Why do some Americans believe weird things?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That's the JimL we all know and love!

It was quite witty.

[Bill the Cat]

HA's objection is that isn't Paul saying it but rather someone else declaring that is what Paul said.

That's a mighty tall burden to prove that the writer of Acts would have been written something so blatantly false AND been believed about such a popular figure as Paul. Especially as important as genealogies were to the Jews.

[oxmixmudd]

Paul never calls himself a Jew and I am sure I have already written this to you neither does Paul in his letters ever mention that he was a pupil of Gamaliel, even when he is most concerned to stress his qualifications as a Pharisee. So we have to ask the question, was Paul ever really a pupil of Gamaliel or was this claim made by the author Luke to enhance his narrative and Paul's credentials?


I am not categorically stating he was not a Jew I am simply pointing out that he never refers to himself as a "Jew/Jewish" Ἰουδαῖος. Why he does not do so is open to speculation, the possibility being that, as I have now written to both CowPoke and seer it is possible he was an Idumean and a convert [or the child of converts]. Many Jews never truly accepted the family of Herod the Great despite his adherence to Jewish Laws and customs because his ancestry was Idumean and his family had converted. We need to bear in mind that the Galilee and other regions were forcibly converted by the Hasmoneans.

I ask again find me the Greek where Jesus states Ho Theos Eimi. In John's gospel we also have Jesus stating that that the Father is greater than I and that the Son can do nothing on his own. Do you consider that Jesus was a subordinate god or a demi-god? He is clearly not the ultimate deity. Hence the leanings of many Christians in those early centuries up to Nicaea in 325 CE towards subordinationism.

Oh no not this old canard again. The Trinity is a much later Christian theological construct brought about in part by some of this contradictory language found in John and other later second century texts.

The clashes between Homoeans and Trinitarians went on for some decades and the Nicene Creed was only finally enforced as an orthodox Christian belief by Imperial edict with the threat of dire punishment to those who dissented.

(the paul part of the above)

HA - I don't believe you are quite reading / listening. Because you keep raising issues that are answered in my posts directly, or just passing over the point and repeating your assertions.

1) Paul says he is born of the Tribe of Benjamin. A Hebrew of the Hebrews. An Israelite. Are you seriously going to claim that means he 'never declared himself Jewish' because he did not use the specific word 'Jewish'? It seems a bit absurd. Why do you think the fact he never used that specific word in his descriptions of himself written by himself is of any significance?

2) The Pauline letters and not about Paul, they are about theology. They are about encouraging and directing those for whom he labored, and to whom he brought the Gospel. When he speaks of Christ's salvation, he several times uses the phrase "To the Jew first, and also the Greek". All of the epistles are written to Gentile converts. There is good reason for him NOT to emphasis his jewishness beyond what was done. The entire point and thrust of his entrire ministry was to take the message of the Jewish Messiah's salvation to the Gentiles. His empahsis was on the fact that salvation is from the Jews, but for ALL.

3) When he speaks of those Jews that have not accepted Christ, he refers to them as 'my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh'

4) your rejection of Luke's recitation of Paul's speech in acts declaring himself a jew is wholly self serving. There is nothing in the record we have of Paul that would indicate he was not a Jewish man of the highest caliber and faith.

Basically - you are doing what I've discussed wrt Trumps appointment to NOAA. you are bending the data to support your presumptions and preferences. Your search for an excuse to dismiss Paul as being authentically Jewish is seems to me is rooted more in the fact you find offensive the idea that early Christianity was in fact accepted and practiced by wholly Jewish people, and that they in fact believed in Christ's divinity. But as offensive as that might be (Jesus is a stumbling block the the Jews, and foolishness to the Gentiles) it is in fact the simple reality.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That's a mighty tall burden to prove that the writer of Acts would have been written something so blatantly false AND been believed about such a popular figure as Paul.

There are some historically attested personages in Acts as there are real places. However, that likewise applies to War and Peace or Les Miserables, although the actual existence of Jean Valjean or Pierre Bezukhov is another matter. That does not imply that I am suggesting Paul is a literary construct, yet the work we know as Acts of the Apostles does read rather like an ancient Hellenistic Roman novel with lots of melodrama, a main protagonist/hero and his adventures, and clearly delineated goodies and baddies. Saul/Paul starts off as a baddie but quickly becomes a goody.

Hence as with Hugo or Tolstoy the provision of real settings and events in which protagonists are placed and the background details can be established as factual, that does not necessarily imply that the rest of the narrative is equally veracious.

Especially as important as genealogies were to the Jews.

It seems possible that some contemporary Jews had a less than flattering view of Paul.

[Mountain Man]

(the paul part of the above)

HA - I don't believe you are quite reading / listening. Because you keep raising issues that are answered in my posts directly, or just passing over the point and repeating your assertions.

I've noticed this is a typical tactic of internet atheists, to ignore a rebuttal and simply repeat their argument. They keep doing this until the other party gets fed up and walks away, and then they claim their argument was never refuted. Then in an unrelated thread, they'll say something like, "Well, I asked Christians why Paul never refers to himself as a Jew, and nobody could give me a good answer."

