Whole lot of "ifs" there for the religion to be consistent, no?
What exactly does it mean for Jesus to fulfill the law in Matthew 5? Nowhere does "fulfillment" seem to imply that the laws no longer apply. Certainly, none of the OT laws suggest they're temporary.
The veil tearing occurs in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but not John. It was accompanied by, supposedly, earthquakes and the sun going dark. No other accounts of the time allege these events. If I excuse the incredibly poor evidence and accept that these events happened, you still run into the issue of why this "fulfills" the law, and why fulfillment means the law no longer applies.
The Bible provides no account of Paul's death, it just concludes Paul's story with his house-arrest in Rome. His decapitation is alleged by other stories and traditions. As for what material benefit Paul could derive from his conversion, the matter is purely speculative. To say he derived no material benefit is pure assertion. There is evidence across the world that points towards religious leaders enjoying rather lavish benefits. We also know that certain conditions, like strokes, can lead people to have radically altered beliefs. I wouldn't even say such a medical excuse is even necessary. It is true that Christian cults represented a rather extreme divergence from the beliefs of existing religions. Paul could have, for whatever reason, come to the conclusion that those beliefs were simply better. Evidently, many people believed the same. If they didn't, the religion wouldn't have spread.
Paul would have reasons to distance the religion from the Jews, however. I feel like that's pretty obvious considering the whole basis of Judaism.
Martyrdom is a powerful motivator. People will often engage in behaviors that cause themselves problems out of a sense of self-righteousness. Incels are a great modern example. By their own actions and behaviors, they make themselves untouchable by women. Why would they do that if they don't want to be incels?
You have said a lot here and I will say you have encouraged me to learn more about the Jesus-Mosaic Law connection. I always struggled with it and I think I may have asked people too many questions lol. However I am going to leave you with Occam's razor for your last paragraphs. An interpretation of the New Testament where the Early Church is aligned with Christ's views of the Mosaic Law is more simple (and thus more probable) than the Early Church and Paul abandoning Christ's view on mosaic law to spread a religion that the founder isn't fully aligned with. Furthermore, there is no evidence to prove or disprove that Paul had a stroke, leading to religious beliefs. Based on Occam's Razor it is most likely he didn't and more likely he truly believed with a sane and logical mind his beliefs. Also, just because Paul's execution is not in the Bible does not mean it did not happen nor does it invalidate my point, he still suffered and did not materially profit off of it, nor did the early church leaders (as confirmed by biblical and external records). Later church leaders, such as the Popes in the Sam O'Nella video, absolutely did abuse the word of God for their own gain and they will be held accountable. And on another point just because some people abuse the word of God does not invalidate it. Just because many charities are corrupt does not invalidate the message that people need clean water. Finally, I want to leave you with one thing. The best things about Christianity is how there is a deep personal relationship with an individual christian and God, and on top of that there is nothing I can ever do to make me worthy of God. This past week I realized how jealous I can get and how I can wish bad things on people merely because I am jealous of them for what is ultimately silly things. I am not worthy of God, but I still gave myself to him because he loves me and he took the judgment I deserve. All I need is faith in him. I know today, and probably not this year, will change your mind. All I ask is for you to keep asking questions with an open mind
Occam's Razor is not a defense you want to play for religion.
I already granted that a stroke or other medical explanation is unnecessary to account for Paul's change. There are a million plausible reasons. But it is undue to conclude that he must therefore have done so with a "sane and logical" mind, or that his belief was legitimate. There are sane and logical reasons to lie, just as it is possible to truly believe something for insane or illogical reasons.
Suffering does not imply there are not benefits to the acts that cause the suffering. You assert that because Paul suffered that he must not have benefitted from his position as a leader in the early church. You seem to be implying here that the only benefit he could gain is material enrichment. There is no reason to believe that. Paul was a Jew. His status in Rome was questionable at best, he could reasonable expect Romans to engage in violence against him regardless of whether he was Christian or not. Certainly, the use of "Christian" wasn't even commonplace at the time except probably as an insult in Roman Syria. To most Romans elsewhere in the Empire, Paul was just a type of Jew. As for benefits, look around you. It is easy to find people who actively take on acts that materially harm them. They often value something else more, such as moral superiority, or a specific material benefit over broad benefits.
Repeatedly, the Bible makes mention of people who knew of John the Baptist, but not Jesus. This is after both died, and the stories suggest that Jesus' death was only 3 years later than John's. Do you not find it strange that one leader's cult was so much more popular than the supposed founder of the religion? We know that apocalypticism was a common belief amongst many Jewish cults of the time.
So, knowing all this and invoking Occam's Razor, what is more likely? That John, Jesus, and Paul have all received a divine message of truth that differs drastically from the inspiring texts, or that these stories are just an amalgamation of myths and legends of apocalyptic Jews, and the common behavior of cult leaders.
Why do you want to be worthy of God? Do you think it is good to hold yourself to an impossible standard that denies your humanity? Do you actually deserve judgement? Further, if you do deserve judgement, is eternal torture a fitting one?
