Most of the Bible is written by someone who never even met Jesus but "totally saw him in a vision bros"?
Let me get this straight...
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Not only that, but someone who "persecuted" Christians before he did a 180° and hijacked the movement over the protests of the original disciples.
G-D wrote OT, Jesus wrote NT, the Holy Ghost wrote This.
>Let me get this straight...
>G-D wrote OT, Jesus wrote NT, the Holy Ghost wrote This.
now homosexual's straight
Wait until you find out how history was written up until 600 years ago
>Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life include Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman. Finally, there is the very influential account of Cleitarchus who, while not a direct witness of Alexander's expedition, used sources which had just been published.
>Caesar was an accomplished author and historian as well as a statesman; much of his life is known from his own accounts of his military campaigns. Other contemporary sources include the letters and speeches of Cicero and the historical writings of Sallust.
>Res Gestae Divi Augusti (Eng. The Deeds of the Divine Augustus) is a monumental inscription composed by the first Roman emperor, Augustus, giving a first-person record of his life and accomplishments.
>The History of the Peloponnesian War is a historical account of the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), which was fought between the Peloponnesian League (led by Sparta) and the Delian League (led by Athens). It was written by Thucydides, an Athenian historian who also served as an Athenian general during the war.
>Publius Cornelius Tacitus, known simply as Tacitus (c.AD 56 – c.120), was a Roman historian and politician. The surviving portions of his two major works—the Annals (Latin: Annales) and the Histories (Latin: Historiae)—examine the reigns of the emperors Tiberius, Claudius, Nero, and those who reigned in the Year of the Four Emperors (69AD).
>Tacitus makes use of the official sources of the Roman state: the Acta Senatus (the minutes of the sessions of the Senate) and the Acta Diurna (a collection of the acts of the government and news of the court and capital). He also read collections of emperors' speeches, such as those of Tiberius and Claudius. He is generally seen as a scrupulous historian who paid careful attention to his sources. Tacitus cites some of his sources directly, among them Cluvius Rufus, Fabius Rusticus and Pliny the Elder, who had written Bella Germaniae and a historical work which was the continuation of that of Aufidius Bassus. Tacitus also uses collections of letters (epistolarium).
>At the age of 30, Xenophon was elected commander of one of the biggest Greek mercenary armies of the Achaemenid Empire, the Ten Thousand, that marched on and came close to capturing Babylon in 401 BC. Xenophon's Anabasis recounts his adventures with the Ten Thousand while in the service of Cyrus the Younger, Cyrus's failed campaign to claim the Persian throne from Artaxerxes II of Persia, and the return of Greek mercenaries after Cyrus's death in the Battle of Cunaxa. Anabasis is a unique first-hand, humble, and self-reflective account of a military leader's experience in antiquity.
>A student and a friend of Socrates, Xenophon recounted several Socratic dialogues– Symposium, Oeconomicus, Hiero, a tribute to Socrates– Memorabilia, and a chronicle of the philosopher's trial in 399 BC– Apology of Socrates to the Jury.
>Experience as a mercenary and a military leader, service under Spartan commanders in Ionia, Asia Minor, Persia and elsewhere, exile from Athens, and friendship with King Agesilaus II endeared Xenophon to the Spartans. Much of what is known today about the Spartan society comes from Xenophon's works– the royal biography of the Spartan king Agesilaus and the Constitution of the Lacedaemonians.
>Polybius was admitted to the most distinguished houses, in particular to that of Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus, the conqueror in the Third Macedonian War, who entrusted Polybius with the education of his sons, Fabius and Scipio Aemilianus (who had been adopted by the eldest son of Scipio Africanus). Polybius remained on cordial terms with his former pupil Scipio Aemilianus and was among the members of the Scipionic Circle.
