or even cross-referenced with the rest of the NT and they could be read as a new religion without any real basis in the gospels or the OT, because even when Paul quotes from the OT in an attempt to legitimize his new religion, he misquotes those passages from the OT or fails to realize their context is unsupportive of his agenda.

I guess it comes down to literalism as opposed to figuratism. It seems to me, and I may be incorrect, that your attempt is one of reconciling "fact" with texts that may or may not have been meant to be taken literally. Now, I know that at this point I probably seem to be some kind of Paul fan club supporter or something...that is not the reality. I am simply using logic to try to understand what the fuss is all about. So Paul had his faults, don't we all? Can't G-d use him anyway? Indeed, considering where Christianity has been and how far it has come, I think it stands as a testamony to the efforts of Paul and many, many others through the years.

Now, if one wishes to take a literalist tact, then by removing Paul the man we know as Jesus becomes "just another" wise teacher. Nothing special, certainly nothing to start a religion over, or to suffer martyrdom for. Nothing special means gutting the New Testament, because nothing in it is of any particular merit once the dismissals are complete, except perhaps a few platitudes and bumper sticker slogans.

And most believers do not see Paul's theological mistakes because they have already accepted him in advance by faith, and this faith is like a lock nut that keeps them trapped in their belief system. Their faith acts like a "firewall" that preserves their doctrine from any real questioning.

OK, I think I see what you are saying, and to some extent I agree. Some of us still think for ourselves though, and some of that thinking means divorcing ourselves from secular knowledge holding sway over religious knowledge. It is a fine line to walk, but one must choose whether to hold secular scholarship above religious scholarship, or the other way around. A lot of that may be, in my opinion, the internal drive to focus on scholarly development, or spiritual development. One would hope the two are not mutually exclusive, but all too often in my experience they are.

This might be a fine way of life. . . .unless it turns out to be a false belief, and then there might be some wailing and gnashing of teeth on Judgment Day if they were to discover that salvation is based on righteous works and repentance of sin in addition to the blood of Jesus. . . rather than mere mental assent or belief that Jesus died for their sins and no works of repentance are necessary.

But see, this has no bearing on whether or not Paul had anything to do with anything. There are Pauline Christians that believe in both directions you point. Further, what if Paul isn't such a bad guy afterall? That he actually has had G-d's blessings all along. Then what?

I still think, feel, believe and conduct my affairs in this life under the impression that what we believe is not nearly as important as what we do with what we believe. I still fail to see how undermining other's beliefs in is any way for the better. When we stand before G-d on judgement day and He asks us "what did you do for me?" Is our answer to be, "Well, Lord, I argued against that traitorous kook who spread Your Word to the Gentiles." "OK, how many hungry did you feed? How many naked did you clothe? How many grieving did you console?"

Suddenly, scholarship just doesn't seem so important after considering that. It is a noce exercise, it keeps the mind agile. But like the Buddhist lesson of looking at the finger instead of looking at the moon to which it is pointed, we can get lost quibbling over the meanings, what i's are dotted and which are not, and how to hold our tongue "just right" when we say grace. These are unimportant, G-d isn't going to care one way or the other.

Of course, I can't speak for G-d. I could be mistaken. But I know He knows my heart, and He knows I love Him. And whether or not Jesus even walked the face of the planet, or whether his disciples stole his body from the tomb and revived him and wisked him off to France with Mary Magdalene as wife, or whether the words attributed to him are even his, or whether Jesus is even his real name; all of these are red herrings from a religious point of view. The point is the lessons...what do we learn, what do we take away, what do we do with them? Do we tear them apart, or do we take them to heart and guide our lives by the lessons taught? If the latter, then the former is unimportant, and has no bearing or meaning. It is inconsequential. Now, if the former, then the lessons are lost, one is looking at the finger, not the moon. One has taken their eyes off of the prize, speaking from the point of religious scholarship.

And if Paul was the false apostle Jesus condemned in Rev 2:2, he will not be present at the pearly gates to argue in behalf of those who think they are saved by faith alone "lest anyone should boast".

Yet, if Paul is deemed a "good and faithful servant," what will his detractors have to say? In that sense, I think Cyberpi has a good point, there is too much focus on assassinating Paul's character, and loosing sight of the spiritual value of the lessons. It is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is destroying the message because of the messenger.

