Is there a more infuriating religious meme than "Paul ruined Christianity"?

me like that
Source?

Catholics hate Paul because he proves that there's no such thing as apostolic succession.

Also that grace comes through faith.

I only read the gospels cuz Jesus was pretty chill. Fuck most of what Paul said. He never met Jesus.
Am i still christian Veeky Forums?

The truth hurts, paulite

Is that why he's one of their greatest saints, and they read from his epistles almost every Sunday?

Yeah it's

>not all muslims
and
>peaceful muslims

>no man I totally met Jesus in this cave, he gave me these golden tablets!

Threadly reminder that Paul's only point of difference with the other apostles was that he believed the Gentiles who converted to Christ did not need to be circumcised whereas Peter, James and Barnabas thought they should but that Peter eventually sided with Paul on the issue and we do not know if James and Barnabas continued to disagree with him.

Here's a few:

>What if, like, God is the bad guy?
>The Old Testament God and the New Testament God are totally different.
>Jesus never existed.
>The idea of Jesus was stolen from [pagan god].
>The Romans executed Jesus. The Jews had nothing to do with it. They are our greatest ally.
>The New Testament is unreliable and not the word of God because it was written forty years after Jesus' death, unlike the Koran which was written a mere thirty years after Muhammed's death.
>The Bible was just made up so people with power could control the stupid. We need to ban the Bible to stop these stupid Christian militias from trying to overthrow the government.

They also disagree'd on the pre-existence of Jesus (ie whether or not Jesus was divine) and whether there was an after-life.

Show me evidence that supports this claim please.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites#Views_and_practices

>sure we could base our religion off of accounts of Jesus' teachings from people who knew him, but this guy who had a dream about him once has some interesting ideas too

For starters, the only apostle that the Ebionites may believed disagreed with Paul is James as some scholars claim that they followed James's views which were opposed to Paul's. However, there is ridiculously little evidence that supports this claim and the only historian who has outright claimed this is Hyam Maccoby, a universally discredited Jewish scholar.
In future I would recommend that you actually read the wikipedia article and look into its listed sources before posting it as "evidence".

How about you actually read his letters? You tell me what is so disagreeable about them? What exactly do you think Paul was claiming that the other apostles didn't agree with? Why can't any of you lunatics provide any evidence to support your claims?

Paul is literally the only author in the entire bible that is not anonymous. There is no real evidense to suggest who these annonymous authors are. Paul stands alone as the single New Testament author with a face and name. He also has an outrageous number of books, almost half of them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels#Authorship_and_date

His work also predates all other writing by a minimum of 25 years. The bible is literally 50% Paul and 50% people that came after Paul.

We know that the author of Mark, which was written between 65-73AD, was the interpreter of the apostle Peter and that the author of Luke-Acts was a physician who worked with Paul. It is also important to know that the content of the Gospels would have been widely known via oral tradition and many scholars believe that there was another Gospel or perhaps a sayings-collection that they believe would be widely known as well before Paul came on the scene.

How the hell would Peter, an illeterate poor fisherman have a fucking interpretor? And what possible evidense could you have for such a wild claim? Don't tell me you are going to cite a second centuary theologian that didn't know Peter or Mark?

Luke's Gospel is about 80% copied from Q source and Mark with very little origenal text. Mentioning Luke is redudent since he doesn't actually give new information. There is no way to show any evidence linking the writing to the historical Luke.

You still have the problem of every work other than Paul not only being anonymous but being older than Paul.

Gospel writers never met Jesus either so that's pretty poor criteria to use.

Papias of Hierapolis claimed in 100AD that he was told by John the Elder that Mark was Peter's interpreter and based the Gospel from Peter's accounts.

Having only one source, which is just "I heard a guy who heard from another guy...." is not very convincing. Espcially when it comes 30 years after the fact. Not only that but it fails to answer so many questions?

Why would a Jew like Mark in the middle of a Jewish province know Greek? Why would Peter even want his words translated to a language that no one would be able to read? Not to mention this a part of the world with extremly low literacy rates. The theory of Mark actually writing it makes more questiosn than it answers.