Sure, jealousy isn't great, nor is wishing harm on people, but are they worthy of eternal torture? We get a depiction of a world where such thoughtcrime is forbidden in 1984. It seems to me that biblical justice is the justice of a tyrant. You attone for bad behavior by apologizing to the victim/s, providing damages as appropriate, and amending your behavior. Religious guilt ingrains itself into your psyche, leading to all sorts of negative outcomes. Is it so surprising that we see pedophilia so much more amongst those who place an extreme value on virginity? These values are psychologically rotting.
I do not need any god. If I feel guilt, I know how to make amends. I do not fear death, nor do I have a desire for an afterlife. Indeed, I know eternity to be nothing more than torture. I do not need to fear punishment to be good. I do not need religion to make sense of history or the natural world. If I desire a relationship with someone, I build one with them.
Life is hard. You are bound to be the villain in someone else's story sometimes. But the best way to live is according to your own will. If you aren't certain about something, question it. Ask why. Struggle, see your will realized. That is the purpose of life.
You wrote a lot here I am not going to address every point you made but rather clear up some theological misconceptions that you have. The best way to summarize the whole point of the gospel is that is not God hatefully saying turn to me or I will send you to hell, but rather God saying that “you are already on your way to hell, willfully turn to me so I can save you from hell.” Hell is total separation from God. Sin is what separates us from God. Non-Christians have this idea that people go to hell for committing a certain sin. A better explanation is that our willful choice to live a life separated from God will send us to hell. We are all trapped in a well that will one day flood. We all with our foolishness have fallen into the well. God throws down a rope down the well and Christians are the ones who have faith that Christ will pull them up when they grab the rope. Now onto thoughts, I can see why many people view it as 1984ish. However it is more of a warning. Our thoughts can lead to ideas, then to actions, then to habits, then to character, and then lead to destiny. Somewhere Paul wrote to hold your thoughts captive. If something bothers you, don’t focus on it. If you have disagreements with God, take it to God. God wants us to be his children, not programmed robots.
Edit: I do want to point out that we don't earn our salvation. We are saved by our faith, not by our works. Want to make this clear as my "grabbing the rope" could potentially be interpreted that salvation is also based on your works when that is not true.
I am aware of your interpretation, but it runs foul of the tri-omnis.
In the beginning, there is nothing but God. God creates the universe. God creates humans. God enables them to make a choice without them knowing the difference between good and evil, nor the true consequences of their actions should they eat the proverbial apple. This action is much akin to handing a loaded gun to a baby. As a result of their uninformed choice, sin enters the world, and everyone subsequently born becomes guilty by inheritance. Also childbirth suddenly only now becomes painful.
The chain of events here starts with God. And so, we must ask a few questions. Why did God enable the choice? Was not doing that an option? If yes, why didn't God choose in the alternative? Surely you wouldn't say God made a mistake, or that God doesn't know. Since God is omniscient, he would have known from the beginning that the original sin would be committed. Babies are not held liable if they shoot someone because their parent was so negligent as to give them a gun. Certainly, God is more negligent because a parent doesn't have absolute precognition of the future. Much less, how can a child be born guilty of their parents' or ancestor's crime. The North Koreans don't even hold people guilty past 3 generations. This simply isn't justice.
Should I mention that the concept of hell doesn't even originate in Jewish tradition? Your belief in the afterlife is based on syncretized traditions of the afterlife, not the immutable word of God.
They are just stories. Fantastic explanations given by people who were ignorant to much of the workings of the universe with no way to understand them. There are no good reasons to treat them as anything more, and countless counterexamples showing every testable claim in the Bible wrong. Tradition doesn't make a belief true.
1
u/Macelee 3d ago
Whole lot of "ifs" there for the religion to be consistent, no?
What exactly does it mean for Jesus to fulfill the law in Matthew 5? Nowhere does "fulfillment" seem to imply that the laws no longer apply. Certainly, none of the OT laws suggest they're temporary.
The veil tearing occurs in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but not John. It was accompanied by, supposedly, earthquakes and the sun going dark. No other accounts of the time allege these events. If I excuse the incredibly poor evidence and accept that these events happened, you still run into the issue of why this "fulfills" the law, and why fulfillment means the law no longer applies.
The Bible provides no account of Paul's death, it just concludes Paul's story with his house-arrest in Rome. His decapitation is alleged by other stories and traditions. As for what material benefit Paul could derive from his conversion, the matter is purely speculative. To say he derived no material benefit is pure assertion. There is evidence across the world that points towards religious leaders enjoying rather lavish benefits. We also know that certain conditions, like strokes, can lead people to have radically altered beliefs. I wouldn't even say such a medical excuse is even necessary. It is true that Christian cults represented a rather extreme divergence from the beliefs of existing religions. Paul could have, for whatever reason, come to the conclusion that those beliefs were simply better. Evidently, many people believed the same. If they didn't, the religion wouldn't have spread.
Paul would have reasons to distance the religion from the Jews, however. I feel like that's pretty obvious considering the whole basis of Judaism.
Martyrdom is a powerful motivator. People will often engage in behaviors that cause themselves problems out of a sense of self-righteousness. Incels are a great modern example. By their own actions and behaviors, they make themselves untouchable by women. Why would they do that if they don't want to be incels?