What Is The Gospel?

[RipVanWinkle]

You confuse what the bible says with "history". If the bible were confirmed or supported by other documents from the same time period, it might have been considered "history". But the bible purports to encompass thousands of years without any confirming or supportive historical documents from any non-Hebrew sources with respect to its many fantastic claims. No miracles in the bible are described as having occurred by any contemporary sources from the Hebrews or others. Many contemporary historical documents  

refute what was claimed as a fact in the bible, i.e., census supposedly occurring at the time of Christ's birth assessing taxes across the world. This never happened. The exodus of the Jews from Egypt never happened according to multiple archaeological  

studies, including those instituted by Israel. To name a few.

 

WWII, Genghis Khan and Julius Caesar were all verified by multiple contemporary accounts. As far a Mohammed is concerned, I dunno. What do you think?  

 

IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE BIBLE, PLEASE, PLEASE TELL US WHAT IT IS. OUR VERY LIVES DEPEND ON IT, DON'T THEY? THAT BEING TRUE, IT IS YOUR CHRISTIAN DUTY TO PROVIDE US THE PROOF. OTHERWISE WE WILL ALL GO TO HELL BECAUSE OF YOU.

                                                                                                                                  bill

[mymistake]

A few self-proclaimed eye-witnesses from 2000 years ago are no evidence. There are probably more people that claim that they have see aliens or the loch ness monster. Just because people believed the story of jesus doesn't make it true.

 

There are self-proclaimed eye-witnesses who are alive right now and testify that some guru in the Far East has done all kinds of wonders that equal to or surpass whatever is attributed to Christ in the myth.  It's really not that hard to get a few thousand people to believe you have magic powers or that you talk to the gods.  Are there hundreds of gurus with real power alive right now?  Of course not!  It's just a scam.

[LifeCycle]

A few self-proclaimed eye-witnesses from 2000 years ago are no evidence. There are probably more people that claim that they have see aliens or the loch ness monster. Just because people believed the story of jesus doesn't make it true.

This!  Is God's/Jesus' existence so sketchy we need to consider witness accounts as "evidence?" 

 

Do you know how dangerous it is to use someone elses experience as evidence of anything?  It may be great evidence for them, but it sure as hell shouldn't be great evidence for anyone else.  That's only smart approach to stuff claiming something of this caliber.

[barnacleben]

Doubt is an interesting thing. Check out this ted talk here

http://www.ted.com/talks/lesley_hazleton_the_doubt_essential_to_faith.html

 

Doubt is actually a beautiful thing, it is a sign of ones intelligence and sincerity to acknowledge tha one might now have all the answers and therefore provide to seek the truth

 

 "Abolish all doubt and what's left is not faith, but absolute heartless conviction. You are certain you possess The Truth (inevitably offered with an implied uppercase "T") and this certainty quickly devolves into dogmatism and righteousness...by which I mean a demonstrative overweening pride in being so VERY right. In short, the arrogance of fundamentalism." !~ Lesley Hazleton

Scripture teaches that our innermost desires are evil. Therefore, I agree that it is good to doubt any arrogant ideas that come from inside of ourself, and instead look outside of ourselves to dogma that come from the One who created matter, energy, space, and time, who broke into human history and spoke actual words.

 

 

There can be no rationality without doubt and the willingness to admit you are wrong. Mohammad holding doubt that he was visited by a divine being as Hazleton pointed out was the only rational, human reaction. But the fundamentalists of the Muslim religion want to hide his doubt, and want no record left of it. To them they only care about the what, they hold no sincerity to the deeper truth because they hold the "Truth." Instead they are content with whitewashing history to a view that they are the most comfortable with.  Instead of entertaining the idea that he really might be crazy.  

Mohammed didn't doubt that he was being visited by spiritual beings, he believed that he was visited by evil spiritual beings.

[barnacleben]

 

Beyond vague, incomplete and if hell is involved, horrendous.

 

Do you call yourself an Ex-Christian, when you never understood or believed dogma?

