Oh, for gods’ sake: The Three Stooges.

Peter, James and Paul.

If Peter was who they say he was, and James was who they say he was, and Paul was who they say he was …

why would the character, Jesus of Nazareth have commanded/allowed a likely epileptic through a supposed vision to usurp his Number One Go To Guy, Peter, and his supposed flesh and blood brother and successor, James the Just to spread his supposed word thus leaving the Jerusalem Church to flounder and ย eventually, after the war, die out?

The oft quoted line from CS Lewis: Liar, Lunatic or Lord we know cleverly omits the word Legend.

However, with Paul, whoever he ย was, the title Liar seems a very suitable epithet indeed.





84 thoughts on “Oh, for gods’ sake: The Three Stooges.

  1. Because da lord works in mysterious way? A thought I had while reading your OP: Had Jesus and Paul actually met, and Paul experienced a seizure in front of Jesus, the illiterate desert guru would have likely performed an exorcism on Paul.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. This post is actually an extension of thought after my recent dialogue with Mel. Let me ask you, Victoria, If one claims to be a Follower of Jesus and denies they are actually simply following Paul’s interpretation of Christianity, are they in effect rejecting Paul as the Apostles did? (Bearing in mind that regard pretty much all of it a not so clever work of fiction)

      Liked by 2 people

          1. Yes but it doesn’t seem to matter. And if it does matter one is often told “You’re not God. By and by you will be enlightened and then understand but for now, stop trying to understand. Have faith. Or one is told, we have all eternity to hear about the contradictions. Heaven will smooth it all out. For now, pray, give, serve, worship, study, obey and the beat goes on.

            Liked by 3 people

            1. Back in the day, Zoe, you obviously read the bible fastidiously, so now that you can look back, how did you reconcile that Jesus’s brother, James was effectively sidelined by the church in favour of Paul?

              Liked by 1 person

              1. Never did or could reconcile it Ark. When it comes to Paul, I was a bit of a thorn in the sides of people in the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches I attended. I never got straight answers to any of my questions. I use to call it Paulianity and I’d say things out loud like, ‘this isn’t Christianity, it’s Paulianity.’ Or I’d say, ‘we spend all this time talking about what Paul said and nothing about what Jesus said.’

                Liked by 3 people

                1. We’re on the same wavelength, Zoe. ๐Ÿ™‚ Yeshua came for the Jews. Paul brought in the gentiles … which is what every believer today is (except converted Jews) and as such, they are actually followerers of Paul, whether they like to admit it or not.

                  Liked by 5 people

            1. Oh, I agree. The lengths some people will got to … look at our resident flat-earth Mangy Lion.
              But every bit of info adds to the mix and rather than vindicating Christianity exposes it as the” poppycock” it truly is.
              I wonder what someone like Mel would say? ๐Ÿ˜‰

              Liked by 1 person

              1. I regard him like the mad uncle in the basement. I allow him the opportunity to express himself in the hope that another Christian has the courage to acknowledge he is completely nuts!

                Liked by 1 person

          1. @Colorstorm

            The so called believers who think Paul was an โ€˜imposterโ€™ are almost more deluded than you.

            What about the Apostles in the biblical tale? Were they impostors too, CS?

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Ah ark, finally a question worthy of serious consideration.

              Indeed hearing of one who was once ‘an enemy of the gospel,’ would concern anybody. But they soon gave the right hand of fellowship. The ‘many things’ that the Lord promised to unfold came courtesy of Paul through a rejected Head, and the apostles would have been fools not to recognize such ‘things.’

              Time is a great healer of wounds, and the epistles of Paul as well as his unequalled passion for the gospel needed no defense. He became in fact, another pillar of the faith.

              From Saul of Tarsus to Paul the apostle is a tale worth unfolding. ๐Ÿ˜‰


              1. Okay, if we put aside the rhetorical bumph for a moment.
                Please explain why they, James the Just etc), maintained the Jerusalem Church and the Ebionite version of the faith rather than Saul’s example and all become Pauline Christians?


                1. News alert:

                  There is no such thing as a Pauline Christian. A Christian is a follower of Christ. Paul is ancillary.

                  Paul himself said: ‘were you baptized in the name of Paul?’ The biting sarcasm of the question settles many an issue.

                  I would add: Were you baptized in the name of Peter, James, John, Luther, Edwards, Mary, Moody, McIntosh, Grant?

                  People change their minds having more information, but truth does not change. Ignorance and negligence are differing tools.

                  Even the apostle Peter recognized Paul’s ministry as different than his and completely consistent with scripture, new and old.. Same truths, just different fields of operation.


    1. What’s your take on the fact the Apostles rejected him and today’s Christians apparently seem to ignore this fact?
      They can’t be ignorant of it, surely?


