Is there a more infuriating religious meme than "Paul ruined Christianity"?
>>1036737
>when you see that meme on /lit/, open up /his/, and see this thread at the top of the catalog
You can't ruin what was already shit, I guess.
Assblasted paulite
>if I call it a meme maybe it won't be true
>>1036737
I asked a guy who made such a thread whether there were any records of James and Peter arguing with Paul over the true nature of Jesus Christ (he claimed James and Peter never believed Jesus was God). He still hasn't responded.
>>1036737
seriously fuck this. early christianity WAS Paul. well not specifically Paul. I mean in his letters you can see a ton of apostles like Paul all vying for power with their own self styled divine revelation of Christ
>>1036737
Yes, Christianity.
>giving a shit
>>1036737
Oh d-g, recently I've seen it even on one of most known prottie conspiratard tinfoil site on our interwebz - "zbawienie", which was even blocked by our web searchers (possibly even ISPs?) due to its sheer stupidity.
Mind you those are guys who pay almost fetishist cult to so called "Luther's" (ie Jewish) cannonn, one Jew here in Judaism General acquitted - We don't believe in "Sola Scriptura".
If I had to guess this mene was spread by some buttmad Christian Gnostics, but even amongst them there were those who respected Paul, like Valentinians and seen him as proponent of their religion.
As for the ITT it would perhaps be the whole cannonn thing. I hope you do realise the Orthodox one is most complete, having all of Septuagint Apostles have used and Vulgata?
The sole reason some books were "removed" (even IV Esdras, by Catholics) is lack of their preserved supposed original in Hebrew - And really only that. You can't study the "Bible Code" (Cabalistic way) without that.
Other would be perhaps the Horned Moses and "Thou shall not kill" - Which is rather murder. And the whole thing with "It's easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle" which was translated with that form into most of the languages, common mistranslations.
Other famed mene is the ebil Inquistion and/or Crusades. The witch burning is mostly known yes - But from Protestants, or to be exact - Batshit USaian Puritans. Islamic conquests of Jihad were way bigger than Crusades which was supposed to counter them.
>>1036786
me like that
Source?
I only read the gospels cuz Jesus was pretty chill. Fuck most of what Paul said. He never met Jesus.
Am i still christian /his/?
The truth hurts, paulite
>>1041400
Is that why he's one of their greatest saints, and they read from his epistles almost every Sunday?
Yeah it's
>not all muslims
and
>peaceful muslims
>no man I totally met Jesus in this cave, he gave me these golden tablets!
Threadly reminder that Paul's only point of difference with the other apostles was that he believed the Gentiles who converted to Christ did not need to be circumcised whereas Peter, James and Barnabas thought they should but that Peter eventually sided with Paul on the issue and we do not know if James and Barnabas continued to disagree with him.
>>1036737
Here's a few:
>What if, like, God is the bad guy?
>The Old Testament God and the New Testament God are totally different.
>Jesus never existed.
>The idea of Jesus was stolen from [pagan god].
>The Romans executed Jesus. The Jews had nothing to do with it. They are our greatest ally.
>The New Testament is unreliable and not the word of God because it was written forty years after Jesus' death, unlike the Koran which was written a mere thirty years after Muhammed's death.
>The Bible was just made up so people with power could control the stupid. We need to ban the Bible to stop these stupid Christian militias from trying to overthrow the government.
>>1043684
They also disagree'd on the pre-existence of Jesus (ie whether or not Jesus was divine) and whether there was an after-life.
>>1043728
Show me evidence that supports this claim please.
>>1043736
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites#Views_and_practices
>sure we could base our religion off of accounts of Jesus' teachings from people who knew him, but this guy who had a dream about him once has some interesting ideas too
>>1043767
For starters, the only apostle that the Ebionites may believed disagreed with Paul is James as some scholars claim that they followed James's views which were opposed to Paul's. However, there is ridiculously little evidence that supports this claim and the only historian who has outright claimed this is Hyam Maccoby, a universally discredited Jewish scholar.
In future I would recommend that you actually read the wikipedia article and look into its listed sources before posting it as "evidence".
>>1043797
How about you actually read his letters? You tell me what is so disagreeable about them? What exactly do you think Paul was claiming that the other apostles didn't agree with? Why can't any of you lunatics provide any evidence to support your claims?
Paul is literally the only author in the entire bible that is not anonymous. There is no real evidense to suggest who these annonymous authors are. Paul stands alone as the single New Testament author with a face and name. He also has an outrageous number of books, almost half of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels#Authorship_and_date
His work also predates all other writing by a minimum of 25 years. The bible is literally 50% Paul and 50% people that came after Paul.
>>1043833
We know that the author of Mark, which was written between 65-73AD, was the interpreter of the apostle Peter and that the author of Luke-Acts was a physician who worked with Paul. It is also important to know that the content of the Gospels would have been widely known via oral tradition and many scholars believe that there was another Gospel or perhaps a sayings-collection that they believe would be widely known as well before Paul came on the scene.
>>1043892
How the hell would Peter, an illeterate poor fisherman have a fucking interpretor? And what possible evidense could you have for such a wild claim? Don't tell me you are going to cite a second centuary theologian that didn't know Peter or Mark?
Luke's Gospel is about 80% copied from Q source and Mark with very little origenal text. Mentioning Luke is redudent since he doesn't actually give new information. There is no way to show any evidence linking the writing to the historical Luke.
You still have the problem of every work other than Paul not only being anonymous but being older than Paul.
>>1043429
Gospel writers never met Jesus either so that's pretty poor criteria to use.
>>1043977
Papias of Hierapolis claimed in 100AD that he was told by John the Elder that Mark was Peter's interpreter and based the Gospel from Peter's accounts.
>>1044021
Having only one source, which is just "I heard a guy who heard from another guy...." is not very convincing. Espcially when it comes 30 years after the fact. Not only that but it fails to answer so many questions?
Why would a Jew like Mark in the middle of a Jewish province know Greek? Why would Peter even want his words translated to a language that no one would be able to read? Not to mention this a part of the world with extremly low literacy rates. The theory of Mark actually writing it makes more questiosn than it answers.
Mark isn't even written like an eye-wittness report but rather like a tall tell or a myth. The narrator never identifies himself. He never even signs his name or gives dates. He also is present during events Peter would certainly be abscent from such as the trial (which is supposed to be closed to the public) and Jesus's journey into the desert. There are also dramatic shifts in style. The story starts out as sort of chronological story and than shifts into a list of parables. It being an annonymous work by several different authors neatly explains the problems and makes a lot of sense with it being a 60s or 70s document written in Greek.