[LifeCycle]

Scripture teaches that our innermost desires are evil. Therefore, I agree that it is good to doubt any arrogant ideas that come from inside of ourself, and instead look outside of ourselves to dogma that come from the One who created matter, energy, space, and time, who broke into human history and spoke actual words.

 

Downtrodden much? 

[RipVanWinkle]

"Eye witness accounts."  That is quite a claim in itself. An author writing on parchment that there were eye witnesses 2000 years ago is not evidence.

Where are the statements by the 500 who say they saw Jesus after his death according Acts? Eye witness accounts that say they saw a miracle happen are a dime a dozen. Caesar rose from the dead according to so called eye witnesses. Hercules rose from the dead. Mohammed was physically escorted to heaven according to witnesses. Do you ever consider the fact  that the time Jesus lived was a period ubiquitous superstition?

 

No Court would allow testimony of an purported eyewitness without his/her being first put under oath, and a showing of a foundation for his testimony. Where was the witness in relationship to what was seen? Did he/she have a clear view? How far could the witness see? Are the testimonies of the witnesses consistent. What was heard? Nighttime or daylight?  What is the witnesses interest in the matter, whether financial or otherwise? What have they received for testifying? How did they recognize

Jesus? Had you ever seen him before? From how far away? How many times? These are just few of the questions. With answers to these and other questions the "eye witness" testimony is absolutely worthless.

[RipVanWinkle]

What happens to your "faith" without the wild assumption that the bible is the inerrant word of god? What is the basis for that assumption? If the bible were the word of god, why are there so many versions and why are there so many conflicting interpretations.? Why could god not clearly and without any doubt communicate to his creature? Can you imagine a better way to have communicated so that there could be no question that it was god and no question as to what he meant? Think about it.  bill

[Ralet]

 

 

Beyond vague, incomplete and if hell is involved, horrendous.

 

Do you call yourself an Ex-Christian, when you never understood or believed dogma?

 

A person can have truly believed in something and still change their mind about it. You probably believed in santa claus as a child. Just because you do not anymore and find it ridiculous, I can't say that you weren't a true believer or your feeling weren't real as you believed.

[mymistake]

 

Scripture teaches that our innermost desires are evil. Therefore, I agree that it is good to doubt any arrogant ideas that come from inside of ourself, and instead look outside of ourselves to dogma that come from the One who created matter, energy, space, and time, who broke into human history and spoke actual words.

 

Wow look at how lost you are.  Some book told you that your ideas are arrogant so you should listen to the Book because it's ideas are the ultimate in arrogance.  Do you see the hypocrisy?  You don't think you are the One.  You don't think you created matter, energy and space.  So you are not arrogant enough to listen to yourself?  Instead you should listen to the liars who created the Bible?

[barnacleben]

I harp on Jesus being effectively European for the following reason.  Modern evangelical Christianity portrays itself as a universal religion for the entire world.  That's how evangelicals justify going to non-white cultures and preaching Jesus to them.  That's also how I, for a time, convinced myself that I wasn't emulating a culture other than my own by being an evangelical Christian.  Evangelicals don't want to associate Christianity with European culture because it calls to mind imagry of colonialism and other evils, and this makes Jesus not very attractive to us non-Europeans.  My aim here is to show that Christianity and Western European culture are inextricably bound.  Christianity is well and good if you identify with Western European culture.  But if you don't, you ought not convert to Christianity.  I'm hoping to perhaps show evangelicals how destructive and anti-family values it is to preach Jesus to people who belong to other religions.

While it is true that there have been many European missionaries, there have also been many Asian, African, North American, South American, and Australian missionaries. Recently, it was discovered that African copts were the first Xian missionaries to prosyletize Ireland. It was not Europeans that brought Christianity to India, but the Apostle Thomas.

 

I'm hoping to perhaps show evangelicals how destructive and anti-family values it is to preach Jesus to people who belong to other religions.

