JeSoul:

^ & ^^
   Do they really Kray? it is rarely the case - in my casual experience - that a scholar would go out of his way to put a big sign on his decades of study that "this is just a guess". I remember remarking to Max once a while back that a lot of this "historical" stuff, are really opinions paraded as facts.

I don't recall. But I do remember one of the lost posts where I mentioned history is just one person's perspective and you need the other person's to arrive at some idea of what's correct, stating Stalin's deletion of Trosky from history as example. But sometimes a piece of history is a FACT and very easy to verify. The Nigeria- Biafra war is a fact, not someone's opinion paraded as fact. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a fact. Slavery is a fact. That a man went to the moon is a fact. That Buddha and Ghandi lived are facts. Not all history is mere opinion. I've tried to be careful because I began researching this for myself alone. I had to take a course in biblical textual analysis and many other boring stuff because of the importance of this to me. So I think I know a little bit about placing things in their proper context. Sometimes we make do with the expert educated guesses we have until something even better comes along. If someone whose expert field it is places a fragment of text as between so and so date, and others agree, one would have to accept their guess until something even better comes along. If a series of letters are written and all lines of evidence from the possible dates and circumstances under which they were written, its historical and cultural context, converge and reveal a particular writer, we accept that till even better facts emerge.Where the writers are unknown they're stated as unknown, but possibly so and so. But where it is known, it's known.

These people aren't ghosts. They're human beings who inhabited time and left traces behind. Experts can reconstruct some events in science that happened ten thousand years ago. How much less a couple of thousand. They can tell you the likely games that children played in Palestine two thousand years ago, and the methods by which some traders in Jewish markets cheated those who bought from them.These scholars have their methods and their tools, and they can't be accused of stupidity. We know there is a great deal of uncertainty in biblical text and history but kudos has to be given them for all that they've accomplished so far. It is not an easy field. But I don't know if credible scholarship is accepting a few expert guesses and historical facts and stating whose guess it is so you can verify and counter or prove the source as unreliable if they're so: Or dismissing them when they don't suit you because your class notes tells the world different. I'am being careful here, because Religion isn't something to play games with and people are hardly reasonable about their beliefs. Otherwise you'd just take an intellectual argument to Moslem fundamentalists, and they's stop blowing people up. There is a hard world  of irrational human beings doing terrible things to each other in the name of religion and what people wrote in holy books, and no amount of wishful thinking or condescending, 'credible', class-note opinionating and tutoring based on the findings of these same 'disreputable' scholars will change that.

Hahaha. Madmax why are u so bitter? I quoted my class notes to try to illustrate what pseudopigraphy is, and not to argue anything about history. The post is still there u know. . Now u're not just being cynical, but dishonest. 

Mad_Max:

I refer to your surprise and amazement that someone displayed qualities completely alien to you.

You shattered my innuendos? I didn't notice.

You're Prehistoric School. Let me say it in Neanderthish / Grunt-ese so you finally understand.:Getti. Somma. Manners.

Enjoy ur merry-go-round

Wow!! What a thread.

It's been quite a while since I thoroughly went through an entire thread on this section of Nairaland, reading every single post.  I normally get bored after the first two, three pages.

I particularly find the position of Mad_Max here intriguing, and I was really keen on seeing where this would end.  But as with virtually all topics raised in this Religion section in my almost five years of 'nairalanding', it didn't have a happy ending.  I'm not surprised.

It's interesting to note that early in this discourse, Mad_Max made some allegations against Brother Paul which she could barely defend, despite appeals from some quarters to her to present a valid case (On this extremely rare occasion, I find myself nodding to every single one of noetic's posts.  He raised some really vital questions, but all Mad_Max could respond with was "go and and learn some manners".  At some point, people began to question how Mad_Max could possibly reconcile her grouse with the letters & person of Paul with her belief in the Gospels which she so ardently used to antagonize Paul, which themselves are not free of controversy, and which are contained in the same book (acclaimed as God's word) as the letters of Paul, thereby ultimately querying her assumed position as a Christian.  Worthy of note here is that she repeatedly avoided answering to this query, and then finally went on the defensive by referring to some other thread where she purportedly "explained herself already", a thread whose link she for-god-knows-why "didn't care to give".

