Thread 18137875

If Christianity was a "real religion", why is there no direct literature from founder himself? Buddhism has literature from Buddha, Mohammed has Quran.

Bible is just rando books written by randos under pseudonym.

Cult leaders don't write books. They have other people do all that work for them. Look at Trump.

>>18137883
>Cult leaders don't write books. They have other people do all that work for them. Look at Trump.

atleast Books about Trump are being written during his lifetime so we know the "founder" approves of them.


All Jesus's literature appeared after his death. The founder (jesus) had no input on whether the information attributed to him was right or wrong.

>>18137875 (OP)
And they dont even convey the same information

>>18137875 (OP)
>no direct literature from founder himself?
Paul wrote loads of letters thoughever

>>18137875 (OP)
>If Christianity was a "real religion", why is there no direct literature from founder himself?
Because there is a whole society directly from the founder himself - the Church.
>Bible is just rando books written by randos under pseudonym.
This is a hypothesis based on the limitations of current textual criticism. It's not actually a remotely proven claim.

>>18137875 (OP)
Plenty of direct literature from the founder.

The founder was Paul, and he never met Jesus.

I think the Jesus of history, the real Jesus, would likely be appalled at what Paul created in his name.

There are no contemporaries that wrote of Jesus, so Paul had a pretty much blank slate to make "Jesus" say whatever he wanted.

>>18137875 (OP)
>Online Islamic Comparative Religions Study
I'm a mythicist and think the gospels are even later than what the pic suggests, but the Islamic view of Jesus is silly since it's obvious that the apostles thought Jesus' death was an atoning one.
It's right there in Paul, and he met the 12 in person.

>>18137899
>There are no contemporaries that wrote of Jesus, so Paul had a pretty much blank slate to make "Jesus" say whatever he wanted.
He met up with the Apostles to discuss and Peter acknowledges Paul and validates Paul's writing in his own letter. You'd have to make many, many leaps... or rather stick fingers in your ears at many, many strategic moments to pretend Paul had a free reign to make stuff up.

>>18137896
>Because there is a whole society directly from the founder himself - the Church.

Did Jesus start the Church? He didnt. Your point is a proven lie.

>>18137917
Yes, he did. If the Church at some point decided to write a book or a dozen is almost tangential. Participative learning beats propositional learning when it comes to changing your life.

>>18137875 (OP)
They're all real religions

>>18137921
all useless blabber. Did Jesus start a Catholic church in a building and give a sermon? NO. So he isnt the founder.

>>18137928
He did give a pretty famous sermon but it wasn't in a building which logically means no church, ever, even if he said he's making one. Makes sense lmao

>>18137899
The founder was Peter. Paul joined up later

>>18137875 (OP)
>writing down your own words
ngmi

>>18137931
>He did give a pretty famous sermon but it wasn't in a building which logically means no church, ever, even if he said he's making one. Makes sense lmao

where did he give this "speech" friend? Is there any first hand account from Jesus himself for this "speech"? OR was this speech written down years after his death by people who could gain from writing such a thing.

>>18137956
On a mount. It was witnessed by dozens of people, one of whom wrote it down and gained death by spreading it lol

>>18137960
>one of whom wrote it down
source?

>>18137960
>On a mount. It was witnessed by dozens of people, one of whom wrote it down and gained death by spreading it lol


"The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7) is recorded first in the Gospel of Matthew, written around AD 70–85."

so written 40 years after Jesus died. LOL

>>18137899
appaulled hehe

>>18137965
Matthew

>>18137981
Written down? Possibly, it is not settled. Luckily witness accounts remain witness accounts regardless of when they're written on a paper.

>>18138000
>Written down? Possibly, it is not settled. Luckily witness accounts remain witness accounts regardless of when they're written on a paper.


Courts dont take witness statements seriously if the statements are taken a week after event. And i should trust witness statements written down 40 years after main actor died? LMAO

>>18138000
The gospel according to Matthew was not written by an eyewitness and it never claimed to have been.