>When Scipio defeated the Carthaginians in the Third Punic War, Polybius remained his counsellor. The Achaean hostages were released in 150 BC, and Polybius was granted leave to return home, but the next year he went on campaign with Scipio Aemilianus to Africa, and was present at the Sack of Carthage in 146, which he later described. Following the destruction of Carthage, Polybius likely journeyed along the Atlantic coast of Africa, as well as Spain. After the destruction of Corinth in the same year, Polybius returned to Greece, making use of his Roman connections to lighten the conditions there.
>In the succeeding years, Polybius resided in Rome, completing his historical work while occasionally undertaking long journeys through the Mediterranean countries in the furtherance of his history, in particular with the aim of obtaining firsthand knowledge of historical sites. He apparently interviewed veterans to clarify details of the events he was recording and was similarly given access to archival material. Little is known of Polybius' later life; he most likely accompanied Scipio to Spain, acting as his military advisor during the Numantine War.
>The Histories describes the rise of the Roman Republic as a global power in the ancient Mediterranean world. The work includes eyewitness accounts of the Sack of Carthage and Corinth, and the Roman annexation of mainland Greece after the Achaean War.
>At Tours, Gregory could not have been better placed to hear everything and meet everyone of influence in Merovingian culture.
>Gregory struggled through personal relations with four Frankish kings, Sigebert I, Chilperic I, Guntram, and Childebert II, and he personally knew most of the leading Franks.
>Arnulf is known for his work in five books, named Liber gestorum recentium, a "book of the deeds of recent times" (written 1072-1077). Arnulf describes his labour in the first book as "a simple narrative, offered in everyday speech, of the deeds accomplished by our kings, our bishops, and our fellow citizens from Milan and beyond, as well as our compatriots in the Kingdom of Italy, which I myself have seen or somehow heard from either those who saw them or those slightly later."
>Einhard was a dedicated servant of Charlemagne and his son Louis the Pious; his main work is a biography of Charlemagne, the Vita Karoli Magni, "one of the most precious literary bequests of the early Middle Ages".
>you have to be directly a part of history to be able to record it
>what is oral history
Also the Bible was compiled by several authors, some of which who meet your criteria
Paul even says in his epistles that Jesus was not a physical human being who walked around in Judea. No one claimed he was until the Gospels really, and those are heavily, if not wholly mythology.
The silence of Philo on Jesus is deafening, as well as the silence in general from any contemporary(emphasis on contemporary) Roman writers on the events of the Gospels.
Pilate was a real guy, but SOMEHOW the biggest scandal of his career (Jesus allegedly avoids capital punishment and fleeing execution) goes completely unremarked by anyone, at all. Until over a century goes by and Christians start saying that their leader from a generation before was killed at Pilate's command.
These appeals to authority are frightening
Rome also changed the name of judea after the israelites revolted, so as to prevent younger generations from identifying their heritage
Okay, I'm glad you don't disagree with anything I said.
>No one claimed he was until the Gospels really
Mark was written around 50AD, earlier than some of Pauls letters.
Not that anon but Galatians is dated the earliest and it's attributed to Paul, Mark is dated to 15 or so years after Galatians. Anyway mythycism is dumb. Here is Bart Ehrman on mythycism.
>Didn't read Psalms
He is much maligned for his claims about foreign lands he probably never visited, but his contemporary account of the Greco-Persian wars which were the main topic of his work is hard to fault, and you're unfairly trying to use him to drag down the other historians to the level of the "evangelists".
Also you missed the main point of my "cherry picks", we know about great historical figures like Alexander, Socrates, Caesar, Augustus, Charlemagne etc etc through direct testimonies, sometimes their own.
>Also the Bible was compiled by several authors, some of which who meet your criteria
No, and you cannot prove otherwise either.
