I think Paul and his status in Abraham religion doesn’t make sense. So your telling this guy Paul who never met Jesus allegedly got revalation from the god of the Old Testament (which is Jesus) that told him all these different beliefs and ideals that happen to be identical to the belief and ideals from the pagan religions at the time and Greek mythology at the time, sounds abt bullshit. Use logic!! This guy Paul’s only claim to prophethood is that he says god talked to him on the road to Damascus, anybody can say that, Simon the magician said the same thing. And let’s not forget that Paul didn’t even know Jesus so how tf do ppl take him as a Christian source, oh wait there’s no choice bc he’s the first person to write down the alleged teachings of Jesus, and if he wasn’t the first person, there is no documented teachings of Jesus before Paul that has survived the test of time, there’s nothing that points to him being anything more than some random guy who edited the christian religion after Jesus’s death, he literally contradicts the Old Testament in so many of his claims, idk wtf talked to him on that road but by the logic In my brain I know that wasn’t god or at least not the god of the Old Testament, why would the god of the old testament come talk to some random guy who has nothing to do with his prophet Jesus, and tell him to throw away Jewish law and belief in the pure very clear oneness of god and start this whole new mythological lore bullshit, that sounds like satan to me, if a Jesus himself came to a man In Spirit form and a demon came to a man both claiming to be Jesus coming to give you revelations from the god of the Old Testament the only way of knowing which one is telling the truth or lying is by what they say, and if they say a bunch a bullshit that contradicts the Old Testament then it’s clearly satan
Paul is the core of Christianity, and also doesn’t make sense
>Paul is the core of Christianity
Ancient historical Christianity began when people began following Jesus Christ’s teachings. People were following Christ since even before his physical death. Paul began following Christ later. Paul is merely one of Jesus Christ’s Apostles. Just because more of his writings have survived doesn’t mean he founded the religion.
That said, there are certainly some evangelicals and fundies in modern times that elevate Paul’s writings above the rest (even though scripture itself warns not to take that approach with Paul, warning that Paul’s writings are particularly easy to misunderstand… like in 2 Peter 3:16).
>your telling this guy Paul who never met Jesus
No. Christianity holds that Jesus is a living being, even though Jesus physically died. Christians believe Paul met Jesus… alive. If you haven’t met Jesus, then I don’t blame you for thinking Jesus isn’t alive. That said, just because you haven’t met Jesus doesn’t mean you can be sure Paul (or someone else) didn’t. Similarly if you haven’t seen aliens that wouldn’t mean someone else hasn’t. They would know if they likely have or likely haven’t, not you. It appears you assume you know the experiences of others. What an amazing supernatural ability!
>[Jesus] told him all these different beliefs and ideals that happen to be identical to the belief and ideals from the pagan religions at the time
You seem to be making this part up. Of course all religions have many things in common, as spirituality has common themes. But there is not even a single pagan religion (much less “all these religions”) that is “identical” (i.e. exactly the same) to Christianity. I’m not sure what you gain by making things up about history… but if that’s what floats your boat… ok.
>sounds abt bullshit.
Yep. The claims of spiritual life even after physical death made in Christianity sounds like bullshit. I will totally agree with you there.
“Logic” doesn’t teach that everything that sounds like bullshit definitely is bullshit. Your entire post could be summarized as “Christianity claims personal spirituality is real. But use logic!! Therefore Christianity is false.”
If you personally have no reason to believe in Christianity, due to no experiences with a being evidently God nor evidently the living Spirit of Jesus Christ nor anything resembling that, then don’t believe. If Paul or anyone else in the 1st century had a reason personally (due to his/their experiences with who he believed to be God) then he and they should believe. To each his own experiences and therefore to each his own conclusions drawn from such experiences.