Mark isn't even written like an eye-wittness report but rather like a tall tell or a myth. The narrator never identifies himself. He never even signs his name or gives dates. He also is present during events Peter would certainly be abscent from such as the trial (which is supposed to be closed to the public) and Jesus's journey into the desert. There are also dramatic shifts in style. The story starts out as sort of chronological story and than shifts into a list of parables. It being an annonymous work by several different authors neatly explains the problems and makes a lot of sense with it being a 60s or 70s document written in Greek.

What's your overall point? We can keep arguing about the authorship and date of Mark but honestly I would like to know what your main message is because this thread is about Paul so I would like to know how your statements about the gospels fit with Paul.

Paul's story in Acts doesn't add up

Why would the Priesthood dispatch Paul to arrest Christians in Damascus in Roman Phoenicia, when the jurisdiction of the Jewish Priesthood was limited to the province of Judea? That was one of the conditions that the Romans established when the Jews were vassalized as a Roman tributary: that their Priesthood would have jurisdiction over religious matters within the province of Judea, but not outside of it. Paul suggests that the Priesthood not only had the power to arrest people, but that they could do so well outside of their territory.

I have heard it argued that Paul/Saul doesn't actually go to the Sanhedrin for his "authority", but rather to the High Priest.

This creates a number of additional problems. As a Pharisee, why is Paul all chummy with the Sadducee high priest? And the High Priests at that time didn't have religious authority to arrest anyone outside of the temple grounds themselves. And why is Paul accepting this assignment anyway? To a devout Pharisee, which is what he claims to be before becoming a Christian, the Sadducee priesthood are a corrupt collaborationist group, and one you're at odds with.

Mark also makes glaring geographic and legal errors and uses Greek puns that would make no sense in Hebrew. It also has a Greek chiastic structure and does not resemble dictated speech.

If you disagree with Paul, you likely don't know much about what the rest of the bible says. People always turn Christ's love into the lame tolerance that is called love these days and they always downplay his wrath. If you think Paul is not in line with what Jesus said, you need to do a closer reading of the gospels.

1. All writings other than Paul are written annonymously
2. They are written in languages you would expect Gentiles to write in and show a shakey grasp of Jewish theology and history.
3. All none Paul documents are at least 30 years after Paul's writing and all are post-temple destruction.

Now answer this? How would Gentiles know about Christianity? Well that would be through Paul exclusivily. They would have had virtually no knowledge of any Jewish or Christian theology not stemmed from Paul.

So it would establish that the bible consists entirly of Paul's writings and the writing of Gentiles that got their entire theology from Paul. This effectivily makes Paul the founder of Christianity. The origenal Jews that followed Jesus have been completly ousted.

Now if you add in that Paul seems to be lying about having a background in Judaism (he can't even tell Saudecee from Pharisee) this also means that the New Testament is completely divorced from it's Jewish roots entirly, it's paganism.

And here's the biggest bit. If the non-Paulin parts of the bible are completly disassociated with the people that knew Jesus....and Paul never knew Jesus...than was any of Jesus's message even preserved at all?

From the other thread:
>Basically, Paul believed that the Gentiles who converted shouldn't have to be circumcised whereas James thought they should and Peter flip-flopped between both views. That is literally it
That's a huge deal. When Peter refuses to eat with the uncircumcised christians he's essentially saying they aren't saved. Most early church worship centered around shared meals. Going to church meant breaking bread with fellow christians. This is where hymns were sung and prayers were shared - around a communal table. This is huge! It really has roots in what Jesus core message is and who his core audience even was! To dismiss this as being 'merely' about circumcision is a mistake. These are central theological disagreements.

>However, there is ridiculously little evidence that supports this claim

I agree, although it's unlikely we will ever know the full story as the Jerusalem Church was wiped out by the Romans. It's not entirely clear if Paul and the Jerusalem Church reconciled as all we have to go by is sources that came much later after the fact.