You do not need a rhetorical tool to teach people this. Why not simply use Jesus' own words. If they were his sheep, they would hear his voice, and his words would be far more persuasive than your argument:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.(Matt10)

 

As for the claim of effeminacy, this one is more direct.  Popular images of Jesus portray him with long hair and generally soft features.  Basically he's girly.  A lot of popular Reformed theologians these days (e.g. Mark Driscoll) try to downplay this or even paint a new picture of a more masculine Jesus.  But the uncomfortable fact for Christians is that Jesus is a highly homoerotic figure.  I honestly mean no offense to our gay friends here.  But as a male who values his masculinity, I feel that worshiping Jesus borders on participating in a homosexual relationship, and that's not something I want to do.  No straight male should have a "relationship" with Jesus.  On the other hand, no gay male should either, since he'll send them to hell anyway.

I apologize on behalf of all Christianity for homoerotic portayals of Jesus, particularly, the Jesus-is-my-boyfriend lovesong music.

[mymistake]

 

While it is true that there have been many European missionaries, there have also been many Asian, African, North American, South American, and Australian missionaries. Recently, it was discovered that African copts were the first Xian missionaries to prosyletize Ireland. It was not Europeans that brought Christianity to India, but the Apostle Thomas.

 

(snip)

 

I apologize on behalf of all Christianity for homoerotic portayals of Jesus, particularly, the Jesus-is-my-boyfriend lovesong music.

 

 

Why apologize?  There is nothing wrong with homoerotic.

 

As for European - Christianity is a Roman religion and Rome is in Italy.  Thus it is a European religion.  Perhaps older versions of the religion existed in the Mideast but they were exterminated by Rome - you know, the Gnostics.

[barnacleben]

Ben, still waiting on your response to my take on the gospel.

Like you, I have competing priorities outside this forum. The responses are coming so rapidly, I am unable to keep up. I appreciate your patience.

 

 

You said you don't want to be confusing, but so far you've been asking a lot of questions and not answering many.  So I'm going to ask you a direct set of questions, and I'd appreciate if you simply answer as directly as possible.  I'm OK with lengthy explanations.  But please don't veil your beliefs in parables as your savior does.  If you check a certain other thread on this forum, you'll find that I don't have many kind words (about Jesus) stored up for Christians who intentionally obfuscate.  And unlike other Christians I've encountered here, I hope you believe, as I do, that one ought not to be ambiguous about one's religious beliefs, especially when there are no threats of recrimination.

I have no desire to be cryptic or ambigious about what I confess. If you want the long version, go to the Book of Concord.

 

 

First, how do you define the gospel?

I dont define the gospel, but scripture does:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.(1Cor15)

 

 

Second, what would you like us to do about the gospel?

My prefence would be that you repent and believe the gospel, although I do have my Jonah moments.

 

 

Are you looking for us to convert?

The only Xian that doesn't want unbelievers to repent and receive the forgiveness of sins is the one that hates his neighbor.

 

Are you merely seeking mutual understanding?

No. I am here for mutliple reasons, including my own enjoyment because I like theology, discussions, writing, and informal debate. I am also genuinely interested to hear the thoughts and journeys of former believers. I am not offended by the existence of unbelievers. In fact, I wish all those in the church who are pretending to believe would have the courage to stop, and give an honest confession of their creedo.

 

 

Third, do you hold to the belief that people who fail to convert to Christianity are punished in an eternal hell?  That, after all, is the basis of my objection to the gospel of Jesus, which is why I'm asking.

Yes. Although I'm not a fan of the word "convert" since its not a scriptural term. I think there are plenty of "Christian converts" bound for hell. Jesus makes it clear that his sheep will be judged according to his righteousness, where even a single good work is to their credit, but for those goats who stand on their own righteousness any failure to perfectly love others will lead to their condemnation. I do not wish that any would stand before the throne of judgement clinging to their own righteousness.

 

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”(Matt28)

[JamesG]

Ok so since your trying or hoping to convert us I have a laundry list of issues with the accuracy of the bible lets start with John 3:16 For god so loved the world he gave his only begotten son...

