>christcucks actually believe this is the genuine word of god himself
MY SIDES
>>879167
It's still one of the greatest works ever produced in the English language
>Anglos
Wow, what a surprise.
Atheists sure are buttsore today.
>>879183
>faces legitimate criticism of dumbfuck ideology that has caused literally millions of deaths, all for the sake of some bullshit text that any historian would throw out and dismiss as a useless source
>"hurhurhur muh angry atheists lol fedora hahaha"
this is how the religious mind really thinks
>>879211
nah, its just 4chan
>>879211
>>faces legitimate criticism of dumbfuck ideology that has caused literally millions of deaths, all for the sake of some bullshit text that any historian would throw out and dismiss as a useless source
>>"hurhurhur muh angry atheists lol fedora hahaha"
>this is how the religious mind really thinks
>all this salt
>>879167
4
1+3
2+2
3+1
5-1
-1+5
.
.
.
>>879211
>>faces legitimate criticism of dumbfuck ideology that has caused literally millions of deaths, all for the sake of some bullshit text that any historian would throw out and dismiss as a useless source
>dance to my tune monkey boy
Implying anyone wants to be a pass time to an edgy millennial shitposter.
>>879211
>millions of deaths
Source please
Vox populi, vox dei.
>implying the Word of God is the Bible itself.
>implying that the Old and New Testament haven't been changed and debated since before an actual Bible was put together.
>implying that Theology and Christian beliefs aren't ever changing and shifting just as the Church Father's wanted.
>implying Christianity isn't a religion of critical reasoning and theological systems.
Lmao. Atheists still can't into hermeneutics and theology. Take some time out of your busy Mine Craft schedule and read the Bible and learn some Theology then come back and argue. It's more fun when you know what you are talking about.
>>879167
Catholics don't.
>>879167
Exactly. You have a bunch of old, greedy men writing down what they think the Word of God is supposed to be (with select self made passages to further their own political aims).
>Trinity
False
>Jesus dying
False
>Son of God
False
>Original Sin
False
Parts of the New Testament were written a little over 20 years after the death of Jesus.
>>879167
There is so much wrong with that pic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon
Read stuff before you talk, fedoraboy.
>>881845
>You have a bunch of old, greedy men writing down what they think the Word of God is supposed to be (with select self made passages to further their own political aims).
Yes, a cabal of bishops secretly secretly decided out of the blue what the holy text of a religion is gonna be.
This is /his/, not /x/.
I've read the bible. And raised in an evangelical church. I've listen to them tell me how it IS the word of god, God, and his word, are never changing, and that there is no room for discussion. God said it, it is.
This whole ever changing critical thinking bull shit... well that's a bunch of bull shit... but propagandizing liars that day other wise exist in all shitty things that do more harm than good...
But what do I know, though.... they only raised me...
>>881851
Most evidense says the earliest things were Paul's letters at 40 years after. And to give you an idea of how "accurate" those are most scholars think several that are included in the New Testament are not even written by Paul by a forger.
Another hilarious episoide is that Peter supposedly wrote 2 books. Peter came from an illeterate part of the world where only about 3% could read and even less could write. Further more the books are written in Greek, which would have been a language alien to him (he would have spoken Hebrew or Aramaic). As a matter of fact we know Peter couldn't write because Acts 4:13 says so.
>>881868
Jesus died roughly 30 AD
The dating of some of Paul's writing are...
First Thessalonians -- 50 AD
Galatians -- 53 AD
First Corinthians -- 54 AD
Philippians -- 55 AD
Philemon -- 55 AD
Second Corinthians -- 56 AD
Romans -- 57 AD
All of these are within 27 years of the death of Jesus.
It would be easy to remember things that far back. I have clear memories from 40 years ago.
>>881868
And I think it says pretty clearly that Silvanus did the actual writing for Peter
>>881892
Paul never met Jesus.
What even would he remember aside from what the church would tell him and what he hallucinated?
>>881900
We know that Paul knew some of the apostles, because he was constantly fighting with them.
And he may never have known Jesus in the flesh, but it's up for argument if he knew him after.