The anonymity of the authors will probably not satisfy your appeal to authority. Herodotus based his account on the testimonies of others, and in a time frame comparable to that of the death of Christ and the compilation of the gospels (i.e. somebody’s grandfather)
I don’t have any opinion on what you said, because you said nothing. You saw a gap in history (a lack of evidence), which hasn’t been perfectly maintained from then to the present, and drew a major conclusion. Of all the missing texts in the world, how is the NT supposed to be any less subject to the errors of record keeping. Not to mention, Jesus’ ministry wasn’t as riotous as the scriptures, and you, make it seem; for example, Pilate wouldn’t have known the extent to every religious zealot he crucified, especially when such executions were common during that period.
Aside from the fact that the Gospels are hilariously mythical, and that Paul was pretty clear that Jesus appeared only as a revelation and was NOT a historical man walking around Judea, yes, a complete lack of historical record of any kind is kind of important when discussing the historicity of a guy.
Hell, you didn't even address Philo, and ABSOLUTE contemporary of Jesus' alleged life, who lived not far from Judea, wrote about Pilate, AND already believed in an existing Jesus-angel(bet you didn't know that was a widespread belief among many israelites before Jesus was born, did you). So why would he NOT write about a guy claiming to be this archangel in the flesh, who made a huge hub-bub in Jerusalem, and was part of a huge public trial by Pilate apparently. He really had NOTHING to say about it?
>Paul was pretty clear that Jesus appeared only as a revelation and was NOT a historical man walking around Judea
Where are you getting this from?
By reading the authentic Pauline epistles. He never talks about the life of Jesus, only that he was born/created and then was killed by Satan and his demons. He never talks about anyone else who saw Jesus walking around on Earth, no disciples, only apostles who got visionary messages from Jesus like he himself did.
I could go on. But Paul's Christ has little in common with the euhemerized Jesus of the Gospels.
Jesus wrote the authentic Pauline epistles. That's what our Great-grandpappy said.
In Galatians he says he met James, the flesh and blood brother of Jesus the Christ.
You are a buffoon.
>In Galatians he says he met James, the flesh and blood brother of Jesus the Christ.
Paul used "brother of the Lord" to describe non-apostle Christians(those to whom Jesus appeared in visions). Hence why he only refers to James as such because Cephas is there, who is himself an apostle. Paul uses "first of many brethren" to describe Jesus, and also calls all initiated Christians as brothers of the Lord.
Also israelites didn't have a concept of something like a great grandfather. Your father's father's father is also your father.
Paul NEVER talks about any other "brothers of the Lord", despite Jesus being the "first of many brethren" but also "adelphos" is used to mean cultic "brothers". Paul constantly refrences believers being adopted sons of God and co-heirs with Christ, being his brothers. But notice how Paul NEVER distinguishes James from these OTHER "brethren"? He never says "James, the brother of Jesus in the flesh" or "the brother born from the flesh of the mother of Christ after him"? No, he only ever refers to ONE kind of brother: cultic brothers.
I think you need to say this a little louder, I don't think they hear you
the greentext not the "where you getting this from", and he's getting it from actually talking to jesus himself, if you wanna know what happened with Jesus why don't you just ask him? Instead of assuming shit.
this is actually a good thing because it made the religion into a proto greek philosophy religion and not a full retarded semetic one
Polished kike religion is still kike religion.
>Most of the Bible is written
Not an argument. You are not insulated from empiricism because you feel like it.
Paul wrote only minor part of a new testament canon material
none of the gospels and none of the old testament books
OT is irrelevant, and denying the epistles don't make up most of modern Christianity is ignorant
How's that anymore preposterous or unbelievable than any other claim in the Bible? "I totally talked to God, trust me bros". "This event totally happened trust me bros".
Wait till you realize that NO ONE ever met Jesus.
Beelzebub wrote the Bibles
Jesus here. I wrote NT and Apocrypha.
He met James, his brother.
Paul also paved way for the hellenization of the religion and throwing away the israeli elements.
Has anyone seriously and critically read both the Bible and the Bhagavad Gita?
Did you notice how overwhelmingly superior and more simple the latter was? I found the Bible so cumbersome, poorly written and translated, confusing, contradictory, and incoherent that I had to invest far too much time parsing through all these silly nuances and going to all these different churches, seminars, meetings, study groups, and youtube videos just to figure out these inconsistencies, and >protip: you can't lol.