>>1044058
What's your overall point? We can keep arguing about the authorship and date of Mark but honestly I would like to know what your main message is because this thread is about Paul so I would like to know how your statements about the gospels fit with Paul.
Paul's story in Acts doesn't add up
Why would the Priesthood dispatch Paul to arrest Christians in Damascus in Roman Phoenicia, when the jurisdiction of the Jewish Priesthood was limited to the province of Judea? That was one of the conditions that the Romans established when the Jews were vassalized as a Roman tributary: that their Priesthood would have jurisdiction over religious matters within the province of Judea, but not outside of it. Paul suggests that the Priesthood not only had the power to arrest people, but that they could do so well outside of their territory.
I have heard it argued that Paul/Saul doesn't actually go to the Sanhedrin for his "authority", but rather to the High Priest.
This creates a number of additional problems. As a Pharisee, why is Paul all chummy with the Sadducee high priest? And the High Priests at that time didn't have religious authority to arrest anyone outside of the temple grounds themselves. And why is Paul accepting this assignment anyway? To a devout Pharisee, which is what he claims to be before becoming a Christian, the Sadducee priesthood are a corrupt collaborationist group, and one you're at odds with.
>>1044058
Mark also makes glaring geographic and legal errors and uses Greek puns that would make no sense in Hebrew. It also has a Greek chiastic structure and does not resemble dictated speech.
>>1043429
If you disagree with Paul, you likely don't know much about what the rest of the bible says. People always turn Christ's love into the lame tolerance that is called love these days and they always downplay his wrath. If you think Paul is not in line with what Jesus said, you need to do a closer reading of the gospels.
>>1044079
1. All writings other than Paul are written annonymously
2. They are written in languages you would expect Gentiles to write in and show a shakey grasp of Jewish theology and history.
3. All none Paul documents are at least 30 years after Paul's writing and all are post-temple destruction.
Now answer this? How would Gentiles know about Christianity? Well that would be through Paul exclusivily. They would have had virtually no knowledge of any Jewish or Christian theology not stemmed from Paul.
So it would establish that the bible consists entirly of Paul's writings and the writing of Gentiles that got their entire theology from Paul. This effectivily makes Paul the founder of Christianity. The origenal Jews that followed Jesus have been completly ousted.
Now if you add in that Paul seems to be lying about having a background in Judaism (he can't even tell Saudecee from Pharisee) this also means that the New Testament is completely divorced from it's Jewish roots entirly, it's paganism.
And here's the biggest bit. If the non-Paulin parts of the bible are completly disassociated with the people that knew Jesus....and Paul never knew Jesus...than was any of Jesus's message even preserved at all?
>>1043684
From the other thread:
>Basically, Paul believed that the Gentiles who converted shouldn't have to be circumcised whereas James thought they should and Peter flip-flopped between both views. That is literally it
That's a huge deal. When Peter refuses to eat with the uncircumcised christians he's essentially saying they aren't saved. Most early church worship centered around shared meals. Going to church meant breaking bread with fellow christians. This is where hymns were sung and prayers were shared - around a communal table. This is huge! It really has roots in what Jesus core message is and who his core audience even was! To dismiss this as being 'merely' about circumcision is a mistake. These are central theological disagreements.
>>1043813
>However, there is ridiculously little evidence that supports this claim
I agree, although it's unlikely we will ever know the full story as the Jerusalem Church was wiped out by the Romans. It's not entirely clear if Paul and the Jerusalem Church reconciled as all we have to go by is sources that came much later after the fact.
>>1044119
It is universally accepted that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are written by the same author. Acts is about the history of the Church after the death of Jesus. However, it makes no mention at all of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD or even of the siege that occurred years before. Strange. It also makes no mention of the deaths of Peter or Paul, who both were killed in 63-67AD. Also strange. However it does mention the death of James, son of Zebedee who died in 44AD, a much less important figure than Paul and Peter. So it mentions his death but not Paul or Peter's? Even stranger.
Also, in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29, Paul quotes from the Gospel of Luke. 1 Corinthians is estimated to have been written between 53-57AD and yet Paul quotes from the Gospel of Luke?
Now, at the beginning of Acts the author says that the Gospel was written first and at the beginning of that Gospel he states that there have been many Gospels written before, and indeed, almost all historians agree that Mark was most likely written before Luke.
So, not only is there evidence to suggest that Luke was written in as early as 53AD but also it wasn't even the first to be written. So, why do scholars believe that Mark was written after 70AD? Because Jesus predicts the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened in 70AD, and so they claim that it must have been written after the destruction and then the prediction was written in hindsight. That is the basis of their argument.
>>1044127
The point of that post was that the differences between Paul and Peter were surrounding the Gentiles following Mosaic Law, not about whether or not Jesus was the Son of God, which was the opposing claim.
>>1044175
>Also, in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29, Paul quotes from the Gospel of Luke.
They use the same narrative, that does not suggest Paul is quoting Luke.
A few other points:
Luke wanted to end Acts on a positive note.
Luke planned a second volume, but never got around to it (perhaps he died before undertaking it)
Perhaps Luke had reasons for avoiding Paul's martyrdom. Colossians 1:24, for example, paints Paul as a co-redeemer with Christ. Perhaps the proto-catholic Luke-Acts wanted to avoid encouraging that sort of thinking.
For dating Acts, I think that it's important to avoid arguments from personal incredulity (cough John A. T. Robinson), if you can't think of a reason for Luke leaving out Paul's death that doesn't mean Luke didn't know about it.
The "prophecy" is NOT the only reason Mark is dated post 70AD. Mark's Gospel describes a world dominated by the Pharisee which is how the world was post-70, pre-70 it would have been Sadducee territory. It would not be inconceivable that someone would create a prophecy describing events that already happened to make a text look authentic. In the past it was very difficult to date texts so this sort of trickery could be gotten away with easily.
As was mentioned in the other thread, circular reasoning is not textual criticism works. If you think it does then you are inviting the possibility that other religious figures such as Muhammad also made fulfilled "prophecies".
>>1044119
mark was written in greek because it was FOR the gentiles not by them. thats why it explains jewish customs to the reader as well
>Catholics are not Christian
REEEEEEE
>>1043722
>The Bible was just made up so people with power could control the stupid. We need to ban the Bible to stop these stupid Christian militias from trying to overthrow the government.
can you give me one example, just one example of anyone ever saying this?
>>1044175
You've been reading too much Greg Boyd. Luke DOES mention the fall of Jerusalem in his Gospel, and the events of Acts don't relate to it, since it's all about stuff that happened before the war. Luke was also writing to a Roman audience and didn't want to antagonize authorities about the war.
>It also makes no mention of the deaths of Peter or Paul, who both were killed in 63-67AD.
