I admit I take a radical viewpoint but for a better critique of the NT we should, as I have suggested, be asking asking the question why was it written rather than being over precious about what it says. By asking this (better!) question I feel that we can penetrate the political and cultural impulses and events which created the stories which are contained in the Bible.
Has anyone else read JM Roberston's A Short History of Christianity? After reading Crisis of Conscience, I reckon any ex JW should read this little gem to wean him or herself off slavish regard of the subtleties of words and grammar in the NT. Instead of trying to see what the NT writers meant, Robertson sagely used sociology, then in its infancy, as a tool to evaluate the world in which the writings were made. He clearly has a significant contribution that to understand the Bible; the social context, prevailing cultural assumptions the source material, custom, and cult politics play the primary role in textural criticism... and not the meaning!
I say this because we are all too ready even as non believers to listen to the voice of the Bible writer without knowing why it was written down. Believers though are slaves to the letter.
It is a self evident fact that any human organisation needs regulating. It is also a fact of psychology and human frailty that where individuals are given or take power; there will be those who abuse it at the expense of the weakest in the group.
The Christian Jesus cult was not immune to these factors and with religion being an appeal to the heart, its course has to be interpreted in the light of competitive strands seeking dominance. That is why the matter of succession was of vital interest but especially so for the Catholic Christianity of the late third and early fourth century. (I expect to find, but will be happy to be disproved that the "Peter the rock" idea is a late interpolation). The notion of the Christ in glory of first century Jewish Christianity was scuppered by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE and therefore a successor to the Christ (probably not yet called Jesus) had not before that time become an issue.
@ FTS the early evidence for Christianity surely finds it roots with the ascetic and messianic Jewish cults (about 200 to 150BCE?) but this does not explain the source of the Roman Christianity which includes a large dose of the older pagan god-man cults including the Dionysian and Mithraic.
The other assumption fundamental to all of Christianity is its lead character. There is an extreme paucity of questionable information supporting a historic god-man teacher who could raise the dead in the first century. There is no testable evidence for his existence and there would have been had he existed...there is only a historic silence. That god-man cults existed however is beyond doubt.
Jesus could no more start a church than can Harry Potter.
The reason a church was started in Jesus' name and was made successful, surviving even today, was due to Jewish messianic hopes fused with pagan cults by the Imperial and catholic Roman Church.