I have no illusions of convincing anyone on this subject. But locknut I ain't, I am a viable free thinker, beholding to no one but G-d. There are times I wonder about the Jesus question, and in the end, I think it is unimportant. Certainly not worth going through life judging other's characters. I am not appointed judge in this life. I gotta figure out if the lessons are worth the effort, or if I need to find an alternate path. The alternate paths I have considered are not all that different at their core, so I might as well stay where I am comfortable, and take certain things on faith.

[Excaliburton]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

But see, this is fallacious reasoning, it is an assumption that is not based on fact. Goodness knows I am not versed well enough to speak to the issue, but I have just gotten done reading some posts between bananabrain (our resident Jewish, and by default Old Testament, scholar) and another. Not only does he *acknowledge* inconsistencies in the Old Testament, he embraces them as constructive to his religious teachings, via the Jewish Oral Traditions. Again, I am not versed well enough to speak, but it is very easily shown that there are "inconsistencies" in the Old Testament as well.

Unlike the blind faith that most religions are based upon, having an assumption is not fallacious reasoning as long as it is overtly identified as a tentative assumption or a premise.
The assumption that the OT is true is just that, an assumption, and I do not claim to be able to conclusively prove that everything in the OT is true without a time machine. But as long as we view the veracity of the OT as an assumption rather than an established fact, we can proceed to discuss the implications of the OT on the veracity of the NT since the NT claims to derive its authority from the OT.

And unless one can resolve the inconsistencies in the Bible, one must admit we are merely believing in an elaborate fairytale, but I am not surprised to hear that rabbinic "logic" attempts to evade that conclusion. As a footnote, please note that the Karaites oppose this rabbinic "reasoning". See http://www.light-of-israel.org/what_is_the_torah.shtml

Originally Posted by juantoo3

When we stand before G-d on judgement day and He asks us "what did you do for me?" Is our answer to be, "Well, Lord, I argued against that traitorous kook who spread Your Word to the Gentiles." "OK, how many hungry did you feed? How many naked did you clothe? How many grieving did you console?"

My answer would be, "Well, Lord, I argued against that traitorous kook who spread a FALSE GOSPEL to the Gentiles." And I studied Your Word so I could recognize Paul was the false apostle Jesus predicted in John 5:43 and fulfilled in Rev 2:2 at the church of Ephesians that correctly rejected Paul.

But whether you believe Paul was a false apostle or whether you think he was just misunderstood or mistranslated, his perceived doctrine has contributed to a dispensational theology and to a climate in which sin and crime abound in the modern world.. . because if people believe their salvation is based on faith alone aside from works, there is no motivation to abstain from sin or crime. And I can tell you from personal experience that many "Christians" cannot be trusted to behave honestly because they think their faith alone gives them a free pass to heaven, irrespective of their bad works towards their fellow man. Their bumper stickers shout they are not perfect, just forgiven. Don't be too sure of that! Though you may not achieve perfection, you should at least try, as Jesus had urged.

[InLove]

Excaliburton,

I am going to interrupt again just long enough to tell you and anyone reading this thread that what I read of the record of Jesus' words is that He said He would send a Comforter. I cannot prove to you that He actually said this. But in my spirit is testimony and proof that He did just that. You can call it delusion if you like, but I know what I know. And from what I read, Paul knew it, too.

I will leave you alone about it now.

I wish you peace.

InPeace,
InLove

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

Unlike the blind faith that most religions are based upon, having an assumption is not fallacious reasoning as long as it is overtly identified as a tentative assumption or a premise.
The assumption that the OT is true is just that, an assumption, and I do not claim to be able to conclusively prove that everything in the OT is true without a time machine. But as long as we view the veracity of the OT as an assumption rather than an established fact, we can proceed to discuss the implications of the OT on the veracity of the NT since the NT claims to derive its authority from the OT.

And unless one can resolve the inconsistencies in the Bible, one must admit we are merely believing in an elaborate fairytale, but I am not surprised to hear that rabbinic "logic" attempts to evade that conclusion. As a footnote, please note that the Karaites oppose this rabbinic "reasoning". See http://www.light-of-israel.org/what_is_the_torah.shtml

Then, what are you doing here? Attempting to recruit others to you side of cynisism? I fail to understand where your going with this line of reasoning.

Just because you don't accept, what others are not allowed to accept either? Hmmm.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Excaliburton!

It seems some of my compatriots are a bit unsettled with contrasting points of view. In fairness, I think anybody tends to cringe with matters that threaten their beliefs. It is a normal state of existence.

Having said this, I wish to proceed, with the understanding that I am trying to discuss this in as much of a neutral attitude of scholarship as I am able to muster. Your point of view does not threaten my faith walk, nor my outlook. Most of the material I have already considered quite some time ago.