 

oh wait I think there is an issue here

 

genesis6:2  that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair; and they took for themselves wives of all whom they chose

 

uhmm I guess that makes John a liar

 

Or how do you explain the fact that the earliest known gospel (Mark) did not originally contain the resurrection story until after  the 2nd century?

 

please give me  some answers

[TrueFreedom]

to be fair, "begotten" son, and Mark did have an empty tomb...

[JamesG]

the empty tomb doesn't prove resurrection some early Christians used this as the ascension without ressurection

 

and didn't mean to leave out begotten /facepalm although that doesn't change the meaning unless his other sons where formed from abiogenesis which would make them not his sons

[centauri]

What evidence do you have that Jesus did not raise himself from the dead?

The evidence comes from scripture.

Jesus did not raise himself, God did it.

 

Acts 13:30

But God raised him from the dead:

 

 

 

[Deva]

 

Unfortunately for Christianity, we see where it got the reformers- Lutheran or otherwise.

 

We still have a divided Christianity with not just a few denominations as in the days of the reformation, but hundreds or thousands. 

I agree that the disunity in the church is tragic. But scripture teaches that it is false doctrine which causes division. However not all denominating marks division. Protestant organizations simply lack centralized authority. Within Rome there are hundreds of orders, sects, and societies. These naming (or noming) are denominations. There are Romish priests that faithfully proclaim God's word and priests who don't, as there are amidst most of these names. However, under Rome there is unity of organizational governance. This unity of organizational governance is not true Christian unity. True Christian unity is the catholic(universal) church, the body of Christ, all those living and dead who are in Christ.

 

I would rephrase that statement to read" "truly sought to confess what THEY THOUGHT scripture teaches"  Roman Catholics would surely disagree about the primacy of scripture at the expense of tradition.

 

Papists would not disagree. For example, no Romish Archbishop would ever dispute that scripture teaches that priests/bishops should be the husband of one wife. However, Rome believes that the Pope is an apostle who has authority to introduce novel doctrines which has more authority than the Apostles who ate breakfast with God-risen-from-the-dead and delivered his words as the faith once for all delivered to the saints..

 

The fact is, the scriptures are open to everyone's interpretation, unless you have a central authority to interpret it for you.  If you have a priesthood of believers, then you have no need for priests, in fact, no need for authorities of any kind, including pastors.

 

I agree that it IS the church's job to preach and teach scripture, which includes translating it. But the problem is not that scripture is opaque and difficult to understand, the problem is that people don't like what it says, so they seek to obfuscate its clear meaning in their interpretive work. If there are places in scripture where the meaning is genuinely unclear, then we don't have the authority to choose our own meaning.

 

In addition, no one's understanding of scripture comes in a vacuum. We not only have the writings of the apostles, but we have the writings of their disciples, and many subsequent generations. When a novel doctrine is introduced, we can trace its origin. For example, when Iconoclasm was first introduced in the 8th century, it came from Islam. There is a documentary paper trail.

 

Why the hell even go to church then? 

 

The reason to go to church is to receive Christ in the word and sacraments, including the absolution of sins through the office instituted by Jesus.

 

 

Christians can't agree on who has the "catholic church" - is it Rome, Anglican, Orthodox etc...that is one of the the problems and there are a lot more.

 

After all this time, how do you know for sure who has the true version of Christianity? What do you mean by "absolution of sins through the office instituted by Jesus?" How do you know this still exists, making the extreme presumption that its true?

 

You are right, we don't like what it says and in addition and most importantly, we don't believe it is true.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

Well, Christ might not be a hypocritical whore infected with lots of diseases, but he was some Jewish teacher that his followers made up stories about to make it sound like he was sent to Earth from a sadistic narcissist that a lot of people call "God" to commit suicide in order to save everyone from the sinful nature they were forced to be born with.

 

The gospel is a bunch of myths about the things that this god-man did.

[RipVanWinkle]

Quoting scriptures gets you nowhere in this forum. You might as well quote the Koran. You might as well quote any document whatsoever. Unless the bible is authenticated it just so much drivel. 