[oxmixmudd]

Paul never calls himself a Jew and I am sure I have already written this to you neither does Paul in his letters ever mention that he was a pupil of Gamaliel, even when he is most concerned to stress his qualifications as a Pharisee. So we have to ask the question, was Paul ever really a pupil of Gamaliel or was this claim made by the author Luke to enhance his narrative and Paul's credentials?


I am not categorically stating he was not a Jew I am simply pointing out that he never refers to himself as a "Jew/Jewish" Ἰουδαῖος. Why he does not do so is open to speculation, the possibility being that, as I have now written to both CowPoke and seer it is possible he was an Idumean and a convert [or the child of converts]. Many Jews never truly accepted the family of Herod the Great despite his adherence to Jewish Laws and customs because his ancestry was Idumean and his family had converted. We need to bear in mind that the Galilee and other regions were forcibly converted by the Hasmoneans.

I ask again find me the Greek where Jesus states Ho Theos Eimi. In John's gospel we also have Jesus stating that that the Father is greater than I and that the Son can do nothing on his own. Do you consider that Jesus was a subordinate god or a demi-god? He is clearly not the ultimate deity. Hence the leanings of many Christians in those early centuries up to Nicaea in 325 CE towards subordinationism.

Oh no not this old canard again. The Trinity is a much later Christian theological construct brought about in part by some of this contradictory language found in John and other later second century texts.

The clashes between Homoeans and Trinitarians went on for some decades and the Nicene Creed was only finally enforced as an orthodox Christian belief by Imperial edict with the threat of dire punishment to those who dissented.

(the Jesus part of the above)

Jesus does not have to declare "Ho Theos Eimi". His words wrt his pre-existence and being one with the Father are sufficient. And again, such a direct and forceful declaration would not be wholly correct, given that the Father and the Holy Spirit are also aspects of God he is in relationship with. But mostly, it would undermine what he came to do. It would be a step too far in terms of the fact he came to DIE for our sins, not to set up an earthy kingdom, nor to reign over the Earth. Christians believe Christ is God, but when we speak of THE ONE GOD, we refer to all of that, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, not just one aspect of that. Christ declaring "I am THE God" would obscure the latter.

Jesus says not JUST that the Father is greater than him, but that He and the father are one, that if you have seen Him, then you have seen the Father. He also says that the Father has chosen to give all things to Him that there would be no name greater than His. The are co-equal, but distinct. Christ's place is different from the Fathers, and different from the Spirits, but they are God, the ONE God. This is not a subject where you can pick one verse or another and get a complete description of what the theology is.

God is an infinite being. Infinite things don't work like finite things. For example, you can 'divide' an infinite set and not diminish either of the two sets by any amount. you can 'divide' such a set 1, 2, 3 or however many times you want with the same result. Not only that, infinities can be bounded, or they can be unbounded, and yet the bounded and the unbounded each contains wholly and completely all of the other.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Well here is Eisenman's take on Paul's heritage.

[See Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus. p. 297-298]

NB Genesis 46.21 not 42.21

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Acts 22:3 "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated under Gamaliel, strictly according to the law of our fathers, being zealous for God just as you all are today.

That isn't Paul's writing though, is it? That is the author of Acts. Paul never mentions that he studied with Gamaliel, even when he is most concerned to stress his qualifications as a Pharisee. And Paul never refers to himself as a Jew.

[CivilDiscourse]

I've noticed this is a typical tactic of internet atheists, to ignore a rebuttal and simply repeat their argument. They keep doing this until the other party gets fed up and walks away, and then they claim their argument was never refuted. Then in an unrelated thread, they'll say something like, "Well, I asked Christians why Paul never refers to himself as a Jew, and nobody could give me a good answer."

Honestly, as an atheist, I find playing the "Bible Trivia Game" to be simply dumb. It serves no purpose.

First, if you don't believe the Bible is true, why are you arguing about Theological Nuance? I don't believe in God, or the tales in the Bible. Why would I want to argue about whether a specific author referred to himself as a Jew. It makes no sense. What am I going to do? Prove I know a book I don't like or believe in better than someone else? What's the point? Other than creating a sense of smugness over something I literally don't care about, that would say more about me than anything else, and what it says wouldn't be pretty.

Second, if you want to change someone's mind (i.e. convert them), arguing about something so absolutely trivial or negligible to the religion's worldview is just going to be annoying and aggravating and have the exact opposite effect than intended. It would be like trying to convince someone climate change isn't real by getting into an argument about the exact amount of CO2 released by ants when they breathe.

Most of this thread has just been a pure example of the pedantic and semantic Games that HA plays.

[Mountain Man]

Honestly, as an atheist, I find playing the "Bible Trivia Game" to be simply dumb. It serves no purpose.

First, if you don't believe the Bible is true, why are you arguing about Theological Nuance? I don't believe in God, or the tales in the Bible. Why would I want to argue about whether a specific author referred to himself as a Jew. It makes no sense. What am I going to do? Prove I know a book I don't like or believe in better than someone else? What's the point? Other than creating a sense of smugness over something I literally don't care about, that would say more about me than anything else, and what it says wouldn't be pretty.