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

Unlike the blind faith that most religions are based upon, having an assumption is not fallacious reasoning as long as it is overtly identified as a tentative assumption or a premise.
The assumption that the OT is true is just that, an assumption, and I do not claim to be able to conclusively prove that everything in the OT is true without a time machine. But as long as we view the veracity of the OT as an assumption rather than an established fact, we can proceed to discuss the implications of the OT on the veracity of the NT since the NT claims to derive its authority from the OT.

However, this line of reasoning creates a irrational dichotomy. Correct me if I am mistaken...It seems the entire basis of dismissing Paul is based on "fact," historical, scriptural and / or otherwise. Yet now it is claimed that the veracity of the Old Testament, on which the New Testament is based, is an assumption, a premise. Ergo, not a fact. So, in effect, the argument seems to me to be using a tentative assumption to dismiss a fact. This is that to which I tried to point earlier...all one needs to do is carry the argument to its rightful end, and the whole comes tumbling down. Better to spend one's time going fishing...

And unless one can resolve the inconsistencies in the Bible, one must admit we are merely believing in an elaborate fairytale,

Indeed, that is the *specific* argument of atheism.

but I am not surprised to hear that rabbinic "logic" attempts to evade that conclusion. As a footnote, please note that the Karaites oppose this rabbinic "reasoning". See http://www.light-of-israel.org/what_is_the_torah.shtml

I have no issue with the Karaites, or any others. Frankly, I know next to nothing about them, beyond what bananabrarin has provided on this site. His view is none too flattering. What I understand is that they are a fringe element, hardly representative of Judaism as a whole (or even a significant portion). Hate to say it, but it would be like using a fringe element of Christianity (say, maybe David Koresh's group, or some like) to define Christianity.

As for "rabbinic logic," personally I find it refreshing, to hear someone make a conscious, deliberate choice not to subordinate their spiritual practice to secular philosophy. That is a trend I see, of which I often find myself guilty. I am quite content discussing pre-historic humanity and the ramifications to religious development...until the science deliberately threatens my faith, at which point my spiritual development definitely overrides my intellectual development, and my spiritual practice trumps my intellectual pursuits.

Again, discussions such as this are nice, they keep the mind engaged and active. But the bottom line is Judgement Day...what will we say when G-d asks us what we have done for Him?

My answer would be, "Well, Lord, I argued against that traitorous kook who spread a FALSE GOSPEL to the Gentiles." And I studied Your Word so I could recognize Paul was the false apostle Jesus predicted in John 5:43 and fulfilled in Rev 2:2 at the church of Ephesians that correctly rejected Paul.

That's fine, if that is what you believe...now, what do you do with what you believe?

But whether you believe Paul was a false apostle or whether you think he was just misunderstood or mistranslated, his perceived doctrine has contributed to a dispensational theology and to a climate in which sin and crime abound in the modern world.. . because if people believe their salvation is based on faith alone aside from works, there is no motivation to abstain from sin or crime. And I can tell you from personal experience that many "Christians" cannot be trusted to behave honestly because they think their faith alone gives them a free pass to heaven, irrespective of their bad works towards their fellow man. Their bumper stickers shout they are not perfect, just forgiven. Don't be too sure of that! Though you may not achieve perfection, you should at least try, as Jesus had urged.

In all gentleness, look, mistranslation is part of being human. I haven't met a person yet who has it all figured out, and those that are convinced they do have it all figured out, scare the living sh*t outta me. I haven't got it all figured out, and I don't pretend I do. I've put a lot of effort into trying to figure it out...yet the more I learn, the more I realize how clueless I am.

Paul was a human being living in extraordinary times. Maybe he was "right" in the eyes of G-d, maybe he wasn't. If he wasn't, then Christianity is the biggest hoax to ever hit civilization. The success of Christianity is either a testament to G-d's personal choices in management, or a testament to Lucifer's power of usurpation (is that a word?). So either I, and the countless millions before me, are on a path that is acceptable in G-d's eyes (I will not say the *only* path), or all of us countless millions are destined to be firewood in the biggest bonfire the universe has ever known. And that's just the Christians! (I will not even ask of Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, etc...)

Even so, I have yet to hear a detractor of Paul describe the world "as it should be" without Paul. The entirety on the message is the undermining of Paul's testamony and activities. Allow me a simple question, and a simple answer (in fairness, it is a trick question).

How does an anti-Pauline Christian note, mark and observe Easter?