Yet I picked up the small and brief Bhagavad Gita, read it once and that alone made far more sense, was far easier to comprehend, bestowed a far superior and coherent view of the cosmos and God, and was a real pleasure to read. I have read it countless times since. In fact, it's probably my most read book now. It endlessly fascinates me in a way that Christianity never could. I am no longer a Christian, and it was such a massive relief being feed from that Semitic garbage.
>inb4 streetshitter reee!!!
lol no, I'm 100% European Caucasian. But I believe that Vedic religion is the true Aryan religion that naturally and effortlessly resonates with us. In contrast, Semitic Abrahamism is a bad fit and must be forced and laboured upon us with cringey results at best, and genocidally disastrously results at worst.
Anyone else had this transforming experience?
lol streetshitter (no reee, though).
I'll translate your childish denialism into seethe and cope, which is exactly what it's worth.
Still whiter than you christfag.
still whiter? df does that supposed to mean? you guys might as well start calling each other Yella again, like are we reverting back to 1950's racial slurs?
>doesn't deny it
The majority of Christians are shitskins from Mexshitco and Rapefrica and these two posts are proof of it.
You should not be racist. All humans have the same dignity before God
this dude really said "still whiter than you" lmfao df
I'm a Vedic Christian.
I know what you mean. I actually find the Bible more interesting and "mysterious", more worthy of secular scholarship, for those same reasons, but it's certainly flawed and inadequate as a holy text compared to many other scriptures.
1 Corinthians 13 mogs all other Holy texts
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
Book of Wicca rules. The Horned One
>flawed and inadequate as a holy text compared to many other scriptures.
My thoughts exactly. Yet Christians act like it's the greatest thing ever. Inspired by their commitment, I had to read it, then re-read it many times over because I was sorely disappointed. At first I thought I was the problem, but after the voluminous scholarship I undertook to figure it all out I finally realized my instincts were correct all along: just a pile of semitic garbage. I even found the Qu'ran a much better book. But Vedic scriptures are so far ahead of both it's just not fair to compare them. It's like having an M-4 carbine while your opponent challenges you with a sword. Abrahamism is totally inferior and substandard for any serious religious practice.
How'd we make the Pajeets our bitches for over 100 years then?
The Bible is a bunch of different peoples letters and writings throughout centuries and decades before christ and after christ. In Christ's time, the Bible was called The Torah. The Torah is the first five books of the bible written by moses. That's what Jesus grew up studying, the Torah and he also knew the prophecies of Elijah and Many of the other old testament books but not all of them. That's how he knew he would be the messiah (he survived his crucifixion tho). Jesus didn't write any of the bible. It's literally a bunch of larp complied together into one big larp. Think if you made a religion what it would look like.
Then in the 1500's, king james A HUGE LARPER, translated the Hebrew version to english. Before he did this there was no english bible, you had to sit down an translate it from Hebrew. Bruh when he did this he literally changed everything, took out all the stuff he didn't like and made the bible into what he wanted it to be which is what it is today and why christians of today are horrible people instead of actual followers of christ. King James gave the translators instructions intended to ensure that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy (catholicism which was created by archons) and was basically a cult or secret society until they adopted Jesus.
The translation was done by 6 panels of translators (47 larpers in all, most of whom were leading biblical scholars in England) who had the work divided up between them: the Old Testament was entrusted to three panels, the New Testament to two, and the Apocrypha to one.
Are you actually retarded? There were already tons of English Bibles by the time the KJV was made, the whole point of it was to standardise all the different English Bibles! You don't know the first thing about what you're talking about.
Peter wrote the book of peter between A.D. 62 and 64 when he was locked up in jail. Paul wrote Galatians between 53–54 CE. While there is disagreement about where Mark wrote, there is a consensus about when he wrote: he probably composed his work in or about the year 70 CE, after the failure of the First israeli Revolt and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple at the hands of the Romans.