>>879167
The assumption being that God influenced their decision on what to include in the text.
>>881821
Why would anyone waste their time learning Theology? It's useless.
>>881845
GTFo muzzie.
As if the king james is the only bible Christians believe. And how fucking hilarious is it that the 'fact' based atheists have the dates of bible books off by 'hundreds of years'. What dumbasses.
>>881910
It's fun
>>881910
Why would anyone waste their time learning about black holes? It's useless.
>>881892
>It would be easy to remember things that far back.
Paul never knew Jesus, he would have had no memories.
The earliest writings by anyone who would have known Jesus is John's Gospel which is from the year 97 Ad, Almost 60 years later!
Why not Mathew Mark and Luke? Well because Mathew and Mark got their writings from Q source, not from memory (and this highly makes us think that Mathew and Mark were not the real authors, after all if they knew Jesus why are they copy pasting writings from Q)?
Luke also never knew Jesus.
>>881905
No, it isn't, unless you're a child.
>all these nerdy new atheist arguments against religion
Every time. Le religion is dumb le fluying spegheti monster jeeebus, omg leviticus is contradictory, omg ebil cristuns tipped fedora at me Am i dongi it right?
>>881845
Muslim detected.
>>881958
This isn't how you defeat arguments. You sound uneducated.
>>881971
Defend what? Read Aquinas and we will talk, you're too far away from my intellectual kin right now to be taken seriously. Kiddo.
>>881979
Yes, let's all read about how demons cause floppy penises, then we will be well educated.
>>881979
*tips fedora*
>>881979
>Defend what? Read Richard Dawkins and we will talk, you're too far away from my intellectual kin right now to be taken seriously. Kiddo.
Literally zero difference.
>>881979
>Defend what? Read Ghazali and we will talk, you're too far away from my intellectual kin right now to be taken seriously. Kiddo.
>>881939
I think you're at least a bit wrong here.
The hypothetical Q source is used to explain the similarities between Luke and Matthew.
It's also hypothesized that Luke and Matthew had access to the Gospel of Mark which would explain the similarities shared between the three of them.
Mark would be from 70 CE.
I don't even know about John. Everything concerning John just seems like a clusterfuck of bullshit landmines.
Of course I'm throwing names around but names don't fucking matter because it's all bullshit tradition based on hearsay evidence.
>>881979
>Aquinas
>>881987
So you have zero acquaintance with Christian apology and you think yourself a certified expert on religion because you've read bits and pieces of off Sam Harris' twitter feed? Truly, who would think that the audacity of the new atheists would be ever so appalling!
>>881979
>Defend what? Read [namedrop here] and we will talk, you're too far away from my intellectual kin right now to be taken seriously. Kiddo.
>>882018
I'm not aware Sam Harris has ever written anything about Aquinas and I don't use twitter.
Why is it that religious people think fallacious trash talking is such a good argument?
>>879167
We don't believe lies. You do. Your picture is a lie.
54+ of the finest Bible translators English has ever known, to translate the King James Bible, not 8.
There is not enough time in the universe to teach you textual criticism; suffice it to say that the tens of thousands of manuscripts that did survive from the second century forward (about 20 years after the last apostle died, not hundreds), are constantly scrutinized to determine that what we have today is 99.5% intact from what the autographs are.
Even if you had the autographs, you would not believe them. You don't want to believe them, for reasons all your own.
21st Century Christians rely on the Holy Spirit of God, just as the 1st Century Christians did, to know what the Word of God says, and means.
I find it hard to believe that you, with nothing, and no answers to life's major issues, can criticize people, with something logical, rational, complete, and transcendent.
I know one day your folly will end. Until then, you should attempt to begin the process of becoming wise.
>>881892
And that recollection would be crystal clear if the Holy Spirit of God brought all things to your remembrance, as He did for the authors of every book properly in the bible.
>>881868
John Mark wrote Peter's account in the Gospel According to Mark, and iirc, Sylvanius took Peter's dictation for his epistles.
>>881939
Paul spent years with Jesus in Arabia, after first meeting the risen Christ on the road to Damascus.
