Paul's Writings Underpin Western Thought

[Minimalist]

If only we knew what this "paul" fucker said..... instead of much later copyists and editors.

[Fake Messiah]

Even the forgeries like Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus? Those Christians will find anything divine as long as it's in the Bible.

I agree with the last sentence.
But are you sure about Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus really being forgeries?

Sure I'm sure. For starters check on wikipedia for each of the epistles/ letters and go where the links lead you.

When it comes to Paul being some advanced philosopher, he was not.
For example, St. Paul denigrates literacy, logic, and learning 1 Corinthians 1:20 "Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"

I mean he literally advocates for people to become idiots
1 Corinthians 4:10, "We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are wise in Christ"

1 Corinthians 2:1-2, "I  did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified";
1 Corinthians 3:18-19, "Let no one deceive himself. If any one among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God."

Imagine adhering to a philosophy in which one of its prime propagandists openly advocates becoming a fool.

His other "enlightening" commands include telling people that women don't deserve to teach, have no rights, slaves to worship their owners and married people to live as brother and sister.

[Minimalist]

From Peter Kirby's excellent "Early Christian Writings" site.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2corinthians.html

Second Corinthians is one of the four letters of Paul known as the Hauptbriefe, which are universally accepted to contain authentic Pauline correspondence.
Werner Georg Kummel would like to view the letter to be a whole composed by the apostle Paul on one occasion (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 287-293).
However, there are difficulties that have suggested to several commentators that 2 Corinthians has been compiled from several pieces of correspondence. Since the "sorrowful letter" mentioned in 2:4 does not describe 1 Corinthians, we know that Paul had written at least three letters to the Corinthians. A quite reasonable suggestion is that the last four chapters contain the "sorrowful letter" that is mentioned in 2:4.

So this "authentic" pauline epistle (?!) was actually a mish-mash of a series of letters put together by a later editor into what we have now.  So who is the actual "author?"  The purported paul - who may well be legendary - or the unknown editor who rammed all this bullshit together into one bag?

[Brian37]

Constantine adapted Christianity for political expedience, regardless of his personal beliefs.

Christians composed a very small minority of the Roman populace at the time.  It's hard to see in what sense adopting Christianity would have meaningfully been any kind of political expedient.

For the same reason today in America we have a MINORITY of far right Christians holding the rest of America hostage. He saw something in the tide, not just the religion itself. Personal beliefs aside, it was still tactical.

[Angrboda]

Christians composed a very small minority of the Roman populace at the time.  It's hard to see in what sense adopting Christianity would have meaningfully been any kind of political expedient.

For the same reason today in America we have a MINORITY of far right Christians holding the rest of America hostage. He saw something in the tide, not just the religion itself. Personal beliefs aside, it was still tactical.

Christianity is far from a minority in the U.S. Your contention is just silly. Whether Constantine saw something in any supposed tide or that a minority that is not part and parcel of a larger majority might have influence, you've walked back from assertive claim into the land of speculative and far fetched nonsense.

[Minimalist]

Christians composed a very small minority of the Roman populace at the time.  It's hard to see in what sense adopting Christianity would have meaningfully been any kind of political expedient.

For the same reason today in America we have a MINORITY of far right Christians holding the rest of America hostage. He saw something in the tide, not just the religion itself. Personal beliefs aside, it was still tactical.

There would have been no religious majority in the Empire.  There were too many scattered groups which was the reason for starting the Imperial Cult in the first place.  Mithraism - in the form of the cult of Sol Invictus - would have been predominant in the army and Constantine was obviously a devotee of that cult as well. 

http://www.biblicalartifacts.com/items/1...L-INVICTUS

[size=undefined]This bronze coin showing Sol, the sun god, was minted in small quantities between 313 and 326 AD by Saint Constantine (307-337 CE), the Great—the Roman Emperor known as the "Thirteenth Apostle" in the East.  [/size]

I have to run out now but when I get a moment I'll dig up Professor Candida Moss' discussion of the utility of the Imperial Cult and post it.  It will seem strangely modern given the Orange Fucktard's antics in the White House.

[Brian37]

For the same reason today in America we have a MINORITY of far right Christians holding the rest of America hostage. He saw something in the tide, not just the religion itself. Personal beliefs aside, it was still tactical.

Christianity is far from a minority in the U.S.  Your contention is just silly.  Whether Constantine saw something in any supposed tide or that a minority that is not part and parcel of a larger majority might have influence, you've walked back from assertive claim into the land of speculative and far fetched nonsense.

Then why do so many theists point to Constantine as an important figure to the rise of Christianity?

[Angrboda]

Christianity is far from a minority in the U.S.  Your contention is just silly.  Whether Constantine saw something in any supposed tide or that a minority that is not part and parcel of a larger majority might have influence, you've walked back from assertive claim into the land of speculative and far fetched nonsense.

Then why do so many theists point to Constantine as an important figure to the rise of Christianity?

You mean aside from his conversion and him legalizing Christianity at the time? Jesus Christ Brian.

[Minimalist]

Then why do so many theists point to Constantine as an important figure to the rise of Christianity?

Because they think the fucking church is giving them history.

[Brian37]

Then why do so many theists point to Constantine as an important figure to the rise of Christianity?

You mean aside from his conversion and him legalizing Christianity at the time?  Jesus Christ Brian.

I think you miss the point that countless apologists point to that point in history as when the pagans fell as rulers and when the religion took off. There was nothing to the rise of Christianity other than marketing for it to get as big as it did. Constantine is widely pointed at as the point of when the world changed, according to Christians.

Constantine saw something in it, otherwise why adapt it? Be it genuine or tactical could care less. It could have been both. But back then if you were a king, you still play politics and you still use religion to play politics.