Paul did not write "most of the Bible" but he did write a significant portion of the New Testament, that being a set of letters written to various churches. Paul was chosen by Christ to be an apostle to the Gentiles, and his mission was accepted by the other Apostles that were directly appointed by Christ and to whom Christ gave teaching authority in these matters. So Paul being confirmed by the Apostles is the same as Paul being confirmed by Christ. In one of his epistles, Peter also states that Paul's letters are Scripture:
2 Peter 3:15-16
>... and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
>implying Peter wrote 2 Peter
No one seriously believes that (besides Christcucks)
Even among Christians actually, it's only the most stubborn hardliners and fundies, or the plain uneducated.
>If you don't agree with the atheistic historical critical method you are le dumb fundie man
Christians of most stripes can come to a dispassionate conclusion that 2 Peter was not actually authored by Peter, it's only people whose entire worldview rests on the KJV being perfect and such who refuse to acknowledge that.
Bide the Wiccan Laws we must In Perfect Love and Perfect Trust.
Live and let live. Fairly take and fairly give.
Cast the Circle thrice about to keep the evil spirits out.
To bind the spell every time let the spell be spake in rhyme.
Soft of eye and light of touch, Speak little, listen much.
Deosil go by the waxing moon, chanting out the Witches' Rune.
Widdershins go by the waning moon, chanting out the baneful rune.
When the Lady's moon is new, kiss the hand to her, times two.
When the moon rides at her peak, then your hearts desire seek.
Heed the North wind's mighty gale, lock the door and drop the sail.
When the wind comes from the South, love will kiss thee on the mouth.
When the wind blows from the West, departed souls will have no rest.
When the wind blows from the East, expect the new and set the feast.
Nine woods in the cauldron go, burn them fast and burn them slow.
Elder be the Lady's tree, burn it not or cursed you'll be.
When the Wheel begins to turn, let the Beltane fires burn.
When the Wheel has turned to Yule, light the log and The Horned One rules.
Heed ye flower, Bush and Tree, by the Lady, blessed be.
Where the rippling waters go, cast a stone and truth you'll know.
When ye have a true need, hearken not to others' greed.
With a fool no season spend, lest ye be counted as his friend.
Merry meet and merry part, bright the cheeks and warm the heart.
Mind the Threefold Law you should, three times bad and three times good.
When misfortune is enow, wear the blue star on thy brow.
True in love ever be, lest thy lover's false to thee.
Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill: An ye harm none, do what ye will.
Jesus tells mediums and psychics all around the world that he didn't die on the cross but was crucified. He tells them that a lot of the story was turned around and a lot of the things he said were switched around.
That's not what I was told.
>I believe in everything described in the Bible except the parts where Paul is talking to Jesus. That's too unbelievable. Everything else is perfectly believable though.
Are there really people out there with this worldview?
>are there people who cherrypick scripture and call things they can't explain a metaphor?
Yes. They are called Christians.
Paul's epistles are older than the Gospels which were written later. Fact.
1 Tim. 5:18 cites Luke 10:7.
>For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”
>And remain in the same house, eating and drinking such things as they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages.
Oh wait Paul didn't write that either, because if he did then it would mean you have to move the Gospels earlier. So therefore he didn't write it. Hurrrr
They're both quoting the old testament. Go put on your dunce cap.
Which verse specifically?
It's speculation based on analysis of writing styles and such things, which can be explained in other ways. There's nothing conclusive about it at all.
Deutoronomy 25:4 for muzzling oxen, Leviticus 19:13 and Deuteronomy 24:14-15 for denying wages.
Even if you had never read the OT, 1 Corinthians 9:9 more specifically says "For it is written in the Law of Moses" about the oxen passage instead "the Scripture says", so it should have been obvious.
>There's nothing conclusive about it at all.