When we say Jesus is alive, we mean that Jesus is alive.
Christians are pretty crazy and retarded
But they're not as dangerous as muslims
>>881973
It was corrupted from inception as a different gospel about a different Jesus, and thus accursed, according to the bible. It directly contradicts the bible, and is thus a heresy.
>>882014
There is no Q, and the early dating of Mark posits the year 45 as the earliest it could have been written.
>>882065
Yeah man, Freeman Dyson Isaac Newton Plantinga all retards.
This is why new atheism makes you braindead.
>>882065
Maybe you are crazy and retarded, and people who believe God are not. In a universe where anything is possible, is that possible?
>>882075
>namedropping means you're an intellectual
>>882060
The attribution to Mark is based on Papias saying that heard the elder say it, so basically hearsay evidence.
Moreover it's unlikely that John Mark would make the kinds of geographical and theological errors that the Gospel of Mark makes.
>>882070
That is exactly why I said hypothetical.
The document doesn't exist but it explains the things shared in Luke and Matthew because the synoptic Gospels share some of their content between eachother.
>the early dating of Mark posits the year 45 as the earliest it could have been written
Which dating is that exactly? I'm mainly finding that it's commonly held to have originated sometime around 70 CE. The most common critique of this I find is that Christians absolutely want the Gospel of Mark to be capable of prophecy.
>>882093
Is it possible that God is right, and you are wrong?
>>882098
There are no errors in Mark, and Mark appears in Mark. Of course, you have to know the Holy Spirit to know that.
If it's hypothetical, and unnecessary, and debunked, don't use it.
The entire bible is capable of prophecy, and about 30% of the bible is prophecy.
>>879237
heres a challenge: try posting ITT but exclude any ad hominem in your post such as "he wears a fedora," "he is salty," or "he is angry."
have you ever wondered if there is anything to your post beyond ad hominem? do have anything else to say? don't you want to explain what you believe?
>>881944
fuckin rekt man, you showed him
>>879167
It's one of the most majestic and powerful expressions of the English language, period. Next to the Book of Common Prayer and the works of Shakespeare, the KJV is one of the most widely-quoted English works ever. I'm an atheist, but I still see its importance as a work of art. You don't have to believe in something to see its beauty.
>>882099
And how would you assess that?
>>882104
>There are no errors in Mark, and Mark appears in Mark. Of course, you have to know the Holy Spirit to know that.
The entire ending of Mark appears to have been added at some point because it is not in the earliest manuscripts.
>>882105
>don't you want to explain what you believe?
Whats the point? Religious people don't want to get invested in this because you will just brush it off with your anti intellectualism. Go read Aquinas and St Augustine and make a thread on it.
>>882093
>M-Muh deists mufugga
>deists
So this is an atheist understanding of history
Protestants are not Christians and the prince of peace will throw them in the fire on judgement day
>>881979
>Defend what? Read Πρὸς τὸν ἴδιον υἱὸν Ρωμανόν and we will talk, you're too far away from my intellectual kin right now to be taken seriously. Malaka.
>>882120
I don't know, they might be really impressed by all your namedropping
It's really funny that the atheists all scream about providing evidence and how it's bad to use fallacies when they provide zero evidence and have used nothing but logical fallacies in this thread.
>>882127
You don't seriously discuss relativity unless you read einstein, you don't seriously discuss theology unless you read aquinas. That simple.
>>882114
A wise man would do so by definition.
>>882117
How is that a geographical error?
>>882128
>have used nothing but logical fallacies in this thread.
Such as?
Also, why do people need to provide positive evidence for a negative statement?
>>882132
What definition? How is the definition assessed to be correct?
>>882139
Any rational definition of "God" would do.
>>882143
Define "rational"
>>882135
>Such as?
In the following posts
>>879167
>>879211
>>881845
>>881944
>>881971
>>881973
>>882006
>>882065
>>882081
>>882093
>>882127
oh and >>882135
>Also, why do people need to provide positive evidence for a negative statement?