 

barnacleben: The bible can't self authenticate itself. Just because it was written does not establish that it is true. Surely you don't deny that obvious fact. Before you quote the bible as representing the truth, you must first establish that it is in fact true. That you cannot do any more than the Muslims who simply say that the Koran is true. The same contentions are made for the Koran as are made for the Bible. On what basis should one believe that either is the true word of god? They both can't be, can they?

 

Why should one believe in Jesus and not Mohammed, or someone else for that matter? As I say, spitting out bible verses is no more viable than quoting the book of mormon without its truth first having been established. You skip over that part in every post.

So tell us first why the bible is true. If you can do that exchristians would return to the faith in droves. May I have an answer to these fundamental, uncomplicated questions? The answers are at the heart of your faith, aren't they? So answering them should be easy for you. If you cannot do that, then why don't you just quit bullshitting us?

 

                                                                                                                                  bill

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

 

In terms of the scriptures, these were validated by Jesus, who proved his authority to do so by raising himself from the dead.

 

There is no evidence to support the validity this story.

 

None? That is a bold claim. This is not an area where scholarship is absent. Are you sure you're not dismissive of the evidence because you don't believe people raise themselves from the dead? That seems a safer position.

 

I've read elaborate scenarios by serious scholars to find alternative explanations for the evidence, but I haven't heard one versed in the subject claim that there's no evidence.

 

In fact, I can go over to my bookshelf and pick up a collection of translated Greek manuscripts claiming to contain eyewitness accounts of the risen Christ. While it is certainly your prerogative to believe that the evidence lacks persuasiveness, I find it hard to believe that you hold to the position that there is no evidence.

 

 

How can you be sure the Greek manuscripts are not myths or complete lies? Hmm? How can you know that?

 

 

 

Doubt is an interesting thing. Check out this ted talk here

http://www.ted.com/talks/lesley_hazleton_the_doubt_essential_to_faith.html

 

Doubt is actually a beautiful thing, it is a sign of ones intelligence and sincerity to acknowledge tha one might now have all the answers and therefore provide to seek the truth

 

 "Abolish all doubt and what's left is not faith, but absolute heartless conviction. You are certain you possess The Truth (inevitably offered with an implied uppercase "T") and this certainty quickly devolves into dogmatism and righteousness...by which I mean a demonstrative overweening pride in being so VERY right. In short, the arrogance of fundamentalism." !~ Lesley Hazleton

Scripture teaches that our innermost desires are evil. Therefore, I agree that it is good to doubt any arrogant ideas that come from inside of ourself, and instead look outside of ourselves to dogma that come from the One who created matter, energy, space, and time, who broke into human history and spoke actual words.

 

Scripture teaches that our innermost desires are evil, but it also says that owning slaves is perfectly acceptable and that you can beat them as much as you want, as long as they don't die in a couple of days. It also says that it is okay to brutally murder babies and children when Bible god says to. Why should we care what the scripture teaches?

 

Are you sure that your idea that your god is the "One True God" isn't an "arrogant idea that comes from within our self"? It sure sounds like an arrogant idea. It is this idea of, "I know that someone created the universe and I know who did it. Everyone else who claims that someone else other than my god created the universe is wrong and I know it." That sounds arrogant to me.

[Astreja]

Scripture teaches that our innermost desires are evil.

 

And this is one of the reasons that I consider Christian scripture to be both patently false and fucking useless for humanity.  Scripture is wrong.  It is quite possible, and even common, to desire good or to desire something morally neutral (for example, to work hard and become an Olympic athlete or a Ph.D.)  Furthermore, if you consider the human sexual drive to be one of the aforementioned "innermost desires," then you are attempting to taint a perfectly natural and healthy biological drive as evil when it is nothing of the sort.

 

Oh, and people don't come back from the dead, either... Except in storybooks.

[midniterider]

 

 

 

In terms of the scriptures, these were validated by Jesus, who proved his authority to do so by raising himself from the dead.