This presumes that we have any historical evidence that they were martyred in the first place. We don't. Those are later Christian legends, not verifiable history. We don't actually have any idea how Paul died. There's nothing even in the New Testament about it and it might have been quite mundane, but the point is it was not relevant to the story the author wanted to tell anyway. It has to be demonstrated that Paul was martyred in the first place before we wonder why Acts doesn't mention it.
>That is the basis of their argument
It is methodologically necessary to presume natural explanations are more probable than magical ones unless and until there is evidence not to. It is theoretically possible that Mark was written as late as the 2nd century, but like the pre-70 dating this view is the outer edges of the bell curve of scholarly consensus and require better evidence than circular reasoning. .
>>1044243
Compare the wording of them both:
Luke 22:19-20 (NIV)
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
1 Corinthians 11:24-25 (NIV)
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
Looks pretty similar to me. And even if he isn't quoting Luke it certainly shows just how precise the wording of the oral tradition was before the gospels because Paul and Luke both matched the wording so closely.
>Luke wanted to end Acts on a positive note
Did he now? Where is your evidence for that?
>Luke planned a second volume, but never got around to it
Evidence needed for that too please.
>Perhaps Luke had reasons for avoiding Paul's martyrdom
You're going to need to do a better job of explaining this. Colossians 1:24: "Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church" Paul is talking about how he is suffering for the Church, so why would he not want people to report his martyrdom?
>if you can't think of a reason for Luke leaving out Paul's death that doesn't mean Luke didn't know about it.
True, it does prove it 100% but it's very reasonable to claim that he didn't know since he also mentioned the deaths of the other apostles and also, didn't mention the bloody destruction of Jerusalem? Why would he not mention that?
>pre-70 it would have been Sadducee territory
I'm going to need evidence for that too buddy.
>>1044273
>Luke DOES mention the fall of Jerusalem in his Gospel
Give me a source for that right now. Pro tip: Jesus prophesying it's fall does not count as Luke stating that it happened
>This presumes that we have any historical evidence that they were martyred in the first place. We don't.
I hate to use wikipedia as evidence but it's late and I'm tired so just read it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#Death
>There's nothing even in the New Testament about it
That's my point mate, it isn't mentioned because it hadn't happened yet at the time of any of the writings that should have mentioned it
My point about the dating of Mark is that that's the only explanation I've ever seen for dating it post-70AD, which doesn't work when the opposing belief is that Jesus could make prophesies. You need to provide me with a more convincing argument if I already believe that Jesus could make prophesies since he was the Son of God.
>>1044284
>And even if he isn't quoting Luke it certainly shows just how precise the wording of the oral tradition was before the gospels because Paul and Luke both matched the wording so closely.
Or that Luke quoted Paul? 1 Corinthians is dated 50-60AD whereas Luke is around 80AD.
Using English translations to try and ascertain the similarity of Greek writings seems pretty pointless in any case.
>>1044175
>That is the basis of their argument.
Mark made other 'predictions' that didn't come to pass (namely the imminent Parousia) and you're insisting we cherrypick the one that did
>>1036737
Originally you had to be a jew before you could be a christian. Paul changed this opening to everyone (mainly greeks) & almost getting stoned to death for it. Probably could see potential revenue
Paul is to Jesus, what Lenin is to Marx.
>Maybe the Gospel predicted the fall of the Temple! You can't prove it didn't!
Can you imagine the mess we would be in if textual criticism worked this way
Paul was a smart man. But he was not Jesus Christ.
>>1044284
Hans Conzelmann: "The final point is made clearly: διετια, 'unhindered'--an appeal to Rome. The reference to the διετια, 'two years,' certainly assumes that this situation of Paul was terminated. The farewell speech in Miletus leaves no doubt as to how this came about: Paul was executed. But Luke did not wish to tell about that. The purpose of the book has been fully achieved; therefore we ought to reject all hypotheses which understand the book as incomplete or which declare the ending to be accidental." (Acts of the Apostles, pp. 227-228)
That Luke was aware of Paul's death is indicated in Paul's farewell speech at Miletus: "But now I know that none of you to whom I preached the kingdom during my travels will ever see my face again. . . . When he had finished speaking he knelt down and prayed with them all. They were all weeping loudly as they threw their arms around Paul and kissed him, for they were deeply distressed that he had said that they would never see his face again. Then they escorted him to the ship." (Acts 20:25-38)
Joseph A. Fitzmyer: "In any case, it may seem strange that the reader is not told anything about the death of Paul, the hero of the second half of Acts. Yet the ending, such as it is, may not be as puzzling as some think, because it does record that Paul continued to preach the kingdom of God, even in Rome, 'with all boldness and without hindrance' (28:31). That is the note of triumph on which Luke wanted his story to end. The gospel was thus being preached at Rome, the 'end of the earth' (1:8), 'and without hindrance' (28:31). The reader of Acts already knows that Paul's personal end was not far off; the Lucan Paul intimated as much in his speech at Miletus, and so Luke felt no need to recount it. Homer's Iliad is not seen to be incomplete because it does not describe Achilles' death!" (The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 791-792)
The ending of Acts is part of Luke's narrative plan from the beginning.
>>1036737
But Paul did. Fuck him, he's a faggot.
>>1044315
>My point about the dating of Mark is that that's the only explanation I've ever seen for dating it post-70AD
There are other arguments, but they are hard to articulate to people who haven't studied this stuff. To summarise a few of them:
1) Mark 13:1-2 describes the destruction of the temple with far greater accuracy and specificity than generic discourse on the temple's fall (contrast, e.g., 1 Kgs 9:8; 1 En. 90.28-30; Josephus J.W. 6.300-309).
2) Mark 13:14 seems to refer to Vespasian, despite occasional arguments for the zealot Eleazar or the Emperor Gaius. The citation of the Danielic vision in Mark 13:14 parallels Josephus citation of Daniel's prophecy of the temple's fall in A.J. 10.276.
3) The fact that the various portents enumerated in Mark 13 are prompted by the question in Mark 13:1-2 as to WHEN the temple buildings will fall. In so doing, Mark explicitly encourages the reader to understand everything that follows in light of the temple's fall.
4) This is a more complex argument that isn't always easy to articulate. But Mark 14:57-58 and 15:29 slanderously attribute to Jesus the claim that he will destroy the temple and raise it again in three days. What is striking is that the controversy is over Jesus' role in bringing about the destruction -NOT whether or not the temple will actually fall. This assumes that the temple's fall was not a matter of controversy in Mark's context.