>this guy Paul’s only claim to prophethood is that he says god talked to him on the road to Damascus,
According to Christianity, Paul spent time with the other Apostles (who also knew Jesus and had relationship with God)… who confirmed Paul indeed had met Jesus. So it wasn’t just Paul’s word. Paul is accepted as an Apostle for the same reason James or Philip or Mark is. The church (led by the Apostles then) was convinced Paul had met Jesus.
>anybody can say that,
And many have. But not many proved to the early church that they had.
>And let’s not forget that Paul didn’t even know Jesus
That assumes there is no such thing as spiritual life. So yeah… if we assume your assumptions with you, then you’re right! Amazing how that works.
>he’s the first person to write down the alleged teachings of Jesus
We most likely do not have most things that were written down in the 1st century… whether religious writings or not. The fact is, neither you nor anyone else knows what the first writing about Jesus was… because chances are it doesn’t even exist any longer.
As far as letters that have survived, sure. While dating the letters is a guessing game, Paul may have written Galatians a year before James wrote James. Even if so, so what?
>there’s nothing that points to him being anything more than some random guy who edited the christian religion after Jesus’s death
Nothing except churches all over the ancient world that point to other Apostles as the ones who planted their churches (whether Mark in Egypt, Thomas in India, or Andrew in Constantinople, Bartholomew in Armenia, Philip in Ethiopia, Simon in Georgia, Barnabas in Cyprus, etc.) besides Paul who believe and taught the same things about Jesus that the churches evidently founded by Paul did.
But if you want to assume that sort of historical evidence is “nothing,” feel free to cover your eyes.
>idk wtf talked to him on that road
You sound like you think you do.
>I know that wasn’t god
So you don’t know, but you know it wasn’t god. And Paul is the one that doesn’t make sense? lol. Ok.
>why would the god of the old testament come talk to some random guy
Do I look like God to you?
>that sounds like satan to me
So it’s impossible “logically” that Paul met God, but certainly possible “logically” that Paul met Satan. Interesting reasoning and “logic!” you’ve got going there. Good luck with that.
>if they say a bunch a bullshit that contradicts the Old Testament then it’s clearly satan
The Old Testament is so full of figure, riddle, and parable it contradicts even itself *if one pretends it isn’t a spiritual writing* (which it seems you are doing). I mean from the very beginning of the Old Testament we get ‘days’ without a sun, humans made before plants and practically in the next verse made after plants, so on and so forth. We get riddles like “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. ” which sure… that’s a contradiction… if you assume it isn’t a riddle even though it appears in a book full of riddle, figure, and parable. On the other hand, if this is a spiritual writing we are dealing with, it could simply be a riddle meaning it is impossible to reason with fools so best to just avoid them.
The Old Testament is full of mythology, figure, paradox, and riddle. That’s likely why Jesus told people not to follow it literally when it came down to actual behaviors (for instance when asked whether to actually stone the adulteress). Instead, Jesus hung the whole thing all under two commandments, a greater, primary one (love God) and a lesser, secondary one (love neighbor as self), said the way we perform the greater command is by performing the lesser one.
And this view of the Old Testament isn’t exclusive to Christianity. The famous Jewish sage Hillel, who lived well before actual God came to actual Earth (according to Christianity), said: “Don’t do unto others what you would not want done to you – that is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary.” Christ’s teachings were not all that different (all commands hang under love God which is like loving neighbor as self) and hence Paul also taught, even in Galatians, “The entire law is fulfilled in a single decree: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,'” as did (and as still do) all the Christ-worshipping communions with ancient historicity.
Paul knew the other apostles, and they agreed with each other on points of doctrine. Read Acts 15 and Galatians 2. This is because he received the same gospel from Our Lord that they did (1 Corinthians 15).
Paul said the Old Testament is not perfect (Hebrews 8:7) but this contradicts what the scriptures say (Psalms 19:7). Paul is a blasphemer and all his writings have to be considered heretical
> told him all these different beliefs and ideals that happen to be identical to the belief and ideals from the pagan religions at the time and Greek mythology at the time, sounds abt bullshit.
