The original Christianity is not what is in the Bible

[Beta Ray Bill]

I say that Christianity started out as a simple concept, just as any cult does, and expanded and changed as people thought of new ways to make it more exotic and attractive. Let me explain.

The first books of the New Testament that were written were Paul's letters (Galatians, Thessalonians, etc.) and they were written mostly in the 50's and 60's. Now take note, Paul does mention the resurrection of Jesus, but nowhere does he make any kind of mention of the virgin birth or any of Jesus' miracles. Christians will get nitpicky about this fact, and warp the meanings of vague comments to say "that's what Paul meant" but they're just grasping at straws.

Now, many Christians defend this problem by saying things like "it wasn't in Paul's plans to talk about those things, he was busy spreading the word of Jesus in other ways." Do you really expect us to believe that something as miraculous as a virgin birth and the performance of divinity-proving miracles were just "not on the menu?" That is just stupid. If my savior had done these things, damn straight I'd be telling people about them! According to Paul, Jesus just did one thing, the resurrection. Wasn't he a bit more god-like than that? Lots of people are raised from the dead in the Bible. It's not that unusual of a miracle.

Around the year 70, the first Gospel was written, the one by Mark. Funny how it makes no mention of the virgin birth, but wait! It does mention the miracles that Paul just didn't feel like revealing! Well, it looks like Christianity is getting a little spiced up! Then it gets a big boost in the 80's with the Gospel of Matthew. Now the virgin birth is added, but it is filled with factual errors (such as Herod ordering a census and infant genocide).

And so on an so on. These things weren't written until at least 20 years after Jesus' death, the Gospels waiting 40 years to come. It is more than obvious that as time went on, early Christians just kept adding to the story of Jesus. The Gospels started out portraying Jesus as a servant of man, but by the time of John's Gospel, Jesus had become God himself.

How did Jesus correctly predict the destruction of the Temple in 69 CE? Well, because the Gospels were written after that, and the prediction is just the Gospel-writers using hindsight to trick us. If you still say that Jesus made a prediction that came true, then explain why his prediction of returning to our world in the lifetimes of his disciples never came true. And he predicted that a lot.

You may say that Paul mentions the resurrection, so that is obviously true, but if it is, why are all four accounts of the resurrection different from one another? Read them. They all contradict each other on the people who first saw Jesus, and how Jesus revealed himself.

Anyways, it's just obvious to an un-biased mind that the writings suspiciously changed Christianity as time went on, and therefore, cannot be true.

[Drich]

Do you know the difference between and evangelist and a theologian?

How would you identify Paul?

[Captain Colostomy]

Do you know the difference between and evangelist and a theologian?

Sure. A theologian, like an author-chef, makes sure shit pies have tasty directions, while an evangelist is more concerned with the selling of the finished product. Either case, both are their own best customers and are equally full of shit.

Please watch the movie The Help for further clarification.

[Drich]

Do you know the difference between and evangelist and a theologian?

Sure. A theologian, like an author-chef, makes sure shit pies have tasty directions, while an evangelist is more concerned with the selling of the finished product. Either case, both are their own best customers and are equally full of shit.

Please watch the movie The Help for further clarification.

So no, You do not know the difference?

[Bad Writer]

Please explain why his analogy was incorrect.

[Drich]

Please explain why his analogy was incorrect.

An envanglist teaches the Gospel, which centers around the four Gospels (which is why they call Mat, Mark Luke and John) the Gospels. The Gospels like the book focous on the life, and sacrifice of Christ.
(Paul identifies this as the 'milk' of the word in 1 cor 3)
Milk as in sustinance or noruishment for those who are beginning their walk with God.

A Theologian in the case of Paul sets the 'rules' or guidlines/doctrine on how members of said religion take their faith and apply it to their daily lives.

In 1cor 3 Paul tells the Corinithians that up to that point (Where/when he wrote the first letter to them that becomes the book of 1 corthinians) He had only taught the the milk of the word or rather the Gospel. That from that point on he would be teaching the 'meat' of the word.

How do we know Paul taught the gospels? Because if he did not first 'seed' a church by evanglizing, then to whom would he have written his letters to?

Paul was the Apstole to the Gentiles, and all of the areas he visited and wrote to were gentile cities. the other apstoles primarly focoused on the Jew converts in Jewish cities.

So Paul was both an evangelist, in that he went to a city, introduced Christianity and established a Chruch, and then later a Theologian/Father of several Chrurches in order to maintain and help those who have accepted the Gospel continue to grow in their faiths. So why wasn't there any writtings from Paul on the gospels? Because who would read them, if he himself were there to set up and preach the gospel? Once the church had been established, he left one of his disciples incharge of a body of believers (that is what the letters were to timothy/Instruction and encouragement.) It was to men like Timothy the letters to galitia, Corinth, ephesus, and Rome were written. (In other words why would he need to repeat the milk/gospel to men he left in charge of the Christian Chruch in a given area.)

[Captain Colostomy]

...and yet again Drich bakes another pie.

[Bad Writer]

I still fail to see the problem. No one is misunderstanding evangelism or what it is to be a theologian. You've set up a distraction from the main point of this thread.

[Captain Colostomy]

I guess my smart ass way of defining shit is an affront to Drich's dumbass way of defining shit. At least mine mostly follows the text book. No blatant usurpation of terms for me!

[Drich]

I still fail to see the problem. No one is misunderstanding evangelism or what it is to be a theologian. You've set up a distraction from the main point of this thread.

This is not a distraction. My work here completely resolves the issue being brought up bythe OP.

The OP main point is that Paul did not write anything to confirm the gospels.

I point out that only an evanglist preaches the Gospel.
I also established that All of Paul's evanglism took place one on one with the people he Spoke with in the areas he established his Churches. (The churches he later writes to that become books of the bible)

Then I conclude that there would be no reason to write down an evangelical message, as the letters he did write were to his diciples he left incharge of a given region's congergation. (They themselves as a leader of a church had to be evangelists in their own right, and would not need Paul to reteach them the gospel.) That is why all of His writting to these various churches were from a theological stand point rather than an evangelical stand point. (Why his letters address day to day life as an established Christian rather than preaching a message of conversion To Christianity.) This is what he identifies as Milk (the gospel) and Meat (The day to day living as a Christian.)