1/2
>>1044315
>>1045177
5) Another complex argument, but Eric Stewart has written a book arguing that Mark configures Jewish space away from the temple and synagogues and instead onto Jesus. Words that were normally used to describe activity related to those sites (e.g., language of gathering, ritualized activities) are relocated onto Jesus. Stewart contends that this is ultimately language of replacement. Though Stewart does not explicitly connect this with Markan dating, its relevance is obvious.
6) The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mark 12) is an obvious allegory regarding the punishment of Jews for their rejection of Jesus. What is interesting is that the parallel in the Gospel of Thomas 65 (which is much more primitive than Mark's) omits any reference to punishment. This suggest the allegorization is part of Markan redaction.
7) The cursing of the fig tree links the notion of an unproductive fig tree and its destruction to an unproductive temple and its (eventual) destruction.
8) The tearing of the temple veil upon Jesus' death assumes some kind of divine causality that portends the entire temple's eventual destruction.
9) There are a few references that only make sense after the Jewish War. For instance the language of legion in Mark 5:1-20 only works after the War, since before the War the military in Palestine and the Decapolis was not legionary. As an analogy, a story wherein a demon named “Spetsnaz” is exorcized from a Crimean denizen should strike the reader as anachronistic in its politics if depicted as occurring in 2010; one would assume the story had been written after the Russian annexation of Crimea in February 2014, in which the aforementioned special forces were active.
2/2
>>1043429
Jesus was not anything near chill
You've never read the bible
>>1044175
I'm >>1045177 >>1045179
As >>1044841 points out Luke has good reasons for leaving out certain details. Don't assume that because author x neglects to mention something, that must mean he didn't know about it or it hadn't happened yet. I think that poster got those sources from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html - if you scroll down to "Information on the Gospel of Luke" part of the essay addresses your objections to a late dating of Luke-Acts. The lowest boundary accepted by scholars for Luke is 80AD but most likely 90AD
I should also add to >>1045177 >>1045179 that Mark uses Latinisms, which would indicate a Roman provenance. They are almost all technical terms that would be expected any place a garrison of Roman soldiers could be found - they relate mostly to the military, coinage, or measurements. After the Judaean War, many of them are attested in Greek inscriptions and all of them can be found in later rabbinic writings. Many of them tend to be among those most commonly found in non-Latin fluent documents.
>>1043661
Joseph Smith, is that you?
>>1045199
how wasn't he chill? according to the gospels that is
>>1044175
Me again >>1045229
>>1044729
This anon is right - Luke is quoting Paul here.
Luke makes extensive use of Mark, which, at the absolute earliest, dates to the mid-sixties. As a rule of thumb, scholars think that it takes about ten years for a text to disseminate and be absorbed after it's written. So you would really struggle to argue for Luke being earlier than the mid 70s.
Luke-Acts also makes use of Josephus writing from the 90s (Antiquities).
Anyway I think that covers it, sorry for the disjointed posts.
>>1043722
>What if, like, God is the bad guy?
You seem to be misinterpreting Marcion's point.
>The Old Testament God and the New Testament God are totally different.
They demonstrably are.
Even if we overlook the fact that the old testament god was just a big merge of multiple Canaanite gods (Judaism was initially polytheistic up until only around 4000 years ago) there is still a very clear difference between the God of the old and the new testaments.
>Jesus never existed.
He probably existed as just another apocalyptic preacher at the time and his mythic status is due to excessive hyperbole and political motivation.
His ministry was likely an offshoot of John the Baptist's cult which in turn was an offshoot of Esseneian Judaism.
>The idea of Jesus was stolen from [pagan god].
Yeah, that's stupid mythicist bullshit.
>The Romans executed Jesus. The Jews had nothing to do with it. They are our greatest ally.
Jesus likely was executed in some fashion. However it's important knowing the trial account in Mark (the earliest gospel) in objectively fictitious.
>>The New Testament is unreliable and not the word of God because it was written forty years after Jesus' death, unlike the Koran which was written a mere thirty years after Muhammed's death.
Why can't both be unreliable and silly to follow?
Also, 40 years? Paul's letters aren't until around 50 years. Mark not until around 70, Matthew, Luke, and Acts not until around 90-100, and John not until sometime after 100 (I need to spend more time learning about John than I have).
>>The Bible was just made up so people with power could control the stupid. We need to ban the Bible to stop these stupid Christian militias from trying to overthrow the government.
The Bible isn't one uniform book and each book within have different motives and purposes.
Some books were for that type of political reason.
>>1043797
Are you seriously trying to imply the the authors much later attributed to the gospels actually wrote them?
None of the gospels (sans John which is the latest Gospel and came a century after therefore is a load of fictitious bullshit) claim to be eyewitness accounts either.
>>1043892
>>1043892
We do not know this and both are objectively false. Stop fucking lying.
The whole GMark was written by Mark is bullshit made up by Papias sometime around 100AD iirc who was notoriously unreliable. It's also not even his own information as he says he was given it by his mentor who likely originally heard that from somebody else as well.
Hell, the original quote doesn't even add up either as Mark is not a memoir, and is a narratively constructed story.
The author of Luke/Acts likely never even met Paul due to how many discrepancies there are with Paul's own theology and words. Not to mention they were written decades after Paul had already died.
Why are you just lying like that? Do you not think you'll be called out on it?
>>1045288
>Refers to gentiles as dogs
>"If any town refuses to listen to your message, they'll suffer the same fate as Sodom"
>Eternal fire for mortals who sin
>Thinking about committing adultery is committing adultery itself
>"I have not come to bring peace, I've come to bring a sword...you shall hate your parents, etc."
Read the fucking book ffs
>>1043977
I'm going to go against the scholarly consensus and say that I don't believe the Q source is actually a thing.
I think we should be looking more at the Farrer hypothesis and trying to build on that.
>>1043722
>unlike the Koran
>to stop these stupid Christian militias from trying to overthrow the government.
Gee, I wonder what kind of propaganda this guy swallows.
>>1044175
You are literally plagiarizing various posts from Reddit's /r/AskBiblical right now and in that very thread there are rebuttals to those posts you've stolen from
>>1043722
>The Old Testament God and the New Testament God are totally different.
They could be. The first brings hideous punishment and death to the enemies of his favorite people, the second does the same as the first but makes the church his new "chosen people" and introduces the concept of eternal fire for those who opposed him as well
>Jesus never existed.
Personally I'd place money he did exist, but the complaints against "the overwhelming evidence" of his existence are valid. None of the anonymous gospel writers met Jesus, and neither did Paul; they can't agree on even critical events in his biography such as his birth, ministry, and heritage. Most of what we have are a large amount of weak second and third hand sources written by people who never met Jesus, who were told these stories by illiterate men who never met Jesus either, who in turn were told these stories by other illiterates who never met him as well. We have James and most of Peter as first hand witnesses, maybe all of Peter is the latter letters aren't forgeries.