Sorry, I forgot I was on a board of pseudo-intellectuals that spout that burden of proof bullshit because they're too lazy and/or stupid to back up their claims.
>>882144
One that a reasonable person would find logical.
>>882149
Do you have autism by any chance?
>>882149
So do you've either defined it as 'reasonable', which would be a tautology, or you make it depend on what a person finds reasonable, which would make it subjective
>>882152
How about this.
The person who created this universe is wiser than you are.
>>882156
Yes, rational and reasonable usually go together.
>>882157
Why do you assume it's a person?
>>882157
I don't see how that's related to my question or your abstract idea of what a "reasonable person" would find "logical"
>>882160
I don't.
>>882162
If you cannot agree to that statement, nothing I say can help you.
>>881892
>I have clear memories from 40 years ago.
They may be clear, but in all likelyhood, they're not how things actually happened. Human memory is a very unreliable source of information.
>>882166
>If you cannot agree to that statement, nothing I say can help you.
Well at least you answered my question.
Confirmed autism.
>>882158
Which doesn't explain anything, which is what a definition is supposed to do
This is like defining the word 'beauty' as 'gorgeous'. You're not explaining anything, you're just swapping one word for another.
>>882134
Who said anything about geography?
>>882178
>Moreover it's unlikely that John Mark would make the kinds of geographical and theological errors that the Gospel of Mark makes.
These thread should have stayed on /x/. The 'atheists' in these threads spout whatever watered down garbage they've read in the god delusion ad nauseum. These people shy away from any philosophical discourse because they have the philosophical depth of a fucking flash cube. Is anything intellectually stimulating ever said in these threads? I suspect, nay i'm almost certain, this is the same bunch that reprimands metaphysics as 'useless' and clings to their positivist reductionism that required the least of mental effort. I hope none of you fags ever encounter me vis a vis because i will bash your mongish countenance right fucking in.
>>882064
i was under the impression paul just recieved a vision. can you provide the source of where it says paul and jesus were hanging around in arabia together? you can provide passages from the bible or anywhere. im not trying to argue athenticity or historicity, just genuinely curious where you got this idea.
>>882191
Do fuck off. Most of us have never read the God Delusion and it is the religious people doing all the low quality shitposting, just like you just did.
>>882178
I did earlier when mentioning that Mark makes supposed errors that someone like him would not make.
Something like passing through a town closer to a place before one further away when traveling to that place.
Or not judging a distance accurately or whatever.
>>882189
The general consensus is simply that he wasn't a Palestinian Jew like John Mark would be because he's not acquainted with Palestinian customs and geography.
I made the mistake of saying theology instead of customs though, got a bit mixed up there.
>>882104
Q source isn't debunked.
It just used to explain the issue of the synoptic Gospels having so much in common beyond just discussing the same subjects.
>>882120
maybe theres no point to explaining but my main point is if you strip away the ad hominem, your posts are blank. you are posting nothingness
>>881987
where does aquinas talk about floppy penises?
>>882197
Galatians 1
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
Then after three years....
Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles— 2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men
Paul met with Jesus on Mt. Sinai, in Arabia. It is not recorded in the bible.
>>881834
atheists dont even care, anything with christian gets them ass sore and shitpost thirsty.
>>882224
You call Mark out for an error you say was added to his gospel after his death.
Are you a seeker of truth?
It's debunked. Unnecessary. Useless. As are all hypothetical tools used to understand God.
>>882251
You are retarded.
You are conflating two posters together to prove your point.
I didn't say the error was added after his death.
The other anon didn't say that the portion added post-mortem was a geographical error.
>It's debunked. Unnecessary. Useless. As are all hypothetical tools used to understand God.
Are you refering to the Q document here?
I would have no fucking idea because you make no real mention of what you're refering to.
Synoptic problem is still a thing and has to be explained in a way that isn't goddidit (Because that would be literally retarded, Jesus fucking Christ I just realized that you think that goddidit is a perfectly good way of explaining literally everything).
Q document is a very good way to explain it.
>>882246
This doesn't seem to refer unambiguously to a physical meeting, only that he received a revelation from Jesus Christ.
