this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2026
550 points (94.8% liked)

me_irl

7779 readers
3118 users here now

All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheFresh16@lemmy.world 24 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

Also Paul never even met Jesus, yet speaks as if he did.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 hours ago

He must've gotten tired of persecuting christ-followers so he decided to make up a story about his conversion experience in order to co-opt the movement, claim and assert his authority over it, and instill it with Roman-style systems of patriarchal morality...

[–] QuantumSparkles@sh.itjust.works 15 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Well within Christian canon, he essentially met Jesus’ spirit many years after he had died. But obviously that only works if you actually believe in the supernatural aspects of it

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 hours ago

You can even believe the supernatural aspects of it and think Paul specifically was full of shit.

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 8 points 15 hours ago

Paul is fanboying about Jesus and it became canon

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online -2 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

That semantic is kind of like saying a page in the Narnia books was faked. Of course it was, it was all faked. The important thing is that some believe in it and that the different opinions of different authors get sorted as canon and noncanon by the various churches.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Eh, I think you're undercutting your own point here. Paul was a real guy, and actually wrote stuff. A page in a Narnia book very much can be fake, if it was written by someone other than Lewis Carrol but attributed to him. Likewise, if a writing attributed to Paul was not actually written by Paul, it's a fake.

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

There actually isn't a whole lot of evidence that Paul existed outside of the old copies of the new testament.

There also is no one true copy of the bible, no one true church.

So unless historical evidence such as preserved letters or records from ancient Rome resurface, everything about Paul from start to finish in the bible is equally legitimate; it's not really.

I think if I have to spell out my previous example more in-depth, you can't point to Aslan talking about the old magics as him lying, as the book it's mentioned in treats it as canonical fact in a work of fiction.