At some point, Mad_Max said this of Paul, "A different spirit resides in him that is not in the apostles. His work, his teaching, his very person is not of God."  But again, she fails to tell us what spirit then operates in Paul.  Which of his teachings exactly is "not of God"?  What makes Paul a false apostle?  What makes him THE wolf in sheep's clothing Jesus talked about?  The only reasonable thing Mad_Max could offer here was the "handing over to Satan. . ." teaching, which well, I believe was effectively tackled.  It's not a reason to give him all those scathing labels.

At the start of this thread, after reading all the accusations against Paul by Mad_Max, I was expecting her to buttress her points further with a list or instances of his "false" teachings, "constant" warring with the other apostles, "boastful" statements, and other things she accused Paul of.   Instead, she goes on to tell her audience, "I've written enough about Paul. There's such a thing as finding out things for oneself".  Why make a claim that you cannot defend?  I particularly find her accusation of Paul writing in Greek instead of Aramaic utterly ridiculous.  Sounds so "conspiracy theory-ish". Even far more ludicrous is her stating that "Paul is irrelevant" in Christianity.

I must say that I'm thoroughly impressed with Krayola for his brilliant posts, and more importantly for keeping his cool against an apparently cantankerous Mad_Max, who in the long run, began to appeal to sentiments and empathetic submissions to further her already beaten theories about Paul.

vescucci said this on May 6:

On the flip side, some people have such an overly developed sense and taste for the dramatic that almost anything that holds a contrary view to 'accepted' truth must be true almost solely on that premise alone. It is so outrageous it must be true. Most conspiracy theorists are like this. It is my opinion that give a clever guy a starting point and an end, he'll weave plots so profound, so believable, so under-your-nose-like that you'll believe it in a second. Until the next clever guy comes along and have you believe in something else.

This aptly captures the "Mad_Max character" displayed on this thread.

Mad_Max is reminiscent of a certain trini_girl who once used to be active on this board.  So so similar in character.

By the way, I'm not a fan of Paul myself (I don't really have any problems with him either, save for his chauvinistic tendencies) .  It's just that the case which Mad_Max has presented against him is not enough to castigate the poor fella.  It's just untenable.  Plus, I'm not tripped by people who attempt to prove smart by trying to show that they "think differently" from the rest of the world, haughtily proclaiming that others not in unison with their ideas are "wallowing in deception", etc.


P.S. I understand that some posts were erased somewhere along the line.  So please forgive me if I missed some things, plus, this should not be taken personal at all.  Just an innocent expression of opinion.

O! This people should just go and sit down or lie down or better still repent.

You've lost your way and think you're in one of your 'Pay tithe or God will curse you' national association meetings. Ask for directions next time.

Is that Mad Max? O! no wonder, it is Mad Max

Lol, Image, no wonder wetin? Why can't people ever get it through their thick, annointing-oiled heads that others can have different religious views from theirs, and it would still be all right? The world is big enough na. Not everyone whose views you don't like is a heretical demon.

As expected.

Naw. There's nothing innocent about your opinion. It's very, very personal. It's definitely someone who's posted on this thread before, in the Pro-Paul league.

Great.  Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you, The Resident Nairaland Psychic!  "It's definitely someone who's posted on this thread before".  LOL.

Accusations of double identity on this forum is something that has been going on since 2005, so I'm not really surprised you'd accuse me of being someone else.  Once someone appears to echo what others have been saying, that person suddenly becomes "someone who has posted before".  As a matter of fact, I just saw this thread yesterday for the first time.   I really do not see the need for me to respond to this, but just to clear all doubts. . .

but it would be more honest if you'd simply posted your tirade under the username you've been using earlier.

Yes, this is not my original username.   I stopped using my other username (which I'm not willing to reveal. . .  conjecture all you want ) way back in 2007 when I was banned from posting.  That was when I registered this one, long before you registered the ID Mad_Max on this forum. You really don't think if I were disguising as someone else, I'd easily give myself off, by stating so expressly that I've been "nairalanding" for 5 years? C'mon!

How obvious you are.  You do realise you were echoing things you'd said in your earlier posts, don't you? Deceitful, and like most liars, you let little things slip.