See For all we know the differences between Paul and the Jerusalem Church could be significantly underplayed as the sources that mention them are either Paul's own letters or Acts, which is very pro-Pauline

It is universally accepted that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are written by the same author. Acts is about the history of the Church after the death of Jesus. However, it makes no mention at all of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD or even of the siege that occurred years before. Strange. It also makes no mention of the deaths of Peter or Paul, who both were killed in 63-67AD. Also strange. However it does mention the death of James, son of Zebedee who died in 44AD, a much less important figure than Paul and Peter. So it mentions his death but not Paul or Peter's? Even stranger.
Also, in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29, Paul quotes from the Gospel of Luke. 1 Corinthians is estimated to have been written between 53-57AD and yet Paul quotes from the Gospel of Luke?
Now, at the beginning of Acts the author says that the Gospel was written first and at the beginning of that Gospel he states that there have been many Gospels written before, and indeed, almost all historians agree that Mark was most likely written before Luke.

So, not only is there evidence to suggest that Luke was written in as early as 53AD but also it wasn't even the first to be written. So, why do scholars believe that Mark was written after 70AD? Because Jesus predicts the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened in 70AD, and so they claim that it must have been written after the destruction and then the prediction was written in hindsight. That is the basis of their argument.

The point of that post was that the differences between Paul and Peter were surrounding the Gentiles following Mosaic Law, not about whether or not Jesus was the Son of God, which was the opposing claim.

>Also, in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29, Paul quotes from the Gospel of Luke.
They use the same narrative, that does not suggest Paul is quoting Luke.

A few other points:
Luke wanted to end Acts on a positive note.
Luke planned a second volume, but never got around to it (perhaps he died before undertaking it)
Perhaps Luke had reasons for avoiding Paul's martyrdom. Colossians 1:24, for example, paints Paul as a co-redeemer with Christ. Perhaps the proto-catholic Luke-Acts wanted to avoid encouraging that sort of thinking.

For dating Acts, I think that it's important to avoid arguments from personal incredulity (cough John A. T. Robinson), if you can't think of a reason for Luke leaving out Paul's death that doesn't mean Luke didn't know about it.

The "prophecy" is NOT the only reason Mark is dated post 70AD. Mark's Gospel describes a world dominated by the Pharisee which is how the world was post-70, pre-70 it would have been Sadducee territory. It would not be inconceivable that someone would create a prophecy describing events that already happened to make a text look authentic. In the past it was very difficult to date texts so this sort of trickery could be gotten away with easily.

As was mentioned in the other thread, circular reasoning is not textual criticism works. If you think it does then you are inviting the possibility that other religious figures such as Muhammad also made fulfilled "prophecies".

mark was written in greek because it was FOR the gentiles not by them. thats why it explains jewish customs to the reader as well

>Catholics are not Christian
REEEEEEE

>The Bible was just made up so people with power could control the stupid. We need to ban the Bible to stop these stupid Christian militias from trying to overthrow the government.

can you give me one example, just one example of anyone ever saying this?

You've been reading too much Greg Boyd. Luke DOES mention the fall of Jerusalem in his Gospel, and the events of Acts don't relate to it, since it's all about stuff that happened before the war. Luke was also writing to a Roman audience and didn't want to antagonize authorities about the war.

>It also makes no mention of the deaths of Peter or Paul, who both were killed in 63-67AD.
This presumes that we have any historical evidence that they were martyred in the first place. We don't. Those are later Christian legends, not verifiable history. We don't actually have any idea how Paul died. There's nothing even in the New Testament about it and it might have been quite mundane, but the point is it was not relevant to the story the author wanted to tell anyway. It has to be demonstrated that Paul was martyred in the first place before we wonder why Acts doesn't mention it.

>That is the basis of their argument
It is methodologically necessary to presume natural explanations are more probable than magical ones unless and until there is evidence not to. It is theoretically possible that Mark was written as late as the 2nd century, but like the pre-70 dating this view is the outer edges of the bell curve of scholarly consensus and require better evidence than circular reasoning. .