      1. Well, never doubt the ability of people to not know things Ark. In truth I did not know of this. But I was never a real in the church believing christian. I went for the social safety. It kept me in boarding school. I don’t feel bad about the deception as they did not seem to mind the deception they were putting on everyone themselves. Hugs

        Liked by 3 people

          1. Not really. In fact he told his followers to stay away from the gentiles (don’t have the chapter and verse at hand) … which is why many today say Christians are actually followers of Paul, not Yeshua.

            Liked by 3 people

            1. In that case, how would you respond to your ”friend”, (sic) Mel comment on a recent thread.

              The purpose of all the Law and the Prophets (including every jot and tittle) is subsumed in other-centered, self-giving love. This is what Jesus taught (Matt.22:37-40). This is what Paul taught.
              โ€“ There is NO SUCH THING as Paulโ€™s message and Jesusโ€™ message. They are one and the same. Jesus told us that He would come to make His home in us, Paul said the SAME THING

              I have to turn in.
              I’ll respond tomorrow.
              Night all …

              Liked by 2 people

        1. Yeshua’s followers would have been overtaken and force folded into the flock, if they wanted it or not. I have a feeling that it is a rather new thing for religions to ask you to join. I think before they gave you a choice, the correct god, or death. Church memberships drives in the old days seem more like military campaigns to me. Hugs

          Liked by 2 people

      1. Ark the letter of Paul to the Galatians holds some important clues as to the battles between Paul and Peter/James. Peter/James were in essence saying that for gentiles to become Christians they had to become Jews (which included a painful piece of personal surgery) whereas Paul said they did not need to do any of that. Is it little wonder that Paul’s version proved more attractive and prevailed amongst gentiles.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. Careful there pete. You just said ‘historical.’ The host here must be steaming that one of his own kin is agreeing with the narrative of scripture as verifiable, accurate, and true.

          Or are you mike? Or nick? Or Ralph? Truth be told, one can’t be too sure with all the sock puppets……..

          Why don’t you get your own blog, and deal with the naysayers……….


          1. @ ColorStorm. When you end this life do you feel that you will be judged by your deity? If the answer is yes, do you believe your deity will hold you accountable for how you treated others when alive? What kind of conduct does your deity require you to observe when dealing with others? Do you think being rude to others regardless of how they treat you is behavior your deity would approve of? Thanks. Hugs

            Liked by 2 people

            1. My ‘Deity’ is your Deity Scott.

              You can cry, and deny all you want, but rest assured, since it is His creation, the Judge of all the earth will do right.

              And what you call ‘conduct’ that does not meet your approval, I may add, you are in no position to adjudicate.

              Just read the comments of your friends, and consider your own, as well as the absolutes of scripture that you ignore and find revolting.

              Need an example? Sure. Marriage. Can a husband have a husband or a wife have a wife?

              I’ll just ignore the silence of your friends here as well.


              1. @ColorStorm. Sad. You were unable to simply answer the question. You had to add so much unnecessary fillers to make yourself feel good. I said nothing either approving or disapproving of your current conduct, so you must be feeling a prick of guilty conscience. Most of your reply was nonsense which is sad. You could be so much more useful to your cause if you were less a cartoon and more of a person. Just my opinion. Hugs

                Liked by 2 people

            2. Scottie I have given up trying to talk reason to ColorStorm, but I emcourage you to remain patient and respectful, as they unfailingly are. The following talk is from a former member of the Westboro Baptist Church. It is interesting to hear how she explains it was the patient folk like yourself who engaged without abuse or judgement that caused her to re-evaluate her position and leave the church and Christianity altogether:

              Liked by 3 people

              1. She has a valid point with regard engaging, and yet this is also a two way street. I sense there was doubt in this woman from the outset.
                I have taken the time to understand much about the religious position over the past few years and have engaged numerous religious hardliners on the internet.
                I would welcome face to face interaction with any of them but I doubt any would be able to face the reality of the type of questions I would ask and still do ask.
                None have ever taken up my request to ask open questions regarding my position.
                In my personal experience, a soft or hard approach has had little noticeable effect, but one never knows who else reads along.

                There are many different personalities in play and I view people like Colorstorm as simply odd and probably harmless in the main. His style of off-the-wall-prose and fringe rhetoric has hardly changed at all in the time we have engaged.
                Although his new Flat Earth approach caused a raised eyebrow or two!

                ”Jesus Followers” like Mel, are somewhat sycophantic and are still riding the guilt trip of Jesus Saved Me Bulldust.
                Unklee is a disingenuous arse and will not respond to reason at all. And he might be considered moderate, for gods’ sake.
                Diane is a full on indoctrinated fundamentalist with the emphasis on mental. I would not know where to start with her.