But they’re not. Have you read Paul? Read Romans and find the equivalent in pagan texts (you won’t). Sounds like bullshit because you made it up.
> This guy Paul’s only claim to prophethood is that he says god talked to him on the road to Damascus, anybody can say that, Simon the magician said the same thing.
Yes and so did every other prophet. Moses apparently hung out with God in a mountain no one else saw that but that’s what he told everyone.
In all likelihood Paul, was mistaken in what he saw as Satan isn’t real either.
Why would it be Satan, couldn’t it just have been either Paul had a hallucination or Paul was lying?
Paul also believed in a very physical resurrection so it leads us to ask where Jesus stood between the years of his first ascension and then returning to visit Paul.
The Christian community before Paul already believed that Jesus had “died for their sins according to the Scriptures” (1Corinthians 15:3-7) probably alluding to Isaiah 53:10-12 and Hosea 6:2. Whether they believed him to be divine is up for debate, and what was his relation and status vis-a-vis the Father. Regardless, it is quite clear that Paul believed in the abrogation of the Law for Christian Jews and converts. Seems like this was a major point of disagreement with James that was covered up in the book of Acts, so in that sense it would seem that Paul did come up with that. In any case, James was right, because the O.T. clearly does state the Law is eternal for Israel (I’ve made a post about this a while back). And the historical Jesus almost certainly agreed with this because there are traditions in the Gospels that do not fit Pauline theology. He was also almost certainly a failed apocalyptic prophet, so it’s ultimately all nonsense. I sense Islamic undertones in the wording of your post, but this doesn’t help Islam in the slightest, but for other reasons.
Paul says he was from Tarsus, which would have had a mystery religion tradition (possibly the resurrecting god-man Osiris and Tarsus was a center for Mithra worship). One can see how he ended up with the theology he writes about in his letters, a merging of Greek philosophy and Judaism, but it’s not the same message that the gospels record Jesus teaching.
I agree with you that Paul basically created Christianity. It was his brain-child. but I’m not sure what you mean by “making sense”. Paul created a new religion from Hellenic Judaism , Greek culture and Judaism. He was influenced by Greek philosophy (for example, when he talks about the “word”). He also talks explicitly about Greeks, whether or not the law applied to them, and if they needed to be circumcised.
So he created a new Abrahamic religion out of another one, by mixing some cultural elements. This happens all the time with religion and religion factions. whether or not it “makes sense” doesn’t really come into it. In fact, it brought a lot of money and power to some people, and it also made Paul an important historical figure. so in that way it “made sense”.
> So your telling this guy Paul who never met Jesus allegedly got revalation from the god of the Old Testament (which is Jesus) that told him all these different beliefs and ideals that happen to be identical to the belief and ideals from the pagan religions at the time and Greek mythology at the time.
According to Paul (according to Luke’s account in Acts) Jesus didn’t even say much to Paul in the vision. It was like “Congrats, you’re my apostle now,” and then it was over. He definitely didn’t teach him a bunch of beliefs and principles in any version of the story.
Anything Paul knew about Jesus’s teachings (which was apparently very little, since Paul only ever seemed to talk about Jesus’s birth and death) would have had to have been from his years violently persecuting Christians after Jesus’s death, or by learning from Jesus’s actual apostles who knew Jesus, like Peter, but on the occasions after Paul’s “conversion” that Paul interacted with Jesus’s apostles (e.g. Peter) they argued and feuded, particularly about whether the Greek gentiles (etc.) needed to get circumcized and/or keep kosher.
And yet Paul needed to emphasize his association with the *actual* apostles in order to have any credibility with the gentiles that he knew anything about Jesus’s ideology, even though he disagreed with the apostles about a variety of issues (to put it lightly, given that he wanted them imprisoned and/or dead for most of his life). That’s why he slanders Peter as a hypocrite.
Hey OP – you might want to scope out a few volunteer opportunities. Fewer asshats in that group.
Comments are closed.