Compare the wording of them both:
Luke 22:19-20 (NIV)
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
1 Corinthians 11:24-25 (NIV)
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
Looks pretty similar to me. And even if he isn't quoting Luke it certainly shows just how precise the wording of the oral tradition was before the gospels because Paul and Luke both matched the wording so closely.

>Luke wanted to end Acts on a positive note
Did he now? Where is your evidence for that?
>Luke planned a second volume, but never got around to it
Evidence needed for that too please.
>Perhaps Luke had reasons for avoiding Paul's martyrdom
You're going to need to do a better job of explaining this. Colossians 1:24: "Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church" Paul is talking about how he is suffering for the Church, so why would he not want people to report his martyrdom?

>if you can't think of a reason for Luke leaving out Paul's death that doesn't mean Luke didn't know about it.
True, it does prove it 100% but it's very reasonable to claim that he didn't know since he also mentioned the deaths of the other apostles and also, didn't mention the bloody destruction of Jerusalem? Why would he not mention that?
>pre-70 it would have been Sadducee territory
I'm going to need evidence for that too buddy.

>Luke DOES mention the fall of Jerusalem in his Gospel
Give me a source for that right now. Pro tip: Jesus prophesying it's fall does not count as Luke stating that it happened

>This presumes that we have any historical evidence that they were martyred in the first place. We don't.
I hate to use wikipedia as evidence but it's late and I'm tired so just read it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#Death

>There's nothing even in the New Testament about it
That's my point mate, it isn't mentioned because it hadn't happened yet at the time of any of the writings that should have mentioned it

My point about the dating of Mark is that that's the only explanation I've ever seen for dating it post-70AD, which doesn't work when the opposing belief is that Jesus could make prophesies. You need to provide me with a more convincing argument if I already believe that Jesus could make prophesies since he was the Son of God.

>And even if he isn't quoting Luke it certainly shows just how precise the wording of the oral tradition was before the gospels because Paul and Luke both matched the wording so closely.

Or that Luke quoted Paul? 1 Corinthians is dated 50-60AD whereas Luke is around 80AD.

Using English translations to try and ascertain the similarity of Greek writings seems pretty pointless in any case.

>That is the basis of their argument.
Mark made other 'predictions' that didn't come to pass (namely the imminent Parousia) and you're insisting we cherrypick the one that did

Originally you had to be a jew before you could be a christian. Paul changed this opening to everyone (mainly greeks) & almost getting stoned to death for it. Probably could see potential revenue

Paul is to Jesus, what Lenin is to Marx.

>Maybe the Gospel predicted the fall of the Temple! You can't prove it didn't!

Can you imagine the mess we would be in if textual criticism worked this way

Paul was a smart man. But he was not Jesus Christ.

Hans Conzelmann: "The final point is made clearly: διετια, 'unhindered'--an appeal to Rome. The reference to the διετια, 'two years,' certainly assumes that this situation of Paul was terminated. The farewell speech in Miletus leaves no doubt as to how this came about: Paul was executed. But Luke did not wish to tell about that. The purpose of the book has been fully achieved; therefore we ought to reject all hypotheses which understand the book as incomplete or which declare the ending to be accidental." (Acts of the Apostles, pp. 227-228)

That Luke was aware of Paul's death is indicated in Paul's farewell speech at Miletus: "But now I know that none of you to whom I preached the kingdom during my travels will ever see my face again. . . . When he had finished speaking he knelt down and prayed with them all. They were all weeping loudly as they threw their arms around Paul and kissed him, for they were deeply distressed that he had said that they would never see his face again. Then they escorted him to the ship." (Acts 20:25-38)

Joseph A. Fitzmyer: "In any case, it may seem strange that the reader is not told anything about the death of Paul, the hero of the second half of Acts. Yet the ending, such as it is, may not be as puzzling as some think, because it does record that Paul continued to preach the kingdom of God, even in Rome, 'with all boldness and without hindrance' (28:31). That is the note of triumph on which Luke wanted his story to end. The gospel was thus being preached at Rome, the 'end of the earth' (1:8), 'and without hindrance' (28:31). The reader of Acts already knows that Paul's personal end was not far off; the Lucan Paul intimated as much in his speech at Miletus, and so Luke felt no need to recount it. Homer's Iliad is not seen to be incomplete because it does not describe Achilles' death!" (The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 791-792)

The ending of Acts is part of Luke's narrative plan from the beginning.