>The Romans executed Jesus. The Jews had nothing to do with it. They are our greatest ally.
Jesus was executed for disturbance of the peace, though the Jews also wanted him dead for blasphemy.
>The New Testament is unreliable and not the word of God because it was written forty years after Jesus' death, unlike the Koran which was written a mere thirty years after Muhammed's death.
Both are unreliable
>>1045902
Kek you're right. Maybe it's the other way round though and someone got it from here first
>>1036737
It's just one gay Jew venting.
>>1045932
Do you have your own opinions or are you just going to parrot Bart Erhman all day?
>>1043429
Paul met Jesus after the resurrection.
You are a christian if you confessed with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead.
Just as Paul wrote in Romans 10.
>>1043684
Aye, and the so-called "pillars of the faith" added nothing to Paul whatsoever. They also tried to add some law to what Paul taught, like don't eat strangled meat and such, but Paul just grabbed his letter of recommendation and fled there.
James, seeing Paul sitting at the right hand of Jesus Christ, Whom he never believed was the Messiah until after His resurrection, now knows that Paul was right, and that James' judaizing was harmful to Christianity.
>>1045955
If I posted my own opinions you'd snap back with some stupid fucking reply like "well you're not a Bible scholar like Bart Erhman or Rodney Stark, your opinion should be discarded"
Kill yourself.
>>1043722
Not bad, but no triggers. "Paul never met Jesus" is a trigger.
>>1045963
>Paul met Jesus after the resurrection.
Yeah, cause Paul, being the only one who never knew Jesus, didn't have aaaaany motive to make up a story about how he met Jesus on a road.
>>1043767
>Ebionites
Jews.
Hello gay Jew.
>>1043813
He'll never do that. He hates Paul and Jesus with a fanatical zeal applicable only to people who know they're not Jews because they have
NO TEMPLE
NO HIGH PRIEST
NO ANIMAL SACRIFICES
NO PASSOVERS IN JERUSALEM
NO ATONEMENT
NO HOPE
>>1045955
The annons opinions are pretty mainstream and well established. They are the most likely conclusions reached from looking at the evidence. They are not more controversial than saying that America went to the moon.
I don't get why you are scared of Erman either, he is an accredited scholar and doesn't say anything you wouldn't get in a normal scholarly new testament course or book.
>>1044168
So it's all in your head, and in your blasphemous Jewish imaginings.
Got it.
>>1044175
Exactly.
Never believe liberal scholars.
Believe exactly the opposite of whatever Bart Ehrman says.
>>1044183
Nobody but Paul cared about saving the Gentiles, even when Peter saw the saved at the house of Cornelius, he still didn't believe it. It took the miracles of the Holy Spirit being manifested, or Peter would have been just like James, and just like the Paul Troll Jew: salvation for the Jews only.
James literally said he did not care what anyone taught the Gentiles, and that if the Gentiles wanted to know the truth, they could go to their local synagogue.
>>1044243
Your information is coming from a less reliable source than the bible.
>>1044243
>circular reasoning is not textual criticism works
Believing Bart Ehrman is not how textual criticism works either.
>>1036737
Is there anything more correct?
>>1044273
All lies.
>>1044741
You're conflating imminent with soon.
>>1044838
But he was the greatest Christian to have ever walked the planet.
>>1044841
Most of Paul's epistles were written from a Roman house wherein he was captive.
>>1045177
These are all lies dude. And they're all about the Temple. Either the Temple, or the temple that is the body of Jesus, which was torn down and rebuilt in three days.
I don't care how smart you are.
These things are spiritually discerned, and spiritually you are a blind fool.
>>1045298
>Luke-Acts also makes use of Josephus writing from the 90s (Antiquities).
Exactly backwards.
>>1045809
You can believe a man who thinks God and Jesus are two separate beings, one God, and one man.
That makes you an heretic and a blasphemer, not wise at all.
>>1045817
Of course they are.
>>1045867
You're the only liar I see in this thread.
>>1045884
I don't see the need for anything hypothetical. We have the real copies of the real autographs, and they have proven to be 99.5% intact.
>>1043722
Kek I agree with all of these.
I don't know about "the idea of Jesus was stolen from [pagan god]" though. I keep hearing he's just like Dionysus or something. Is that not true?
>>1045955
It's Bart Ehrman all day, every day.
>>1045973
Bart Ehrman's opinions should be discarded en toto.
>>1045979
Go ahead and figure out how Paul knew Jesus better, and the New Covenant better, than all of the other apostles combined.
Then look at all of the places Paul said he received the gospel from Jesus personally, by revelation.
>>1046000
Never trust greedy atheists about the nature and character of God, or the reliability of the bible.
The things of God are spiritually discerned; dead fools have no understanding of them whatsoever.
Paul invented christianity as we know it, we will never know what exactly it was that he ruined.
>Jesus was a homosexual
>>1046067
Agree 100%, spirituality and reality should be completely separated. Scripture if off limits to being scrutinized and critiqued, because it deals with matters of the spiritual world instead of the real one. Atheists just don't fucking understand how retarded they actually are
>>1046054
>I keep hearing he's just like Dionysus or something. Is that not true?
It depends what level of similarity you are looking for. The idea of a God dying and and resurrecting to fulfill some noble purpose was really popular, so where communion like rituals involving eating Gods flesh/blood through wine. Miraculous births, some of them potentially virgin are also really common. So is the idea of God's son coming down to give wisdom or the idea of some sort of spirit of that God being common amoung his worshippers.
The cult of Dionysus, Attis, Mithra match up with these concepts. Appearently they were similar enough so that Christians accused these cults of copy-cating them, when they were almost certainly the origenal. We have letters of them being very angry at the Mithra worshippers for being too similar to them. Mithra for instance was compared to a shepard but he tended cows rather than sheep and compared his followers to his flock. Dionysus cult had the same story of him turning water into wine and emphasized you had to drink the sacred wine to bond with the God.
>>1046077
Christianity is the belief Jesus is God, risen from the dead.
You can glean that from other sources than Paul, the greatest apostle and greatest Christian who ever lived.
>>1046092
>Scripture if off limits to being scrutinized and critiqued, because it deals with matters of the spiritual world instead of the real one.
>/his/ - History and Humanities
>>1046108
I was mocking the argument I was applying to
>>1046100
To add to this Jesus was probably a real person with some sort of ministry, however because, after Paul his ministry become mainly a Gentile thing they would have interpretted the religion in ways they are familiar with. Since Paul was almost certainly Hellinized he would be familiar with mystery cult concepts and see these as just the "normal" way for how religions work. You already see in his letters he describes being initiated into the mysteries of Christ.