 

There is no evidence to support the validity this story.

 

None? That is a bold claim. This is not an area where scholarship is absent. Are you sure you're not dismissive of the evidence because you don't believe people raise themselves from the dead? That seems a safer position.

 

 

What evidence?  If you can't provide any then there is nothing to dismiss!  Show us the evidence.   And save yourself the effort if all you can do is quote Bible verses then stop right now.  Bible verses are not evidence.  The Bible is a set of claims - claims that need evidence before they should be believed.

 

 

 

 

I've read elaborate scenarios by serious scholars to find alternative explanations for the evidence, but I haven't heard one versed in the subject claim that there's no evidence.

 

In fact, I can go over to my bookshelf and pick up a collection of translated Greek manuscripts claiming to contain eyewitness accounts of the risen Christ. While it is certainly your prerogative to believe that the evidence lacks persuasiveness, I find it hard to believe that you hold to the position that there is no evidence.

 

And I can find books about Harry Potter.  Are those books evidence that magic is real?

 

 

Skip the history books. Just present to me Jesus in the flesh. And not some nebulous 'feeling' or voice in my head that is really my own voice. Anything short of that isn't worth spending time on.

 

No Jesus in the flesh = No Jesus, period.

[mymistake]

 

 

Skip the history books. Just present to me Jesus in the flesh. And not some nebulous 'feeling' or voice in my head that is really my own voice. Anything short of that isn't worth spending time on.

 

No Jesus in the flesh = No Jesus, period.

 

 

Knowing that there would never be any evidence for Jesus (because there can be no real evidence of a hoax) one of the New Testament writers came up with a brilliant solution.  He invented a character who was a doubter.  This doubter wanted to see evidence.  This doubter demanded to see evidence.  This doubter could not believe without seeing the evidence.  Now every pastor and priest can mock this doubter character.  Don't be like that doubter!  You will get extra spiritual rewards if you are better than that doubter!!  Oh and by the way, in the story (that never happened) that doubter saw the evidence he wanted to see.  Then that doubter (who never existed) felt very silly!  You be smarter than that.  You believe without needing evidence and it will make you a better Christian than that silly doubter.  See, everybody is a better Christian than the doubter.  Our blind faith pleases God.  We can accept the scam without questioning it.  Don't be a doubter!!!  Don't be a Doubting Thomas!!!

[barnacleben]

According to scripture, Jesus didn't raise himself from the dead, God did.

...because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. (John10)

 

 

 

I'm not sure how you know that the New Testament is valid when it contradicts the Old Testament, which outlines a completely different system for salvation.

Jesus is the Lamb of God, sin offering for all nations, fulfilling the sacrifices once for all, he is the scapegoat . He is the only son who was slain on the same mount where Isaac was led to the slaughter carrying wood on his back. Jesus was the final sacrifice, to which all other sacrifices pointed as type and shadow. He is God's fulfillment of the law on Israel's behalf. He is true Israel, Abraham's promised offspring, the blessing of all nations. In Christ, Abraham becomes the father of every nation, language, people, and tongue. In Christ, the seed of the woman crushes the shimmering one's head.

 

 

The New Testament can't even agree with itself and a large chunk of it was written by a Jewish apostate who never met Jesus except in visions.

I think you are misunderstanding what real vision is. Saul encountered the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, and Jesus apostled him, speaking to him then and later. The men on the road with him heard Jesus' audible voice, but Jesus did not reveal himself to them and blind them. Saul however was rendered physically blind. Furthermore, Saul's conversion makes no sense apart from his encounter with Jesus. For years, no other Christians in Judea met with or spoke to him, they were afraid of him as he was known as a persecutor of Christians.

Certainly, Paul didn't gain anything material from his conversion, moving from a morally upright life with community standing to a life of misery, poverty, prison, and execution.

Given all the details surrounding Paul's conversion, it is difficult to build an alternative theory of his conversion that matches the evidence provided.

 

What issue is the NT in fundamental disagreement with itself on?