I was only referring to the part about wages. In Paul and Luke this is written in basically the same way:
Paul: ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ
Luke: ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν
The only difference is the word ἐστιν (is) which is elided by Paul.
Lev. 19:13 (LXX)
οὐκ ἀδικήσεις τὸν πλησίον καὶ οὐχ ἁρπάσεις καὶ οὐ μὴ κοιμηθήσεται ὁ μισθὸς τοῦ μισθωτοῦ σου παρὰ σοὶ ἕως πρωΐ.
>Thou shalt not injure thy neighbour, neither do thou rob [him], neither shall the wages of thy hireling remain with thee until the morning.
Deut. 24:14-15 (LXX)
Οὐκ ἀπαδικήσεις μισθὸν πένητος καὶ ἐνδεοῦς ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου ἢ ἐκ τῶν προσηλύτων τῶν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσί σου· αὐθημερὸν ἀποδώσεις τὸν μισθὸν αὐτοῦ, οὐκ ἐπιδύσεται ὁ ἥλιος ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ, ὅτι πένης ἐστὶ καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ἔχει τὴν ἐλπίδα· καὶ καταβοήσεται κατὰ σοῦ πρὸς Κύριον, καὶ ἔσται ἐν σοὶ ἁμαρτία.
>Thou shalt not unjustly withhold the wages of the poor and needy of thy brethren, or of the strangers who are in thy cities. Thou shalt pay him his wages the same day, the sun shall not go down upon it, because he is poor and he trusts in it; and he shall cry against thee to the Lord, and it shall be sin in thee.
Neither of those even use the same word for laborer (ἐργάτης) that Paul and Luke both share. The idea that they both just so happened to simplify (not quote) these verses in the same way, even changing the terms in the same way, is absurd.
Need to amend this as I accidentally left out a few words from Paul and Luke, this should properly read this way:
Paul: ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ
Luke: ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν
The other word in Luke, γὰρ, simply means "for". You will also note that Leviticus and Deuteronomy also do not use the term ἄξιος (worthy).
What Pauline epistle are you refering to.
Timothy is older than Luke, it's not an early epistle.
It quotes Luke so therefore it isn't.
>The idea that they both just so happened to simplify (not quote) these verses in the same way, even changing the terms in the same way, is absurd.
Not at all, it could simply mean they quoted a popular saying that summarized the Law regarding wages: if there's any rule in Leviticus which would have a pithy popular version, it's surely that one. Or perhaps they're quoting a different translation than the Septuagint we have. The term ἐργάτης is all over the NT so it's no surprise they would use that.
Incidentally Matthew 10:10 also says ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης. A very similar wording is found in the Didache: ὡσαύτως διδάσκαλος ἀληθινός ἐστιν ἄξιος καὶ αὐτός, ὥσπερ ὁ ἐργάτης, τῆς τροφῆς αὐτοῦ
Either way, if the Pauline epistle considered Luke/Matthew to be "scripture", it would be terribly anachronistic and cast doubt on its authenticity or make us suspect later insertions if anything, though Matthew would be just about early enough for it to work assuming Matthaean priority.
I should add, it wouldn't be the 1st time Paul appears to paraphrase the OT while claiming to quote it. For example 1 Corinthians 1:19 paraphrases Isaiah 29:13 while claiming it's "what is written". To be fair, it's quite close to the Septuagint, but the change in the last verb is glaring.
[...] καὶ ἀπολῶ τὴν σοφίαν τῶν σοφῶν καὶ τὴν σύνεσιν τῶν συνετῶν κρύψω.
γέγραπται γάρ· ἀπολῶ τὴν σοφίαν τῶν σοφῶν καὶ τὴν σύνεσιν τῶν συνετῶν ἀθετήσω.