                All said and done, it is the individual who has to ”Work it out for themselves” as ”Brian” said in the movie.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. Ark I was wondering your response to a recent talk I was having with a “christian blogger” on Mel’s site. After going in circles with me trying to give facts and answer his comments, his comments not really following and rude and arrogant and insulting. He replied to what I wrote with “you gave me facts but not evidence”. I was stunned. He then went back to insisting that charity did not not exist before christians because the etymology of the word was a derivative of Christ. His logic was therefore charity did not happen before christ. Again I was stunned. Lastly he admitted my main point was he was very rude to people and had a POV that only his POV mattered. HE admitted to it, even said I was more decent a person than him, but then questioned why it made a difference that he was a jerk and rude. He just couldn’t see how it affect his “christian message”. I just stopped answering because he first told me he did not want to talk to me again and then asked a bunch of silly questions. I was wondering how you would have handled these statement. Thanks. Hugs

                  Liked by 1 person

                    1. I just popped over. Oh dear … Tom. I have nothing much to say about Tom, other than the gods forbid he is ever elected to office. Odd is not the half of it.
                      How you managed to sustain that dialogue is beyond me. A stronger man than I Gunga Din.

                      Liked by 1 person

              2. @pete-

                Even a drunk is considered kind and compassionate when he buys his drunken friend another drink.

                Your perspective of what a Christian is needs work. Truth be told, you can’t handle the truth………. ๐Ÿ˜‰

                Go ahead and quote Westboro all you want. but be sure to refrain from quoting Franklin Graham, whose blend of fidelity to scripture as well as consideration for the poor embarrasses all atheists.


                1. Yes, good (rich!) old Franklin. He has such a charitable attitude about gays, Muslims, and women. Oh, and his $800,000 salary proves that he’s indeed quite charitable. I’m telling ya, Je$u$ sells, folks.
                  Gag me.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. Oh wait carm. You don’t like the fact the he tells the truth.

                    What do YOU do for the homeless and the outcasts of society. Go ahead and bitch all you want. What TRUTH do YOU tell?

                    Gag me.


                  1. Manners is a matter of perspective.

                    I said as much in plain English. But talking to the godless who pretend to be experts in scripture, it is easy to see why there is a communication barrier.

                    It is both hilarious and pathetic to hear of people who do not believe one word of scripture………….to lecture people who believe every word of it.

                    Almost neurotic.


                2. @ colorstorm. In your response Carmen you again showed how to turn people off. Here you could have tried to show how Franklin and yourself are correct in your view. You could have cited studies to show how your POV is true. Also instead of deflect the question, you could have shown from financial disclosures how charitable Franklin and his organization are. Instead you left the clear impression they are wealthy people who are scamming people. Hugs


                  1. No scott. People have made their minds up.

                    To put Mr. Graham and the clowns from Westboro in the same ball park should be insulting to anybody who has an iq higher than a pea.

                    I am simply presenting common sense.


                    1. In that case you invite the same attitude and response you give. As you act like a troll, respond as a troll , it is totally correct and fine for people to respond to you as a troll. In fact I think you like it that way. I suspect you enjoy insulting others, not doing the harder work of responding with information. You want to cause an uproar. Like an unpopular kid at a birthday part you want to make as much of a scene as possible to get attention. You are happiest when people respond to your trash talk, because you get attention for no work and being a nasty person. It gives you an emotional high. If that is what you are into fine. I once tried to show you how it felt by doing it to you, but you don’t seem to have learned. Guess I should just treat you as the silly troll you want to be. Sad. Hugs


                    2. Attitude and response scott?

                      From where I sit, my tolerance for the incessant assaults on people of faith and mental health,, scripture, Christ Himself, ………is pretty much charitable.

                      If you knew the difference between darkness and light, you would agree.

                      But don’t expect cookie cutter believers like the Stepford wives, as there is this thing called liberty.

                      But I know many people sit in the bleachers from afar, and take note of the demolition I provide to godlessness. ๐Ÿ˜‰


                    3. Thank you ColorStorm, deluded as always. Take what comfort you can in your imagined cheers from the bleachers. As an atheist your responses do more to show people the silliness offered by some bible thumpers is hard to tell from real mental illness. Good job, now go take your meds, we will wait. Hugs


                    4. Ah but sir scott, you missed the greater point.

                      It is the godless IN THE BLEACHERS………..who look from afar, and indeed some see right through the shameful veneer of atheism, but have a hard time admitting. ๐Ÿ˜‰


              3. Thank you. I just tried to have a talk with a guy on Mel’s blog. He was a christian with a christian blog. He admitted he was rude and combative and asked me what was wrong with that. I was stunned. He also gave me a head spinner by saying I had given him facts not evidence. He claims that charity did not exist before christianity because it is the love of god. When I showed him examples and historians writing on it, he claimed I was stupid and an idiot because he looked up the word charity and it comes from a derivative of christ. ?? I just gave up. I thank you for the positive feedback. Being a good nice person is important to me. One in a while I will respond with troll like humor if the person is unreasonable, but I guess I shouldn’t do that. Thanks again Peter. Please give me any suggestions you wish, I love to see how I appear to others. It is hard to see ourselves clearly. Hugs


                1. I’m butting in. ๐Ÿ™‚

                  I’ll tell you how you ARE, Scottie. Not just how you appear. You are generous with praise, genuinely good, intelligent, and always pleasant and non-threatening. Anyone who thinks otherwise has a problem with perception.