>>1046139
Ironically, you were not.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
>>1046151
All I hear is a snake hissing.
That your level of understanding the mysteries of the world is a watching of Zeitgeist is pretty sad.
>>1046168
>All I hear is a snake hissing.
Spooky!
>>1046168
If you want to role-play a crusader I suggest you check this out.
>>>/tg/46915589
This is a history board.
>>1046217
All history is His Story.
What I'd give for Constantine to come back if it meant he'd replace this faggot
>>1046219
This is what high school students say....
>>1044729
For starters, you can't really be sure if Luke was quoting Paul or vice-versa, but, it would seem more likely that Paul would quote from a Gospel then Luke from a letter to a Church. Either way, since both were so close to the wording of Jesus's statements, it at least shows the reliability of the source that they may have both been quoting from, most likely the Q source. And please tell me why you think that Luke was written around 80AD, I've given you plenty of explanation for my views so you should do the same for yours.
>>1044783
Historians aren't actually analyzing the gospels as eyewitness accounts or as a true recording of history, they're just assuming it's fiction and then dating it based off of that premise.
>>1044841
Conzelmann's statement is pure conjecture, I don't see how "Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ" implies that he was executed. You need to make a more convincing argument. And the the same applies to Paul's farewell speech, that's just nothing but conjecture. He was saying goodbye because he knew he wouldn't be traveling there again after he went to Jerusalem.
>>1045177
That link is just based on conjecture. As is almost all of these claims.
>>1045902
I've never been on Reddit in my life
>>1046236
When they're brilliant.
>>1047276
Me again
Look, regardless of when exactly the Gospels were written (and I believe it was pre-70AD) it is established that there was a strong oral tradition that was being passed around and the synoptic Gospels are based off the sayings of Jesus that were being taught orally and then the author's own research as to the order of events. Now, the point that is being made by the people who wish to discredit the Bible is that Paul taught that Jesus was the Son of God, which differed from what the other Apostles believed and that after the destruction of Jerusalem his teachings held on the strongest, THEN the Gospels were written through the lens of his teachings. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's the claim here, right?
So, here's what you all need to prove but aren't:
>The Gospels were written post 70AD (we've already discussed this at length and I still maintain my stance)
>Paul and the other Apostles disagreed on Christ's divinity
>That Christ never claimed to be the Son of God
>>1047320
>That Christ never claimed to be the Son of God
Bullshit.
We know that Jesus is God in flesh because the Bible says many things declaring this. For example,
John 1:1, "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
John 1:14, "and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . "
John 8:24, "unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins."
John 8:58, "before Abraham was, I am."
Exodus 3:14, "God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
Col. 2:9, "for in him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form."
Heb. 1:8, "But of the Son he [The Father] says, 'You're throne, O God, is forever and ever.'"
After Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead, Thomas, one of the disciples, doubted that He had risen. Jesus appears to him, and Thomas responds by saying to Jesus "my Lord and my God," (John 20:28). Jesus makes no correction to Thomas about this.
Titus 2:13 tells us to wait for the coming of "our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus."
In John 5:18, it says that Jesus "was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."
John 10:33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
And the kicker:
Revelation 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
>>1047334
I know that's what's in the Bible genius, I'm asking them if they have any documents that show Jesus saying he was just a man.
As it stands now, here's what he have:
>Paul was respected by the other Apostles but they had a disagreement, that may have been resolved, on whether or not Gentiles should be circumcised
>Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and humanity's redemption
>Multiple sources showing that a preacher named Jesus existed and that he was executed in Jerusalem
And here's what we don't have:
>Documents showing that Jesus claimed to just be a human
>Documents showing that Paul and the other Apostles disagreed on anything regarding to Jesus and his form
>>1047334
So, nothing from the synoptic gospels?
>>1047380
Are you serious dude? Just read the New Testament before you join in with the discussion. Every Gospel explicitly states that Jesus is the Son of God.
>>1047276
>Historians aren't actually analyzing the gospels as eyewitness accounts or as a true recording of history, they're just assuming it's fiction and then dating it based off of that premise.
They don't treat it like eye wittness accounts because that's not what the texts are. It's a fucking omnipotent narrator describing things that happened in places that neither Mark nor Peter would have seen. The Gospels fucking outright admit none of the disciples were there to see the empty the tomb, nor could they have been with Jesus in the desert, nor could they have seen the private conversation between Jesus and the Pharisee, nor could they have been in Pilate's court-room which they admit wasn't open to the public, nor could they have been there during Jesus's birth, childhood, or baptism.
Almost half the events they record would be stuff they would not have seen. Yet not a single clue is given to how this information is obtained. This is how mythical literature is written, not eye wittnessess.
For fuck sakes Mark's gospel even is written in Chiastic structure which is a style for writing fictional poetry!
And all of these Gospels are written in Greek, a language none of these Jews would know, espcially since they were all dirt poor fisherman that probably couldn't even read Hebrew let alone WRITE a foreign language. What's more they have Greek puns in them which could not exist if they were translated from Hebrew.
>>1047334
You know none of the stuff you mentioned is Jesus saying he is the son of God.
What do you think saying something is the "Logos" means in the fucking ancient world. That's like Jesus saying he is some sort of Platonic form.
Nor does saying you remember some dead guy like Abraham mean you are saying you are God in the ancient world. This is a world that supports reincarnation (Socratic/Pythgerian philosophy), divine beings that are not Gods (angels), and the possibility for non-divine beings to turn into divine beings (the tradition of Metatron in the Jewish side and all sorts of stories of human becoming Gods in the Greek side).
Hell the Messiah/son of Man wasn't even supposed to be a God in the first place!
The Synoptic Gospels treat Jesus like a divine being such as an angel.
Paul treats him as some sort of Platonic form.
John might think he's God or a very powerful divine being comparable to God.
>>1044271
Not him but I hear my fedora liberal friends say this all the time.
>>1047405
Only John does.
Also do you even know what "son of God" fucking means in the ancient world.
I'll clue you in. There was one man in history to have this title before Jesus. His name was Augestius, who was the ADOPTED Son of a man who was thought to be a God (Caeser)
In other words in the ancient world Being the Son of God, meant that a God had adopted you into his family and given you divine status. It meant you were a distinctly separate being from the God that adopted you.
>>1047409
The Gospel was spread throughout Judea via oral tradition, the written Gospels were targeted toward a gentile audience that would speak Greek and that is the reason for Mark's structure, it's so that they could be more familiar with it.
