this post was submitted on 23 May 2025
772 points (97.8% liked)
Microblog Memes
7681 readers
2109 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think you're getting your timeline mixed up. Paul converted to Christianity some time after Jesus died and quickly became a leader in the early church due to his prolific letter writing, with letters on all aspects of Christian life. Many of these letters (and a few that modern scholars believe are from people pretending to be Paul) ended up getting included into the New Testament as scripture because they were so popular and influential on early Christianity. However, these did not invent Christianity. All of these letters are to Christian communities that already existed in Paul's own time, and a few of them mention how he used to persecute Christians because he was a hardcore Jew and thought they were corrupting Judaism.
All of the apostles saw Jesus. That's what makes them apostles. I think your timeline is off. Paul was there after the crucifixion and witnessed the ascension. He was also a disciple, which means he followed Jesus when he was alive. (Judas is the only disciple who's not an apostle)
"Jesus called him "Saul, Saul"[38] in "the Hebrew tongue" in the Acts of the Apostles, when he had the vision which led to his conversion on the road to Damascus.[39]"
They met on a road.
After Jesus died, he traveled to Rome to spread the word, where he was beheaded. I believe that's also where Peter died by inverted crucifixion.
At least that's the biblical canon.
This is a level of stupidity and confident wrongness that I haven't seen in some time. I would say this is a ChatGPT disaster but even ChatGPT isn't this stupid. The incident on the road to Damascus was a description of a vision after Jesus's death. Neither Acts, nor any of the gospels mention Paul in the ascension story, and none of Paul's letters mention him knowing Jesus during his earthly life, witnessing the crucifixion, or the ascension.
Read Acts and tell me where Paul is before Chapter 8.
https://www.bible.com/bible/2016/ACT.1.NRSV
What about a search in the Bible for "Saul?" Hmmm nothing in Acts or the Gospels before Acts 8? Fascinating.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=NRSVUE&quicksearch=saul&startnumber=1&resultspp=250
What about a search for "Paul?"
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=paul&resultspp=250&version=NRSVUE
I mean, ultimately you're both basically arguing over Star Wars about whether Han shot first or second. Its several non-fictional people tied together with a fictional story to push an agenda of control.
No, it's more like arguing whether Han Solo was in the prequels or not. Easily verifiable to anyone who isn't mentally challenged
You do realize the historicity of Paul is pretty robust and the common consensus amongst historians is Jesus was also a real person. Him being a real person doesn't mean he was a Messiah or had magical powers. But just deciding that anyone who was involved with the foundation of a religion didn't exist means you are founding your views on feelings instead of actual information.
That is not what they are saying. It is perfectly valid to say that there are zero contemporary primary sources to confirm the existence of Jesus. Historians have come to the consensus that he most likely existed, on account of the influence stemming from later sources, but they all also know there are no contemporary sources, so that consensus is based on circumstantial evidence.
The historicity of Paul is not robust, it is definitely better sourced than Jesus, but that historicity stems from himself, and as we cannot take his supernatural religous experiences for fact (he can very well have believed them as fact, but we know that they cannot have happened in objective reality like that), he is not exactly the most reliable witness in the first place.
As I said, non-fictional people tied together with a fictional story.
Deciding that I said one thing, when simply looking up and seeing I didn't say it means you are founding your reply on feelings instead of actual information.
I know, it's like they don't know the lore?
I my experience, Christians don't know their own Bible and rarely, if ever, crack it open without someone telling them to, usually during a service.
Nah, for real. He was also king of the jews. He was also called Al.