                  Liked by 3 people

                2. Scottie it does seem that decency and generosity of spirit works with only some people.

                  For some people it seems that Ark’s more confronting approach is appropriate.

                  One of the factors that caused me to doubt Christianity was my observation that on average Christians looked just like the rest of society, that is you have some real wonderful folk, some real rotters and the vast majority who are somewhere in between. However Christian doctrine says that believers are transformed by the indwelling Spirit of God. If that really was the case then you should expect Christians to be noticeably better people than non Christians, but clearly they are not.

                  Liked by 2 people

            1. Nan there are so many hints in the Bible itself as to the real history. The hints are there because the authors were human and were influenced by their circumstances. One website I have found fascinating in highlighting these ‘hints’ is the ‘History in the Bible’ podcast. Well worth a listen:

              Liked by 1 person

      2. Ark, if I may jump in here throwing my 2-cents in…

        I think learning everything one can about the Jewish sect(s) which wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls greatly assists with a better understanding of the social, political, religious, and military context surrounding 1st century CE Jerusalem and the Levant. By naming Jesus’/Yeshua’s blood-brother “James the Just” as you’ve done, I assume you have a working knowledge of current Dead Sea Scrolls studies and their bearing on the Synoptic Gospels.

        To perhaps aid in your curiousity about how Paul’s interpretations (extrapolations) of “The Way’s” neo-theology at the time eventually usurped the Jerusalem Council/Church (Peter and James), I personally think you need look no further than the First Jewish-Roman War (revolt) representing by the Messianic zealots (divided as they were within Judaism) on one-side and the immense power of the Roman political-military machine on the other side. A well-equiped well-organized, tactically gifted machine — with little expenditure ended much of the Judeo-Yeshuan(?) Movement — inflicted the complete destruction and fall of Jerusalem. The very last remnant of Jewish rebels (likely Essene-Essean, Nasara-Nasoreans, etc) heldout at Masada, only a day’s walk from the Dead Sea, represented the tiny remaining remnants of purer Yeshuan theology not found or blurred in the Synoptic Gospels. Paul, however, was a Roman citizen, from a less-heretical volatile region of the Empire in Cilicia Prima, modern southern Turkey, compared to the Jewish powder-keg of Judaea.

        When one studies, researches, and theorizes as to WHY Paul felt the urgent need to travel to Arabia, staying 3-years prior to his new Gentile ministry, it is not a stretch to find the peculiar connections between the Arabian Nasara-Nasorean Messianic traditions and those of the Essene-Essean sect at the Dead Sea. Both sects were very ascetic by comparisons as well as irritating to the established Jerusalem sects who had more peace with the Romans.

        Anyway, some food for thought.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Ah yes, more atheistic babble seeking fault in the Creator and His word, while trying to alter history and geography; tis a feat that would embarrass Houdini.

    Collectively, all the patrons who are regulars around here could not muster the intellect to understand that all your hammers of stupidity and arrogance are mere trinkets sitting at the bottom of the godless cauldron you call ‘reason ‘ while your own words condemn your foolishness.

    God’s word is not tainted in the least by the petty dings and noises at your circus.


      1. Well one thing is for certain:

        I know the difference between the white blistering light of truth………and the lost as fog blackness of darkness which has a twin called atheism……..


          1. On occasion, for Old Time’s Sake …. but at least I never believed in your religion . And yet, while those with an eye on truth and honesty reject the nonsense of religion there are some who revel in continuous reruns of Gilligan’s Isle and believe it is real. Like you.

            Liked by 1 person

    1. @CS — Godโ€™s word is not tainted in the least by the petty dings and noises at your circus.

      Truth be known, YOU are the one who taints “God’s word” by your circus-like blabberings. You yourself have claimed that “God’s word” can stand on its own … so why do you find it necessary to defend it with ridiculous gibberish?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You call it gibberish nan.

        But the fact is, it is you who spends a lifetime trying to dismiss the truth of creation, while you tamper with God’s word. Seems it has a grip on you that you cannot deny.

        I’m here to offer a voice of reason in the midst
        of nonsense. After all, believers are invited here right?

        But indeed, the word: ‘for ever oh Lord thy word is settled in heaven,’ needs no help from me to make it more truer.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s