>>882244
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5058.htm
>>882290
Maybe the things of God are not for you.
>>882394
Will the Holy Spirit unite all born again Christians into One Body, with Jesus as the Head?
Why yes, yes He will.
And on that day, the cries of the Romanists will be cymbals in my ears.
>>882290
>I didn't say the error was added after his death.
>The entire ending of Mark appears to have been added at some point because it is not in the earliest manuscripts.
Is lying fun? I want to try it some time, but I just can't do the devil's work for him.
>>882409
This.
The Papists screaming as they burn will be music to the ears of the Saved.
>>882415
Justice. Final justice for those who have grown drunken on the blood of the saints.
>>882411
That a fact
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/
>>882440
Do try to follow threads better in the future, thank you in advance.
>>879287
>edgy
This word again. You're only free to complain about 'edginess' because you live in a relatively secular and modernized society and see the past through nostalgia goggles. But people in the past found the religion to be stifling, corrupt, and unbearable, hence why secularization attempts got as far as they did
>inb4 "muh kikes!"
>>882442
Maybe you should. I say this as the anon that made one previous reply to you in this thread about the ending of Mark, a post you seem determined to attribute to another anon.
Daily reminder the Gospel of Mark contains references to the homosexual relationship between Jesus and the young 'neaniskos', which were edited out save for the strange sentence in Mark 14:51 concerning the "youth in the linen cloth" who follows the guards and Jesus even when all the disciples have fled.
>>882458
Don't be too hard on him. It's almost a requirement to have poor reading skills to be a Christian of his sort. Otherwise, he'd know about things like Mark's decidedly odd phrasing for a supposed 1st century Judean.
>>882411
That was a completely different poster.
Read my post.
You are combining two arguments into one and trying to disprove that one.
>>882290
Hatred and rejection of biblical study including things like Q source is a result of a stupid theology that tries to make the bible the ultimate and only authority.
When you do this the moment we find out that the bible has a few contradictions in it the entire religion has been shot-gunned.
>>879167
the protestant doesnt do it and then after a while goes to blasphemize. the next century she wakes up and finds her mouth still isnt there. she goes to europe to check and mouth sword pope gun antipope sword
>>882957
Man Door Hand Hook Car door: Holy See Edition
>>882113
sure, the majority of bibles contain beautiful calligraphy and margins, but beautiful in terms of language? really, now? the entirety of revelations is incoherent shit
>>882976
it'ss not a joke... jesus has a mouth sword . revelations 2:16
>>882977
I think Revelation was only included because the writer refered to himself as a very nonspecific John.
Can't imagine any other reason.
>>882458
I'm sorry, you idiots all post alike.
Holding Mark accountable for what happened after he died is foolish.
So, if that's you, you did something foolish today.
As to the addition at the end, if you believe it was added on after the autographs were written, is anything in it false? Contrary to scripture? Contained anywhere else in the bible?
>>882477
That was Mark. That was John Mark putting himself into the narrative, and no, there's nothing sexual about it. He saw the mob, he followed the mob, he was there at the arrest, he fled. Someone got hold of his clothes, and he bailed out of them.
>>882977
Then how can I understand it so well, and you cannot?
>>882988
The same mouth caused the universe to form.
I'm pretty sure He can kill with a word.
>>882999
check'd
It's the Revelation of Jesus Christ by John the Beloved Apostle; of course it's in the bible.
In fact, to take ONE WORD of the Revelation out of the bible is to cause a curse on your head.
Because the Revelation clearly identifies Rome as Babylon, and the Whore of Babylon, and her evil, perfidy, and wickedness, the Roman church pushes it away.
>>883039
>It's the Revelation of Jesus Christ by John the Beloved Apostle; of course it's in the bible.
Well of course that isnt true.
>>883047
And of course you have no truth in you, and of course you don't get to toss books out of the bible.
>>883051
> of course you don't get to toss books out of the bible.
You mean like Luther did?
no the bible is what it is, its not not true
>>882122
That doesn't sound very peaceful to be honest.
