Istvan Nagy

Unverified and unsubstantiated legend has it, Paul “invented” the cult of Christianity …a man who never knew Christ and was a staunch opponent of Jesus’s followers. The entire doctrine is a huge lie: an incoherent, confused mess. The central contradiction at the heart of Christianity’s historical development is that Paul the Apostle (a man who almost certainly never met Jesus Christ during his lifetime, was not among his disciples, and originally persecuted his followers) became the dominant architect of the religion that would later bear Jesus’s name. While Jesus appears in the Gospels primarily as a Jewish apocalyptic teacher focused on ethics, repentance, and the coming Kingdom of God, Paul transformed the movement into a universal theology of salvation centered on sin, faith, resurrection, and mystical union with Christ. Paul’s authority rested not on firsthand experience with the historical Jesus, but on a private visionary revelation that could not be independently verified. Yet his interpretations ultimately overshadowed those of Jesus’s own companions. This creates a profound historical and philosophical tension: Christianity’s global theological framework was shaped less by the direct teachings of Jesus than by the metaphysical interpretations of a later convert claiming divine insight…

===============

(My rebuttal)

Honestly, you are gaslighting. It's a theory you have that has no real substantiation to it. I am Roman Catholic. Jesus on the cross rejects everything your argument's main objective. Which is to debunk what being sacrificed (dying on the cross) symbolizes. I have no idea why. What's your master thesis here trying to prove. There is why I think - pointless. You cannot make these half baked claims and dismiss 2000 years of the Eucharist. The conclusion to your argument holds no water. That a 'theological framework' was meant to entrap civilization. Only because Paul was lying through his use of metaphysical anomalies. Tell me. That makes sense? Not to my source as faith in the cross. i.e. Jesus himself

I am willing to bet you find this argument of mine as irrelevant. Therefore, at worst we are equals. At best, your argument stands alone on some better rejection of Christianity. I suppose.

To say Paul is not an important figure in the liturgy of faith is a misnomer. I think your argument is saying there has been made, some master plot that is irrefutable to Christianity is simply unorthodox as itself. Maybe my signals are getting crossed with yours. . . but I understand why you say it.

If I have graded your argument correctly or incorrectly? If I put myself in the shoes of an academic, your argument is philosophically accurate. But is fallacious = in everything I think as not rooted sound in truth.

You get a grade that you like, I just don't find the argument accurately postulated for these reasons.

- Marco