Lógos Sokratikós

We know the bible's a crock of BS, but when you hold a discussion with a fundie (not asking yourself about the wisdom in debating with a religious fanatic!) you got to take another stance: Suppose for a parsec that the NT is a trustworthy record and then give 'em it all with something our good friend JohnTheApostate would post!

rlogan

former fundie gospel singer here...


Because now it is a detective story, among other things. (I'm not a scholar, but am taking liberty to answer because I can sure identify with where you are coming from.)

I started on what I thought was a quest for proof of historicity.

There came a point where I became angry. So much deception. I can identify completely with the threat of going to hell when I was younger.


By changing the internal motivation from "how could they do this to me" (taking it personally) into "how could they pull this off" (a historical question).



The basic schizophrenia in Christianity is the necessity of utilizing the HB as a means of validating Jesus, while at the same time accomplishing a negation of the HB in the process.

So I would say more accurately that Paul is a con man, and so is the author of Acts.

How can you "validate" Paul? We need to send him to Harvard, as it were. hence, Gamaliel.

You can't make him a temple High Priest because that's just going too far. Now you've run up against something that could not possibly have escaped historical note.

How could Paul have been in a position to persecute Christians? Exactly what authority did he have? Did he whip them? Cut their toes off?

It's just hype to make him more compelling.

bernie43

John... cited Paul and wrote:

"2 Corinthians 11:13-15 " For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising then , if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. There end will be what there actions deserve."

( I am almost certain that these false apostles were representatives of the Jewish church sent to correct the incorrect teachings of Paul. So while Paul demonises those sent from the mother church for trying to impose an Orthodox practice of belief, he considerer's himself righteous for perverting them in the first place)"

I guess Paul could be seen as the first Fundie? He behave as they do. The first JudeaChristians died out due to the ruthlesness of fundies like Paul. He accomplished it by not persecutuing them but by taking over it from within.

So Christianity as we know it now is Paulinian and not Jesus but the Bible writers has tried to put in their compensatory interpretation too. So it is a mix between Paul and they later writers.

I am very skeptical to the historical presence of Jesus but I would be surprised if Paul would be a myth. He is too real to be made up???

John as the fourth Evangelists seems to be a mock up though. It seems to be a collective of writers who wanted to stop the Gnostic influences and they wrote it to be a substitute within the Church to keep those who had that speculative leanings.

Only my wild guesses. I am an atheist.

Bernt

Chili

The Fundies were just needed for the introduction. They set the place on fire and out of this fire the physical Church was born.I'd be careful with the word Christianity since the Christianity they knew became victims and these same Christians are now crying again. The Gospels are the metaphysics for Paul in the physical world. The first 'interpretation' is needed to do the dirty work and the second one takes over after that. Peter and Paul were the first Popes. Not Peter or Paul but Peter and Paul. Paul is where Peter became a reality.If the Church is inspired via Peter you can't have gnostic influences or they would be ONE.

johntheapostate

When I stopped believing, it seemed as if the anger I had for god which I had worked hard to suppress for fear of hell transferred over to the institution of Christianity itself.

Of course the institution of Christianity represented mostly by my father was not going to let go of me without a struggle.

In defense of my non belief, I became adept at finding the inconsistencies and contradiction that are contained in the Bible One of my brothers who had been the least religious in our family followed my example and renounced the faith but the others will no longer debate the Bible or faith under any circumstances and it has been declared off limits at family gatherings.

On a more weird note, when I was a Christian I had some obsessive compulsive thing going. Sometimes when I went to bed I would be laying there thinking and the suppressed hate that I had for god would manifest itself in blasphemous thoughts linking god with obscene words. At that point I would have to spend hours tossing and turning and using every last ounce of my willpower to suppress these thoughts all the time dealing with a profound fear that If god struck me down that instant I would be going straight to hell.

When I had shed the last vestige of belief these thoughts vanished. I suppose the Christian would explain it by saying I had been fighting the devil and when he won he stopped tormenting me.