But Paul did. Fuck him, he's a faggot.

>My point about the dating of Mark is that that's the only explanation I've ever seen for dating it post-70AD

There are other arguments, but they are hard to articulate to people who haven't studied this stuff. To summarise a few of them:

1) Mark 13:1-2 describes the destruction of the temple with far greater accuracy and specificity than generic discourse on the temple's fall (contrast, e.g., 1 Kgs 9:8; 1 En. 90.28-30; Josephus J.W. 6.300-309).

2) Mark 13:14 seems to refer to Vespasian, despite occasional arguments for the zealot Eleazar or the Emperor Gaius. The citation of the Danielic vision in Mark 13:14 parallels Josephus citation of Daniel's prophecy of the temple's fall in A.J. 10.276.

3) The fact that the various portents enumerated in Mark 13 are prompted by the question in Mark 13:1-2 as to WHEN the temple buildings will fall. In so doing, Mark explicitly encourages the reader to understand everything that follows in light of the temple's fall.

4) This is a more complex argument that isn't always easy to articulate. But Mark 14:57-58 and 15:29 slanderously attribute to Jesus the claim that he will destroy the temple and raise it again in three days. What is striking is that the controversy is over Jesus' role in bringing about the destruction -NOT whether or not the temple will actually fall. This assumes that the temple's fall was not a matter of controversy in Mark's context.

1/2

5) Another complex argument, but Eric Stewart has written a book arguing that Mark configures Jewish space away from the temple and synagogues and instead onto Jesus. Words that were normally used to describe activity related to those sites (e.g., language of gathering, ritualized activities) are relocated onto Jesus. Stewart contends that this is ultimately language of replacement. Though Stewart does not explicitly connect this with Markan dating, its relevance is obvious.

6) The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mark 12) is an obvious allegory regarding the punishment of Jews for their rejection of Jesus. What is interesting is that the parallel in the Gospel of Thomas 65 (which is much more primitive than Mark's) omits any reference to punishment. This suggest the allegorization is part of Markan redaction.

7) The cursing of the fig tree links the notion of an unproductive fig tree and its destruction to an unproductive temple and its (eventual) destruction.

8) The tearing of the temple veil upon Jesus' death assumes some kind of divine causality that portends the entire temple's eventual destruction.

9) There are a few references that only make sense after the Jewish War. For instance the language of legion in Mark 5:1-20 only works after the War, since before the War the military in Palestine and the Decapolis was not legionary. As an analogy, a story wherein a demon named “Spetsnaz” is exorcized from a Crimean denizen should strike the reader as anachronistic in its politics if depicted as occurring in 2010; one would assume the story had been written after the Russian annexation of Crimea in February 2014, in which the aforementioned special forces were active.

2/2

Jesus was not anything near chill

You've never read the bible

I'm As points out Luke has good reasons for leaving out certain details. Don't assume that because author x neglects to mention something, that must mean he didn't know about it or it hadn't happened yet. I think that poster got those sources from earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html - if you scroll down to "Information on the Gospel of Luke" part of the essay addresses your objections to a late dating of Luke-Acts. The lowest boundary accepted by scholars for Luke is 80AD but most likely 90AD

I should also add to that Mark uses Latinisms, which would indicate a Roman provenance. They are almost all technical terms that would be expected any place a garrison of Roman soldiers could be found - they relate mostly to the military, coinage, or measurements. After the Judaean War, many of them are attested in Greek inscriptions and all of them can be found in later rabbinic writings. Many of them tend to be among those most commonly found in non-Latin fluent documents.

Joseph Smith, is that you?

how wasn't he chill? according to the gospels that is

Me again This user is right - Luke is quoting Paul here.