Second, if you want to change someone's mind (i.e. convert them), arguing about something so absolutely trivial or negligible to the religion's worldview is just going to be annoying and aggravating and have the exact opposite effect than intended. It would be like trying to convince someone climate change isn't real by getting into an argument about the exact amount of CO2 released by ants when they breathe.

Most of this thread has just been a pure example of the pedantic and semantic Games that HA plays.

I often wonder why some atheists spend so much of their time arguing against Christianity. They claim it's as silly as believing in Santa Claus and yet spend a considerable amount of their time and resources debating and trying to disprove it. Some have even made a career of it. And they don't spend their time discussing other religions, just Christianity.

It's almost like they're afraid it might be true and are desperately trying to convince themselves that it's not.

[CivilDiscourse]

I often wonder why some atheists spend so much of their time arguing against Christianity. They claim it's as silly as believing in Santa Claus and yet spend a considerable amount of their time and resources debating and trying to disprove it. Some have even made a career of it. And they don't spend their time discussing other religions, just Christianity.

It's almost like they're afraid it might be true and are desperately trying to convince themselves that it's not.

There's a couple of reasons many do. (I personally don't prefer to argue about religion).

First, why Christianity? A number of reasons. First, many atheists were once Christians who for one reason or another stopped believing. They focus on christianity because that's "what they know". Second, Christianity is in many places, the absolute dominant religion. So, by targeting christians, you can argue with (i.e. "convert") the largest number of people. And, while wiccans may also be silly to you, there's still a bit of "shared outcast comradeship" there. And, again, by being dominant, you are more likely to be familiar with christianity and know the common arguments against it. The Argument about god not being a good being isn't effective if you are trying to convert someone from wiccanism. Finally, compared to some religions, arguing against christians can generally be safer.

Why do people get so hard core? There's "evangelicals" or "ideologues" about almost everything. Atheism is no different. They want to lead the blind out of the cave of religion and show them the light of atheism, just the same as many Christians want to do for others with other beliefs. They think that their way is best, and they can't help but want to share it with others.

Personally, I go by the "more important things" concept. When it comes to religion I'm pretty sure I'm right and you're wrong...but that's to be expected. You generally believe your beliefs are right, or they wouldn't be beliefs. I don't care to convert you, I don't care to be converted. I say live and let live there.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I've noticed this is a typical tactic of internet atheists, to ignore a rebuttal and simply repeat their argument. They keep doing this until the other party gets fed up and walks away, and then they claim their argument was never refuted. Then in an unrelated thread, they'll say something like, "Well, I asked Christians why Paul never refers to himself as a Jew, and nobody could give me a good answer."

It is a textual fact. Paul never calls himself a "Jew." That does not automatically imply that Paul was not a Jew but the textual fact remains that Paul never calls himself a Jew.

I am surprised that so many of you seem so unfamiliar with your Christian texts.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

There's a couple of reasons many do. (I personally don't prefer to argue about religion).

First, why Christianity? A number of reasons. First, many atheists were once Christians who for one reason or another stopped believing. They focus on christianity because that's "what they know". Second, Christianity is in many places, the absolute dominant religion. So, by targeting christians, you can argue with (i.e. "convert") the largest number of people. And, while wiccans may also be silly to you, there's still a bit of "shared outcast comradeship" there. And, again, by being dominant, you are more likely to be familiar with christianity and know the common arguments against it. The Argument about god not being a good being isn't effective if you are trying to convert someone from wiccanism. Finally, compared to some religions, arguing against christians can generally be safer.

Why do people get so hard core? There's "evangelicals" or "ideologues" about almost everything. Atheism is no different. They want to lead the blind out of the cave of religion and show them the light of atheism, just the same as many Christians want to do for others with other beliefs. They think that their way is best, and they can't help but want to share it with others.

Personally, I go by the "more important things" concept. When it comes to religion I'm pretty sure I'm right and you're wrong...but that's to be expected. You generally believe your beliefs are right, or they wouldn't be beliefs. I don't care to convert you, I don't care to be converted. I say live and let live there.

I have no objection to people believing what they wish. However, when they contend that their various beliefs are attested historical facts and that their texts are to be accepted as dispassionate and accurate historical accounts, is when I take issue.

[CivilDiscourse]

It is a textual fact. Paul never calls himself a "Jew." That does not automatically imply that Paul was not a Jew but the textual fact remains that Paul never calls himself a Jew.

I am surprised that so many of you seem so unfamiliar with your Christian texts.

This would be a clear example of "Bible Trivia Game" playing, and exactly what I said about creating a sense of smugness over something literally not careed about. And that it says alot of not pretty stuff about the person playing the game than it does about anything else.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

But to answer your last point, when discussing Jesus' divinity, you need to look all the statements he made himself and that were made about him and not just pick one or two verses out of context that you can twist into seeming to support your position.

I'll ask you as well, given that the others have gone strangely quiet, where is the Greek text where Jesus states Ho Theos Eimi? He had the perfect opportunity to acknowledge his deity in Mark 10.18. Yet he did not, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."

As to your earlier point, do you not care for people pointing out inconsistencies in your texts and providing known historical facts?