Lol.  You really must be feeling so smart and proud of yourself right now for "busting" "another Nairaland criminal".  When I said "Brother Paul", I was only trying to employ the language of Christians.  Besides, calling him "brother" still does not make me his fan.

Don't quote Vesc. He's a friend.

Friend or not, what he said rightly applies to you.   I surmise that he had you in mind when he made that statement.  But being your friend, he didn't want to come out straight so he won't hurt you.  I could be wrong.

hiding behind a  different username for a vicious personal attack

Now, why would I want to do that?  You really must feel yourself so important to believe that I'd take my precious time to register another user name just to attack you.   On the contrary, I actually admire your person, seriously.   I usually find myself in agreement with many of your posts, especially on tithing (I do a lot of reading around here).  But on this one, you just weren't being reasonable, and I felt the need to point that out.

and one of the reasons yours doesn't really deserve a response; it's so silly and personal and miffed and trying to pretend to coolness and objectivity when it's really, really angry at something I'd said

Maybe the coolness and objectivity are actually there after all, but somehow, you've deliberately chosen not to see that, because something in them hit a nerve.  Maybe.

If you were really neutral about Paul you wouldn't get this worked up. I'm laughing so hard my sides are aching.

Well, sorry about your aching sides.  And yes, I really AM neutral about Paul, and I'm not worked up at all.  I was just bothered about the bias which you conspicuously show-cased without even realizing it.  To be honest, it was your own very first post that made me more interested in this topic.  I thought to myself that since you are a Christian and you make these allegations against Paul of all people, then you really must have a lot of proof to stand your ground.  After 5 pages, I was disappointed.   I like it when people are objective, regardless of who's involved.  Heck, why would I get worked up over Paul when I'm not even a Christian?   (Next, you'll accuse me of being Krayola, or some other person).

I know you ladies always love to have the last say, so I'll most likely not respond to your next accusation/insult/what-have-you.

Enjoy.

Could someone please show or detail the Apostle Pauls alleged chauvinism . Personally I'm struggling to see it.

Thanks
TV

Hi TV01

TV01:

Could someone please show or detail the Apostle Pauls alleged chauvinism . Personally I'm struggling to see it.

Thanks
TV

Downplaying the role of women and forbidding them to speak in church implies what? He may not really be chauvinistic as a person, but that instruction smacks of one borne out of a chauvinistic tendency, IMO. It's the way I see it, but you're a Christian, I don't expect you to see it that way.

Cheers.

Purist:

Downplaying the role of women and forbidding them to speak in church implies what?

In what way did Paul "downplay" the role of women? He outlined gender specific roles and responsibilities in the home and church. Are you saying that having outlined the roles he downplayed them, or the roles somehow downplayed women?

Paul did not "forbid" women to speak in church, he set context. If you wish to label that chauvinist that is your subjective opinion. If you have anything that objectively demonstrates Paul was a chauvinist - considered or treated women inferior - I'd be very interested to see it.

Could I ask, in context - i.e. the role/position of women in society in that era - what would actually constitute a chauvinist? Or is your position based on a more contemporary view of what may be described as chauvinist?

Purist:

He may not really be chauvinistic as a person, but that instruction smacks of one borne out of a chauvinistic tendency,

If he is comfortable with delivering an instruction that "smacks" of chavinism, surely that makes him one- at least by agreement, if indeed he was merely "delivering the instruction" And likewise if he actually formulated it?

Don't have to tip-toe around it. Given the "sticks & stones" he suffered for his faith, I doubt a few "words" will make much difference.

And true while I am a "Christian" - and seems to mean as many things as there are Christians these days - I won't be proclaiming a "fatwah" if we don't see eye-to-eye on this, with or without any back-up to your assertions.


Thanks
TV

Okay, you win.

Your alter ego is perfectly obvious. You know who you're fooling? Only yourself. 
You make me appreciate the other people on the religion section more. They're honest. You know my favourite part of your initial post? Where you're patting yourself on the back, in 'disguise'.  How low and contemptible you are.

Mad_Max:

You've lost your way and think you're in one of your 'Pay tithe or God will curse you' national association meetings. Ask for directions next time.

I want to join the "PTOGWCYNA". Where's Image? I need a form!

I pray this NL won't make me blow a gasket one day !