Luke makes extensive use of Mark, which, at the absolute earliest, dates to the mid-sixties. As a rule of thumb, scholars think that it takes about ten years for a text to disseminate and be absorbed after it's written. So you would really struggle to argue for Luke being earlier than the mid 70s.

Luke-Acts also makes use of Josephus writing from the 90s (Antiquities).

Anyway I think that covers it, sorry for the disjointed posts.

>What if, like, God is the bad guy?
You seem to be misinterpreting Marcion's point.
>The Old Testament God and the New Testament God are totally different.
They demonstrably are.
Even if we overlook the fact that the old testament god was just a big merge of multiple Canaanite gods (Judaism was initially polytheistic up until only around 4000 years ago) there is still a very clear difference between the God of the old and the new testaments.
>Jesus never existed.
He probably existed as just another apocalyptic preacher at the time and his mythic status is due to excessive hyperbole and political motivation.
His ministry was likely an offshoot of John the Baptist's cult which in turn was an offshoot of Esseneian Judaism.
>The idea of Jesus was stolen from [pagan god].
Yeah, that's stupid mythicist bullshit.
>The Romans executed Jesus. The Jews had nothing to do with it. They are our greatest ally.
Jesus likely was executed in some fashion. However it's important knowing the trial account in Mark (the earliest gospel) in objectively fictitious.
>>The New Testament is unreliable and not the word of God because it was written forty years after Jesus' death, unlike the Koran which was written a mere thirty years after Muhammed's death.
Why can't both be unreliable and silly to follow?
Also, 40 years? Paul's letters aren't until around 50 years. Mark not until around 70, Matthew, Luke, and Acts not until around 90-100, and John not until sometime after 100 (I need to spend more time learning about John than I have).
>>The Bible was just made up so people with power could control the stupid. We need to ban the Bible to stop these stupid Christian militias from trying to overthrow the government.
The Bible isn't one uniform book and each book within have different motives and purposes.
Some books were for that type of political reason.

Are you seriously trying to imply the the authors much later attributed to the gospels actually wrote them?
None of the gospels (sans John which is the latest Gospel and came a century after therefore is a load of fictitious bullshit) claim to be eyewitness accounts either.

We do not know this and both are objectively false. Stop fucking lying.
The whole GMark was written by Mark is bullshit made up by Papias sometime around 100AD iirc who was notoriously unreliable. It's also not even his own information as he says he was given it by his mentor who likely originally heard that from somebody else as well.
Hell, the original quote doesn't even add up either as Mark is not a memoir, and is a narratively constructed story.

The author of Luke/Acts likely never even met Paul due to how many discrepancies there are with Paul's own theology and words. Not to mention they were written decades after Paul had already died.

Why are you just lying like that? Do you not think you'll be called out on it?

>Refers to gentiles as dogs
>"If any town refuses to listen to your message, they'll suffer the same fate as Sodom"
>Eternal fire for mortals who sin
>Thinking about committing adultery is committing adultery itself
>"I have not come to bring peace, I've come to bring a sword...you shall hate your parents, etc."
Read the fucking book ffs

I'm going to go against the scholarly consensus and say that I don't believe the Q source is actually a thing.
I think we should be looking more at the Farrer hypothesis and trying to build on that.

>unlike the Koran
>to stop these stupid Christian militias from trying to overthrow the government.
Gee, I wonder what kind of propaganda this guy swallows.

You are literally plagiarizing various posts from Reddit's /r/AskBiblical right now and in that very thread there are rebuttals to those posts you've stolen from

>The Old Testament God and the New Testament God are totally different.
They could be. The first brings hideous punishment and death to the enemies of his favorite people, the second does the same as the first but makes the church his new "chosen people" and introduces the concept of eternal fire for those who opposed him as well
>Jesus never existed.
Personally I'd place money he did exist, but the complaints against "the overwhelming evidence" of his existence are valid. None of the anonymous gospel writers met Jesus, and neither did Paul; they can't agree on even critical events in his biography such as his birth, ministry, and heritage. Most of what we have are a large amount of weak second and third hand sources written by people who never met Jesus, who were told these stories by illiterate men who never met Jesus either, who in turn were told these stories by other illiterates who never met him as well. We have James and most of Peter as first hand witnesses, maybe all of Peter is the latter letters aren't forgeries.
>The Romans executed Jesus. The Jews had nothing to do with it. They are our greatest ally.
Jesus was executed for disturbance of the peace, though the Jews also wanted him dead for blasphemy.
>The New Testament is unreliable and not the word of God because it was written forty years after Jesus' death, unlike the Koran which was written a mere thirty years after Muhammed's death.
Both are unreliable

Kek you're right. Maybe it's the other way round though and someone got it from here first

It's just one gay Jew venting.

