Here lies Paul the Apostle, the lying Jew Pharisee, in his tomb, still waiting for Jesus to return with a trumpet call and resurrect him after 2,000 years. He lead billions with false hope to their demise. Sad.

>>17813719 (OP)
>Here lies Paul the Apostle, the lying Jew Pharisee, in his tomb, still waiting for Jesus to return with a trumpet call and resurrect him after 2,000 years. He lead billions with false hope to their demise. Sad.

TMD

>>17813746
I'm a white Atheist

>modern christians base their life and soul on the teachings of a former pharisee who admits he has a demonic entity

>>17813761
Oh, soon to be extinct, opinion discarded.

>>17813781
"SOON"

>>17813719 (OP)
Those flames just got hotter. Tick tock!

>>17814144
The flames of Hades in Greek mythology?

>>17814245
Hotter still. Tick tock!

>>17814299
Fuck off nobody believes you and this idea that THA UNBELEEEVERS AR GONNA GO TO HULL is so gay oh what I don't believe in jeeebsus I will burn but why? What happens if I dont believe? Is your god so fragile that he NEEDS my affirmation or else he's gonna die? Fucking gay. He needs me a random human to believe in him?

>>17813719 (OP)
well moooooslimes fuck goats so there is that

>>17813719 (OP)
Considering Paul supposedly said "Flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God" and "For we know that, if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."* I wonder if the historical Paul really believed in a physical resurrection of human bodies.

The more I look into it, the more persuaded I am that it's possible that, even as the gospels were being written, Christianity was caught between a Jewish-supremacist apocalyptic messianic cult expecting a near-term end of the world and something thoroughly Gnostic, universalist, and perhaps not so short-term apocalyptic ("My Kingdom is not of this world."). And the two sides were having an editing war with each other's texts like that childhood fist-stacking game, with each side trying to incorporate the writings and ideas of the other but modifying them and adding to them so that their own side seems to come out ahead. (Until a government, hierarchy, and stability-loving group got in on the editing war toward the end, resulting in passages like Romans 13:1-6 and all the pro-slavery, anti-women stuff)

*This is curiously well-matched with what Jesus is said to have said in Mark 14:58, “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’ ” but which, in Mathew's later version of the story, gets simplified down to, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.’ ”

>inb4 the Christian "every apparent discrepancy can be 100% reconciled" mafia appears.
Yes, I know, and maybe you're right, but I still think there's an enormous amount of interesting stuff to notice if you're open to the possibility that apparent disagreements represent actual disagreements, either between authors or between an author and a later interpolator.

>>17814827
And I think Matthew can also be seen to have a greater Jewish supremecist motive than Mark, since, in the story of the woman who accepts being called a dog, Matthew adds "I have come only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" which is absent in Mark, and, during the temple incident, where in Mark Jesus says "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations," quoting Isaiah 56:7, Matthew just happens to cut out the "for all the nations" part of the quote. (Though so does Luke)

And I believe many people have seen in the bread multiplying stories on either side of the story of the woman who accepts being called a dog, IIRC one in a Jewish area and one in a mixed area, one involving the thoroughly Jewish numbers 5 and 12 and the other involving more universalist numbers 4 and 7, a subtly but thoroughly pro-gentile message being conveyed symbolically. Given that, I wonder if the original writer would really have framed it around a story that seems to overtly communicate the opposite, that gentiles are dogs in comparison to Jews. Maybe, maybe not.

>>17814829
And now having given some nod to Matthew (at least perhaps one earlier version of it) being on what I'm calling the "Jewish supremacist apocalyptic messianic cult" side, perhapse opposed to Paul or one version of Paul (see also Matthew's Jesus saying "not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord vs. Paul saying "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved), I think it's possible that the main passage in the "authentic" letters of Paul where he seems to describe a rapture, 1 Thessalonians 4-5 might somehow be an addition. For one thing, he refers to the day of the Lord coming like a thief, a word Jesus also uses in describing apocalyptic expectation in Matthew 24:43, which does not occur in Mark. So I wonder if this idea originates from Matthew's side and was inserted into Paul's letter by someone on Matthew's side.

>>17814827
>>17814829
>>17814844
Are you familiar with Nietzsche's interpretation of the Evangelium?

>>17814947
No, I haven't gotten around to reading any Nietzsche at all yet. QRD if you think it's relevant?

>>17814947
No. But I'm a big fan of Nietzsche.

Enlighten us.

