It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Cognitive dissonance theory explains human behavior by positing that people have a bias to seek consonance between their expectations and reality. According to Festinger, people engage in a process he termed "dissonance reduction", which can be achieved in one of three ways: lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors, adding consonant elements, or changing one of the dissonant factors. This bias sheds light on otherwise puzzling, irrational, and even destructive behavior.
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I'm not sure how this disproves the theory I presented. Paul's letters were still written after the crucifixion and Peter's apostleship correct? I don't see how the dating of the epistles has any bearing on the OP.
2 Peter 3:15-16
Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.
I think that the gospels are a later development and that Paul was writing in a sort of theological vacuum, as far as Christian literature goes.
Why was there a need for theological dissertation? That only opens things up to corruption. Jesus said to love God and others as yourself, why is there a need to break that down into a hundred different theologies and ideas? Forgive others to be forgiven, what is hard to understand about that?
Jesus' words were very simple and powerful, there was no need for a middle man such as Paul. Paul said to submit to authority, Jesus never did such a thing, going to his death defending his teachings which the authorities tried to silence. Jesus did not submit to the authorities, otherwise he would have never stirred up so much controversy from the authorities.
1 John 2
6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.
Paul telling us to submit to authority goes against how Jesus lived, so whoever submits to authority does not live as Jesus did.
Jesus went against the status quo, Paul teaches us not to fight it lest we be judged by God's servants the authorities (Romans 13).
I think that the gospels were things that could have been entirely dependent on Paul's writings, or maybe more importantly, what he said that was not written in his surviving letters.
Paul's writings are some of the oldest writings about Christ, and Peter was one of the closest disciples (so close that Jesus trusted him with The Church).
What you are talking about is a fictional character named Paul, in a book that superficially appears to be a sort of history.
Paul wasn't a good guy the whole time though, in fact he was an avid persecutor of Jesus' earliest followers, going as far as to go from temple to temple asking their leaders contact him whenever Christians were near so that he could round them up and eventually kill them.
One "Paul" is a real person, the other isn't.
The Paul in Acts that you say is different from the one who wrote his epistles is the same as me saying the Jesus in Paul's epistles is different from the one in the gospels.
Paul had Jesus "appear" to him, so he knew Jesus in a one on one way.
The Jesus of Paul's epistles has nothing to do with the actual historical Jesus other than a shared name.
13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
1 Corinthians 15
9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
I do read the Bible, like hours a day (I have a blog on biblical Greek that I am constantly adding pages to), so of course I didn't say that Paul didn't persecute Christians.
You say Paul never persecuted Christians yet Paul himself admits to it in his own epistles.
You should look up the word, "rhetoric".
How does one try to "destroy" something by just harassing it . . .