>Maybe they quoted a popular saying (that I have no evidence exists)
>Maybe they quoted another translation (that I have no evidence exists)
>Maybe they're following NT usage (but I don't grant that the NT was a thing at that time)
>Also if I'm wrong then it proves I'm right because it would contradict the historical critical model which cannot be wrong
>Also here's another quote but this one is similar unlike the one we're discussing which is not similar
Not all of them, just Galatians and Thessalonians.
The Book of Acts that wasn't written by Paul pretty much confirms that he was an Apostle on a mission by God, God straight up send a vision to the church to confirm that this Paul guy was legitimate.
Historical critical scholars are so against certain books, e.g. 1 Tim and 2 Pet, because they refer to other books of the NT as being scriptural, so therefore if they're legitimate it refutes the entire historical critical model.
Wait until you find out who the progenitors of the historical critical method were.
>The Young Hegelians interpreted the entire state apparatus as ultimately claiming legitimacy based upon religious tenets. While this thought was clearly inspired by the function of Lutheranism in contemporary Prussia, the Young Hegelians held the theory to be applicable to any state backed by any religion. All laws were ultimately based on religious tenets.
>As such, their plan to undermine what they felt was the corrupt and despotic state apparatus was to attack the philosophical basis of religion.
>David Strauss wrote Das Leben Jesu (The Life of Jesus/The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined) in 1835, in which he argued – in a Hegelian framework – against both the supernatural elements of the Gospel and the idea that the Christian church was the sole bearer of absolute truth. He believed the Gospel stories were mythical responses to the situation the israeli community at the time found themselves in.
>David Friedrich Strauss was a German liberal Protestant theologian and writer, who influenced Christian Europe with his portrayal of the "historical Jesus", whose divine nature he denied. His work was connected to the Tübingen School, which revolutionized study of the New Testament, early Christianity, and ancient religions. Strauss was a pioneer in the historical investigation of Jesus.
>"Higher criticism" originally referred to the work of German biblical scholars of the Tübingen School. After the groundbreaking work on the New Testament by Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), the next generation, which included scholars such as David Friedrich Strauss (1808–74) and Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–72), analyzed in the mid-19th century the historical records of the Middle East from biblical times, in search of independent confirmation of events in the Bible.
Funny. An astute Christian should be able to recognize the problems with this sort of methodology. Historical criticism approaches the matter in what they would say is simply a historical manner, which means everything must be understood only as it is situated in its direct human context, without any bearing upon future events, and that no supernatural explanation is permissible. So Jesus can only know what his immediate context in early 1st century Judea, he can have no supernatural abilities or knowledge, he cannot state anything that is a prophecy or that has relevance to the future, which he cannot know. For example the critical scholar will tell you that Jesus's prophecy of the Temple being destroyed, which occurred in 70AD, must have been forged by others after 70AD (or just slightly earlier, in a context where it seemed likely) because Jesus could not know that the Temple would be destroyed. This is the logic behind their late dating of Matthew and Mark, which include this prophecy. So the methodology beings by assuming that Christianity is false, as an unfalsifiable axiom.
>So the methodology beings by assuming that Christianity is false, as an unfalsifiable axiom.
Yes which is why it isn't much use for Christians. Secularists get pissy when you simply disregard their conclusions but the historical critical method was created specifically to undermine Christianity and many of the hypotheses proposed by the Hegelians are actually still in use today.
Indeed, if they want to "do history" that's fine and dandy, but why they should think that their conclusions should have any value for me, I can't say. I suppose ultimately the goal is not convincing individuals, but rather institutional capture. If you can convince people there is a solidified "scholarly" conclusion on the matter, you can easily destroy the faith of those who are not knowledgeable enough to see through the trick.
And this person who never met Jesus was actively tasked with persecuting and destroying Christianity before suddenly, he's supposed to be in charge because...reasons.
a man who got persecuted and executed for spreading the Gospel, and who gave up his extremely high position (next in line for chief of the Sanhedrin, studying under Gamaliel) to follow Christ.
it's nonsensical to think him not genuine.
You already got btfo in the other thread.