Do you have your own opinions or are you just going to parrot Bart Erhman all day?

Paul met Jesus after the resurrection.

You are a christian if you confessed with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead.

Just as Paul wrote in Romans 10.

Aye, and the so-called "pillars of the faith" added nothing to Paul whatsoever. They also tried to add some law to what Paul taught, like don't eat strangled meat and such, but Paul just grabbed his letter of recommendation and fled there.

James, seeing Paul sitting at the right hand of Jesus Christ, Whom he never believed was the Messiah until after His resurrection, now knows that Paul was right, and that James' judaizing was harmful to Christianity.

If I posted my own opinions you'd snap back with some stupid fucking reply like "well you're not a Bible scholar like Bart Erhman or Rodney Stark, your opinion should be discarded"

Kill yourself.

Not bad, but no triggers. "Paul never met Jesus" is a trigger.

>Paul met Jesus after the resurrection.
Yeah, cause Paul, being the only one who never knew Jesus, didn't have aaaaany motive to make up a story about how he met Jesus on a road.

>Ebionites

Jews.

Hello gay Jew.

He'll never do that. He hates Paul and Jesus with a fanatical zeal applicable only to people who know they're not Jews because they have

NO TEMPLE
NO HIGH PRIEST
NO ANIMAL SACRIFICES
NO PASSOVERS IN JERUSALEM
NO ATONEMENT
NO HOPE

The annons opinions are pretty mainstream and well established. They are the most likely conclusions reached from looking at the evidence. They are not more controversial than saying that America went to the moon.

I don't get why you are scared of Erman either, he is an accredited scholar and doesn't say anything you wouldn't get in a normal scholarly new testament course or book.

So it's all in your head, and in your blasphemous Jewish imaginings.

Got it.

Exactly.

Never believe liberal scholars.

Believe exactly the opposite of whatever Bart Ehrman says.

Nobody but Paul cared about saving the Gentiles, even when Peter saw the saved at the house of Cornelius, he still didn't believe it. It took the miracles of the Holy Spirit being manifested, or Peter would have been just like James, and just like the Paul Troll Jew: salvation for the Jews only.

James literally said he did not care what anyone taught the Gentiles, and that if the Gentiles wanted to know the truth, they could go to their local synagogue.

>this hate-boner
Did Bart fuck your prom-date in high school or something?

Your information is coming from a less reliable source than the bible.

>circular reasoning is not textual criticism works

Believing Bart Ehrman is not how textual criticism works either.

Is there anything more correct?

All lies.

You're conflating imminent with soon.

But he was the greatest Christian to have ever walked the planet.

Most of Paul's epistles were written from a Roman house wherein he was captive.

These are all lies dude. And they're all about the Temple. Either the Temple, or the temple that is the body of Jesus, which was torn down and rebuilt in three days.

I don't care how smart you are.

These things are spiritually discerned, and spiritually you are a blind fool.

>Luke-Acts also makes use of Josephus writing from the 90s (Antiquities).

Exactly backwards.

You can believe a man who thinks God and Jesus are two separate beings, one God, and one man.

That makes you an heretic and a blasphemer, not wise at all.

Of course they are.

You're the only liar I see in this thread.

I don't see the need for anything hypothetical. We have the real copies of the real autographs, and they have proven to be 99.5% intact.

Kek I agree with all of these.

I don't know about "the idea of Jesus was stolen from [pagan god]" though. I keep hearing he's just like Dionysus or something. Is that not true?