Now, none of the Gospels are in first person because they are based off of first person accounts that are not there own. One thing that the Gospels do is they invent dialogue to explain something rather than just say what happened, for example:
Mark 14: 44 "Now the betrayer arranged a signal with them:" 'The one I kiss is the main; arrest him and lead him away under guard'.
Is the author claiming that he was there when Judas told the elders what the signal was? No. But he makes up dialogue rather than just explains what happened. The same applies to the trial, which was a mock trial by the way, the author isn't claiming to be there but he would have heard roughly how it went down and then added in dialogue.
>>1047334
>John
>>1047463
Oral traditions are horrible unreliable for keeping a cohersive idea. If Jesus was preaching in the year 30 and the oldest Gospel ever is from the year 7 that means there are 40 years of a story being passed around before it's recorded. Think about how easily a story can distorted in 40 years, if someone makes a mistake or adds in new ideas there is no way to tell the authentic from the origenal. Widely different versions of Christianity emerged, each with different interpretations of the story.
The story also had to cross a cultural barriers between Jews and Gentiles which would get changed even more.
How many hundreds of people would seperate the Gentile writing down Mark from the origenal Jews that heard it?
To give you an idea of how dramatic a shift we are talking about, the origenal documents of Mark did not have the story of the ressurection: the thing we would call the most important thing wasn't even recorded!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16
If you want to say Mark is authentic and not corrupted by the oral tradition you would have to take the stance Jesus never rose from the dead.
But if you want to say the other Gospels fill in the blank you would have to take the stance that Mark's oral tradition failed to preserve the story accurately (and what would that say about Luke's authenticity which is even older!)
>>1047507
John's explaining things to you. Pay attention.
>>1044112
>actively went against violence, and preached love of yourself, God, fellow men, and even your enemies
>lame tolerance and they always downplay his wrath
okay buddy
>>1047380
Matthew 16
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
...
For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. “Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
>>1047439
It all is. Painfully copies for you. I Am is the name God gave Moses.
Jesus continually said I Am. I Am He. I Am the Messiah.
Not remember Abraham; pre-exist Abraham.
The Messiah was always God; the Jews did not, and have not, realized that yet.
The gospels proclaim that Jesus is the Son of Man and the Son of God.
Jesus is God.
>>1047458
By Jesus being the Son of God, really and truly, and not blaspheming God like your roman emperor, He is saying He is God.
Kind begets kind.
God begets God.
The Jews knew Jesus claimed to be God, and picked up rocks to kill Him.
I am an adopted son of God; however, Jesus is God's only begotten Son, a fact mentioned in the bible many times, most famously in John 3:16.
So Jesus is not confused about being God; His enemies are not confused about His claims to be God; why are you so confused?
>>1047536
The writers of the bible were all filled with the Holy Spirit of God, Who brought all things to their remembrance.
It's not "written by man" that's the important part of this collaboration; it's "inspired by God".
>>1047458
I'm not wasting my time getting every passage out for you, but every synoptic Gospel has the transfiguration, Peter's confession to Christ and the Holy Spirit and the Father's declaration upon Christ's baptism.
>>1047536
This is from: >>1044284
>Luke 22:19-20 (NIV)
>And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
>1 Corinthians 11:24-25 (NIV)
>24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
>Looks pretty similar to me. And even if he isn't quoting Luke it certainly shows just how precise the wording of the oral tradition was before the gospels because Paul and Luke both matched the wording so closely.
There is plenty of reasons why Mark chose not to record the resurrection, for you to not know that means that you haven't studied this very closely. And even then, this is how the Gospel of Mark ends:
"As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’
>>1047458
You know what, just to be sure, here's a freebie:
Matthew 16:15-17 "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered "you are the Christ, the Son of the living God" Jesus replied "Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man but by my Father in Heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hell will not overcome it"
Thanks for wasting my time, asshole
>>1047606
It's never a waste of time; the word of the Lord never returns void. Be strong and of good courage, for our redemption draws nigh.
>>1047588
>actual historical study+logical reasoning about how an oral tradition would spread
vs
>the bible is true because it says it's true. also I have the holy spirit so i'm always right
I think holy spirit spirit uses your head as a toilet because everything in it is crap
>>1047620
The bible is a written tradition; the writers were eyewitnesses, and all inspired by God.
Congratulations on figuring out that the bible cannot be read and dissected like Moby Dick.
>>1047634
>Congratulations on figuring out that the bible cannot be read and dissected like Moby Dick.
That is what people have been doing for hundreds of years.
>>1047634
>>1047639
The Protestant tradition is literally founded on doing that to the bible.
Before than Papal approved theology took priority. The thing is after a few hundred years of trying to use history and textual analysis to prove the Protestant positions they eventually found out the bible isn't eye wittnesses at all.
>>1047639
To their gross error.
Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of people have believed it to their eternal salvation.
You don't judge the bible.
The bible judges you.
>>1047655
Catholics.
Christians.
Pick one.
>>1047752
Books do not have the capacity to judge people. Opinion discarded.
>>1047762
There is one holy book on the planet, and you can't differentiate it from every other book.
You have no hope.
>>1047755
>completely ignores the point
>starts complaining about Catholics
That must be the holy spirit taking another dump in your head huh?
>>1047276
>spouts an opinion that contradicts scholarly consensus and doesn't cite A SINGLE FUCKING SOURCE
>calls the opinions of people who have learned Greek and Hebrew and who have PhDs in NT history and criticism "conjecture"
>>1047774
Please tell me what opinion I made that was unsourced and I will give you some right now.
>>1047773
Your point was that some Italian in a funny hat knows the bible, and nobody else does.
It's a ludicrous point.
>>1047783
conjecture seems to be your favorite word. source all of them
>>1047768
>only one holy book
>the bible is actually multiple books
So which book in the bible are you referring to? Which translation?
What about the Quran?
>>1047783
Not sure what your timezone is but it's late and I am drunk. I will be back tomorrow
>>1036737
Nah its the "the dark ages never happened everything was fine and dandy anything that suggests otherwise is atheist propaganda"
>>1047785
List the statements I made without sources because I believe that I've sourced all of them.
Meanwhile, I still haven't got a source about the lack of Pharisees in Jerusalem during Jesus's time there.
>>1047787
When you say "the bible", do you mean the entire 66 books of the bible? Is that not common usage?
The bible is one book in 66 parts written by 40 men over 1500 years, and all of it is inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.
You can neither add to it, nor take away from it, without doing violence to it.
The quran is a different gospel about a different Jesus told to a man by an angel, and thus is accursed. Mohammad is accursed.
>>1047802
Don't ask me dude. All I care about is the truth, and you post the truth.