Never is it implied or stated that the bible is the word of god.
t. not a christian.
>>883075
No, not like Luther did. Luther took books out of the Roman canon, not out of the bible. Huge difference.
>>883086
It's not. It's a hostile universe with huge downsides for everyone who failed to manage to not be conceived.
>>879211
l2history faggot
>>883096
Ironic that he is called the "prince of peace" then.
>>882477
There is something sexual about it. See this paragraph that was deleted from the Gospel of Mark concerning Jesus meeting this 'young man' and "loving him":
"And they come into Bethay. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, "Son of David, have mercy on me." But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.[9]"
>>883039
The author never identifies himself beyond "John".
That does not mean that he is called "John" (Though it is not an uncommon name) or that he is "John the beloved apostle".
In fact it's inconsistent with the biblical account (If you want to be so stupid as to accept the traditional authorship proposed by the church) since the Gospel of John and Revelation both choose to identify themselves differently while supposedly being the same person.
Revelations John gives only his name.
The beloved disciple in the Gospel of John does not give his name.
The curse is on par with a chain letter or a 4chan meme.
And it's weird.
Protestants (Or Martin Luther whatever) threw out the book of revelation and yet I'm getting the hint that you're protestant or whatever because of that "Roman church" comment.
>>883005
My point wasn't anything along the lines of "we shouldn't hold Mark responsible for what happens after he died".
My point was that claiming the modern version of the Gospel of Mark, whichever unknown author wrote it and whichever unknown tinkerer amended it can't be claimed to be "without error" because the entire ending has been added at some point.
>>883133
>>883133
This
We have no evidence any of the Gospels were written by the supposed Apostles or even the Evangelists; Hell, on the other hand, everything - from the references to certain events or things, to the use of certain words and even the quirks in writing - suggests that none of the Gospels were even written contemporaneously.
But it's actually funny, that Christcucks will proceed to not structure their entire lives around these writings with less-than-divine origins, but will also attempt their hardest - unto death - to force others to structure their lives around them.
>>883227
In that case, you should read the Quran, my friend.
>>883279
If he was going to be a silly religious person, then yes, that is what he should do.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35151643
>>883279
Islam and Christianity are equally shitty, desu. Just 'cause you didn't happen to witness the excesses and corruption in the Middle Ages...
>>881938
well, we know that black holes really exist in our universe. theology is just philosophical fiction. might as well read star wars novels or something
Now would be the best time to start a crowdfunded online community translation project.
Compared with what the translators of the past had to use; now there's the possibility to look at multiple texts on screen and search for any key terms instantly. Think about how hard that would have been before computers.
I seriously hope none of you are going to eat meat today.
>>883287
>Islam and Christianity are equally shitty, desu
Oh for fuck's sake, could we drop the milquetoast lefty false equivalency please?
>>883227
Yeah not like oral tradition was ever used in antiquity...
>>885555
Except they aren't really based on oral tradition.
The authorship of Matthew and Mark is based on a quote by Eusebius that he attributes to Papias of Hieropolis
Papias attests that he heard a church elder attributed the Gospel of Mark to Mark.
Papias simply states that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.
>Basically hearsay for Mark and the consensus is that what was written does not match up with how John Mark would have written the Gospel since he was a Palestinian Jew
>Matthew is basically just a random person but the account of his Gospel doesn't quite match up with the way that Papias states that he acquired it since it is likely that he adapted Mark due to the Synoptic problem requiring an adequate explanation for the overlap in the synoptic Gospels (And because there are some apparent corrections in errors made in Mark).
The author of Luke is the author of Acts and since he refers to himself as a companion to Paul in those he is generally assumed to be Luke based on the Pauline letters that say he had a companion named Luke.
>The author of Luke however does contradict Paul on some accounts which casts doubts on the idea that he would have been a companion of Paul
The authorship of John seems to be crafted from the idea that John has to be Jesus' most beloved disciple.
>That can mean basically anything and John is generally considered to have had multiple authors writing the Gospel.
>>883094
This shows that Protestantism is illegitimate
>>885537
Stop shilling for Christianity, kiddo.