A quick google told me that Nietzsche thought Paul corrupted Christianity by introducing hell and original sin and all the other unlikable nonsense, which is not what I think, though I can see how someone would come to that conclusion just from reading the incredibly aggressive start of Romans (which I think is an interpolation—whoever put the Bible in its current order wanted their ideas front and center, hence Matthew (the most hellfire-obsessed gospel) as the first gospel and Romans as the first of Paul's letters, with the angry sermon right at the start of it.

Instead, to put my cards on the table, I'm partial to a mythicist view about Jesus, and I think Paul is the one who introduced many of the "profound" ideas, though his letters have been turned into a collage by his opponents, thoroughly mixed with ideas that aren't his, and who knows if anything important has been permanently lost.

I don't think it happened out of nowhere that the early heretic Marcion came to believe that the gospel, including all of Paul's letters he could get his hands on, originated from someone who believed in a God totally incompatible with the God of the Old Testament.

A quick google told me that Nietzsche thought Paul corrupted Christianity by introducing hell and original sin and all the other unlikable nonsense, which is not what I think, though I can see how someone would come to that conclusion just from reading the incredibly aggressive start of Romans (which I think is an interpolation—whoever put the Bible in its current order wanted their ideas front and center, hence Matthew (the most hellfire-obsessed gospel) as the first gospel and Romans as the first of Paul's letters, with the angry sermon right at the start of it.

Instead, I don't think it happened out of nowhere that the early heretic Marcion came to believe that the gospel, including all of Paul's letters he could get his hands on, originated from someone who believed in a God totally incompatible with the God of the Old Testament.

>>17814683
>I will burn but why?
Because of the hundreds of hours of tranny porn you have consumed, for starters.

>>17815043
The way I think it went is that in the beginning there was a large movement of Jews who wanted an apocalyptic Jewish-supremacist messiah who would burn their enemies, and what they got was a non-apocalyptic, non-Jewish-supremacist who another group of Jews began saying was the messiah. But the first group of Jews didn't like that, so they rewrote much of the story to better fit their preferred idea of the messiah. And even as the strange second messiah's message began spreading among the gentiles, the first group of Jews did their best to remake him in their preferred messiah's image so that eventually the gentiles who had grown attached to the second strange messiah would end up worshipping their Jewish apocalyptic messiah in his place.

>>17815136
And eventually they reached a level of compromise that became orthodoxy.

>>17815136
Or possibly the apocalyptic element was present on both sides in some form, though a lot of details about it may have been very different.

>>17814968
In short, he speculates that the Historical Person of Jesus Christ has been thoroughly falsified through the gospels by later Christians speaking through him. Inverted, almost. The preacher of the fields, mount, and sea-shore is turned into master ironist and theologian. A man whose only performed miracle was the gospel he spoke of become an excorcist and wonder-worker.
In his mind, the Evangelium of Jesus was a way of living. A way for all men to be sons of God. A way to live in bliss and paradise.
>>17814972
They're in the Anti-Christ, unless I'm misreading him (very possible).
>>17815043
Well, for Nietzsche the corruption began the moment Christ was crucified. The disciples misunderstood him. And where horrified by his death on the cross, they started to search for cause, for culprits.

The way Nietzsche thought was that Paul was lying for his own benefit and power: of course he would invent a totally different God from the God of the Jews or of the Disciples, that's thew point.

>>17815217
>Paul was lying for his own benefit and power
There's enough overlap between Paul's ideas and the ideas of the oldest gospel available to us, Mark, to the point where mythicists can even argue that Mark was constructed in large part out of the letters and life of Paul, (And Mark depicts the main disciples as having such a poor understandng of Jesus perhaps specifically because he so enthusiastically favors Paul's ideas, though tradition would lead you far away from that suspicion by suggesting that Mark was instead written by a companion and interpreter of Peter) that I don't think Paul can be accused of corrupting any Jesus that we're familiar with. Rather, as said, I think the corruption began to happen after the gospel spread among the gentiles, and the corruption included corruption of Paul's letters as well the stories of Jesus.
>of course he would invent a totally different God from the God of the Jews or of the Disciples, that's the point
Or it could be that Paul's mystical experiences which he alludes genuinely gave him an idea of a God who was very different from the Jewish god. Supposedly he got thrown in jail around seven times, was beaten,was stoned but survived, and was eventually martyred for whatever he was preaching (As was Peter, who seems to have been somewhere awkwardly between Paul's views and the fully Jewish view). So I don't know where Nietzche is getting this benefit and power Paul was enjoying.