>>1047802
>source about the lack of Pharisees in Jerusalem during Jesus's time there.
That's just the gay Jew who hates Paul and calls Paul a homosexual. He doesn't source anything.
>>1047784
Oh. Now I see the problem. You suck at reading.
Here I'll give you a listen
>"The Protestant tradition is literally founded on doing that to the bible."
This is the first sentence I made >>1047655
Notice it refutes the central point of your previous statement by pointing out the very historical method of reading the bible you hate is the one that was the foundation of non-Catholics
>"Before than Papal approved theology took priority."
The second sentence. Notice I never say the Catholics were right, but rather describe how they read the bible. This method of Papal authority was rejected when people started reading the bible historically. Rather than looking to a Pope to tell them what things meant they would look at the actual history, the oldest known documents, and let the bible speak for itself.
>"The thing is after a few hundred years of trying to use history and textual analysis to prove the Protestant positions they eventually found out the bible isn't eye wittnesses at all."
The third sentence tells us that the very conclusions you are rebelling against were the one's found discovered by Protestants, not Catholics. The only reason Catholics think Mark wrote the bible is because of their Bishops said (with zero evidense) that it probably happened that way (an arguement I think YOU have made, fucking hilarious that you have to relay on Catholics to defend your position). But Bishops are just men in funny hats. The Protestants tracked down the oldest copies of Mark and found they had no signiture on them, this meant the only way to figure out who wrote them was to look at history. And hundreds years of historical study failed to produce any reason to think Mark wrote them.
>>1047802
I'm not >>1047774
But >>1045177 >>1045179 posted a list of reasons for the Mark dating. Which you called conjecture without explaining why.
Can I ask what your credentials in Biblical scholarship are or the names of your sources? Since you clearly know more about Luke's dating than anyone else.
>it would seem more likely that Paul would quote from a Gospel then Luke from a letter to a Church.
You need to qualify this statement. You are also treating 1 Corinthians as free of interpolation/redaction.
>>1047860
I don't sources to say it's conjecture, just read what the dude posted. He made claims that basically just boiled down to "maybe this is what the author was trying to do"
The sources I go off of are N.T Wright, J. Warner Wallace and F.F Bruce. I've read the Bible many times and a lot of my arguments are based off just common sense.
>>1047922
I don't need sources*
>>1047922
> I've read the Bible many times
You are seriously using this as as reason to disagree with actual scholarship?
>just read what the dude posted.
All of it seems to hold up. Why don't you actually fucking write a rebuttal instead of pretend like ignoring something makes it go away. You seem fucking desperate, unable to respond to even basic criticism while clinging onto a fringe theory.
>>1047536
>Oral traditions
>unreliable
That's racist!
>>1043429
"Jesus was pretty chill"
Pretty much the opposite of that, in a good way.
>>1036803
Christfag here.
While I can't give you any records it's common knowledge that Paul and James argued about pretty much everything, including the divinity of Christ.
Something you've gotta remember is that early Christianity didn't really begin until long after both of those men died, with James' death coming first and marking the end of what is sometimes called "Judaen Christianity."
>>1047957
Okay, first off, I don't really see how I sound desperate at all and my "theory" is hardly "fringe"
Anyway, as to the posts
>>1045177
>1)
great, Jesus's prophesy was more specific than just saying the temple would fall, okay, well, I actually believe that he was making a prophesy so that doesn't change anything
>2)
I honestly have no idea what his point is here
>3)
I don't fully understand what he means here either, In Mark 13, Jesus says the Temple will fall and then the disciples ask him when that will happen he says you can't know for sure but the warnings will be wars, famines etc.
>4)
This claim is simply wrong, Mark 14:57-62 says: " 57 Finally, some men stood up and gave this false testimony:
58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this Temple made with human hands, and in three days I will build another, made without human hands.’”
59 But even then they didn’t get their stories straight!
60 Then the high priest stood up before the others and asked Jesus, “Well, aren’t you going to answer these charges? What do you have to say for yourself?”
61 But Jesus was silent and made no reply. Then the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”
62 Jesus said, “I AM . And you will see the Son of Man seated in the place of power at God’s right hand and coming on the clouds of heaven. " So what does he mean by the controversy is over Jesus's role? The high priest just asks if Jesus really said that and then never asks again.
>5)
This needs more explanation
>6)
There's heaps of differences between Thomas and Mark, what does this prove? And how?
>7)
Great, nice link, what's your point?
>8)
Yep, what's the point here?
>9)
I don't agree with that at all, the Latin word legio is often used in Hebrew and Aramaic language to refer to something of a large number. The possessed man's demons just meant that they are a large amount of demons
>>1048075
You don't have anything to back that up.
In the Bible they are only shown as disagreeing over gentiles following Mosaic Law as seen in Acts 15 and Galatians 2.
The reason why before Paul's teachings spread it's referred to as Judean Christianity is because the followers still followed Jewish laws, whereas Paul taught that after Christ's death you no longer needed to strictly follow the laws and that Gentiles didn't need to be circumcised. Again, this is documented in Acts and Galatians.
>>1047810
No, some books were falsely included, and the Holy Spirit aided the true believers in taking them out.
>>1047802
>Meanwhile, I still haven't got a source about the lack of Pharisees in Jerusalem during Jesus's time there.
That's not actually what was being claimed but here goes
P. Botha, "The Historical Setting of Mark's Gospel: Problems and Possibilities", JSNT 51, notes "Before 70 the synagogue probably was something of a secular meeting place for Jews in any given locality in which they gathered for a variety of purposes. Only after the destruction of the temple did the religious function of these houses predominate over their secular role. Incidentally, should one relate Mark’s situation to the apologetic sphere of Diaspora Judaism, it could be that Mark told his story during the decades after the war. In Mark’s story the Pharisees
Morton Smith (Jesus the Magician, pp. 29, 155) puts the Gospel ca. 75 C.E. on the basis of Mark's reports of conflict with the Pharisees, which Smith argues reflects the period after the revolt when reorganized Pharisaic groups came into conflict with the Jesus movement.
>>1036737
Go back to /rel/
>>1047802
>>1049801
Also
http://www.bible-history.com/JewishLiterature/JEWISH_LITERATURESadducees.htm
>The Sadducees were not very numerous, and they were very wealthy and influential. To a great extent the Sadducees controlled the Sanhedrin, even though they were rationalistic and worldly minded.
That anon was claiming the Sadducees were running the show before 70AD, not that there were no Pharisees.
>>1049801
>In Mark’s story the Pharisees
Sorry I clipped the ending off by accident.
In Mark’s story the Pharisees are pictured as fairly representative of and very influential in Jewish society, a picture that fits post-70 developments."