Not that anon but the fact of the matter is this:
. If you reject Paul you reject the other Apostles. If you reject the Apostles you reject Christ who sent them.
This post doesn't add anything new to the discussion.
There's nothing else that needs to be said. You can either accept the teachings of those whom Christ sent and gave authority to, or you can reject them.
I'll take option B, i have not been convinced by your rambling.
Suit yourself, but God is not fooled.
If you have a direct line to God can you ask him to fix my car please.
Anyone who has faith in Christ has a direct line to God.
I don't though, so I'm just asking you for a favor in case I'm wrong and he's real. I dont feel like calling a towtruck.
I prayed for you.
most of the bible is written before the incarnation
Most of the new testament is copies of copies of copies of writers writing about people who lived 100 years or more after Christ, whose historical existence has absolutely no corroboration in the writings or archeology of the time he was supposed to be alive.
But the religious do not need to corroborate their stories, and so this is not a problem for them.
>Most of the new testament is ... writers writing about people who lived 100 years or more after Christ
Thanks for stating that you know absolutely nothing about the subject you're talking about.
Don't feel bad about it anon. Most of the talmud was written by child rapists so there's always worse.
>literally met the apostles
>did several missions with them
>was present at the council of Jerusalem
>established several ancient churches
>did most of the heavy theological lifting connecting the OT prophecies with Jesus
yeah bro why do Christians listen to this dude
>Have a message so strong and powerful
>Be God and from God
>Be noticed by thousands
>Want the world to know the truth
>Don't write anything down or leave a trace of your existence
You just don't get it man.
It's a test of your faith.
God is obviously real and left evidence everywhere, but you also have to take a leap of faith because the reason there is no evidence is to test us.
All of the Scripture is breathed out by God and is available to you right now.
The "leap of faith" is a concept from Kierkegaard and is not an intrinsic part of Christianity. The general knowledge of the Supreme Being is obvious within creation, however.
>Its Constantine and the council he put together who decided what was canon.
There was no decision made regarding the canon at Nicaea. This is a common myth.
>What's not to say that the Gnostic texts are not the word breathed by God? It seems pretty heretical to trust anybody other than Jesus to mess with the Word.
The witness of the Church, which is the body of Christ.
>The general knowledge of the Supreme Being is obvious within creation, however.
Its Constantine and the council he put together who decided what was canon. Does that mean he is God? What's not to say that the Gnostic texts are not the word breathed by God?
It seems pretty heretical to trust anybody other than Jesus to mess with the Word.
To have faith in anything other than Jesus is a sure way to have your world view manipulated by Satan.
>Implying Balkan Big Head knew or cared about the arcane details of Early Christian Canon.
Constantine was a pragmatic, not a fanatic. The Church merely recognized the Canon at Nicaea, did not pick the books.
There wasn't any decision made about the canon at Nicaea.
The Canon had already been largely established by like 100 AD. Some minor corrections here and there but not much. There were dissenters and autistic bishops who espoused heterodoxies, but they were always a tiny albeit vocal minority. My main point was that Nicaea was not some master plan between Constantine and the bishops to subvert Christianity. Constantine couldn't care less as long as there was peace and quiet. Soldier, son of a soldier, son of a farmer, son of Balkan tribesmen. Does that sound like a Bible scholar to you? Guy couldn't even speak Greek fluently.
>The Canon had already been largely established by like 100 AD.
it was not even completely written by 100 AD.
LULZ religion server
Most of the Bible isn't the Gospels. You might as well complain that an actual US history text book focuses SO MUCH on 1776 when no one at the publishing house was there
>If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
>But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
This explains why Christians like Paul, since he obviously continued the work of Christ flawlessly, so there's no reason not to trust him. The premise of this thread is really weird though, since you're clearly an infidel who doesn't believe anything in scripture, so why single out Paul? Do you really think you're going to convince any of us like this?
There are hundreds of authors of the Bible and almost none of them lived after Christ. Paul wrote only some of the Epistles.