>>18137911
>>18137911
>you make many many leaps
Yeah, like pretending a zombie carpenter gives you eternal life and cleanses the sin that a talking snake gives you.

I'm just gonna say it, you christfags live in opposite land. Everything you believe is an inversion of the truth.

Saying I'm making leaps and sticking my fingers in my ears.

You faggots need to get a dose of reality. And you really need your own board.

>>18138013
you did not adress a single point of the post which you have replied to

>>18138011
I'll note for when we're discussing statements taken by a court. LMAO

>>18138012
Not written down by eyewitnesses? Possibly.

>>18138013
Sorry, lost me at zombie, no idea what you're talking about.

>>18138029
There is no possibly. Matthew was written in a foreign language in a foreign land 50 years after Jesus supposedly died. It would have been written in aramaic or hebrew otherwise. Plus it was just a verbatim rewrite of Mark with some long speeches thrown in and a handful of other episodes all to serve the authors purpose.

>>18138022
You cannot disprove with reason that which was created without it.

It is futile to try to discuss the finer points of history with someone who believes things that your average toddler would know are untrue.


Once again, you Christians need your own board. Christianity and *true history* are not compatible. You people are hoodwinked by fictions at every turn, in all aspects of your life.

>>18137875 (OP)
How do you feel about Islam where it took centuries before anything was written down? Why is Christianity always the target of anti religion topics?

>>18138047
that's laughably untrue

>>18138047
>Why is Christianity always the target of anti religion topics?
it isn't, see any thread about Judaism

>>18138042
>It would have been written in aramaic or hebrew otherwise.
Or Greek, since it was the lingua franca.
> it was just a verbatim rewrite of Mark
"Verbatim rewrite" just makes it obvious you never compared the two. Identical passages are fairly rare.

If you're dissatisfied with "possibly" and shaky hypotheses are how you combat it, then I think our interaction ran its course.

>>18138045
I was just wondering why you'd give someone whose post you are not even adressing a you and you did the same thing yet again.

>>18138047
Because Christianity glorifies slavery servitude, herd conformity, weakness, and everything disgusting about life. The very gesture of "hands clasped in prayer" is actually exactly how Roman slaves would present their hands for being bound to their masters.

Islam, since the beginning, was a religion made for warriors. It was also a religion spread by an incredibly successful warlord (and then spread further by many warlords after him). This is much more respectable.

I mean, Muslim nations are shitholes, and the way Islamic fundamentalism operates in present times is even dumber than Christianity operates. But that's immaterial in my opinion. In a vacuum, not considering modern applications, Islam is worthy of far more respect than Christianity.

Tyrants always will hoodwink people with religion, but that's not how religion needs to be used. It could be used as a powerful tool for enlightenment and introspection, but that's not how 99% of people use it. They just tend to use it for oppression and sealing their minds shut to all forms of unpleasant reality. They use it to ideologically own the stupid.


Anyhow, tl;dr I respect Islam more as a religion. It seems more pure and more morally upright.... though the tyrants in the middle east are using it in the wrong ways, for the wrong reasons. Just like tyrants in our own land are using Christianity in the same way.

>>18138047
>Why is Christianity always the target of anti religion topics?
They're like jews but worse

/his/ needs to burn theres no substance in anything just lowtier bait, chinkworshipping and adolf dick sucking

>>18138088
Exile the Christfags to their own board and this would be a pretty nice place here.

But putting people who have no sense of reason into any genuine historical discussion is fucking stupid. They smear shit on the walls like the apes they are.

>>18138064
>Or Greek, since it was the lingua franca.
Random Galilean fisherman wouldn't have known greek.
>makes it obvious you never compared the two. Identical passages are fairly rare.
Are you kidding? They are so similar that they had to come up with a phrase, synoptic gospels, because these were clearly just rewrites of Mark.

>>18137875 (OP)
God wrote the whole Bible. Are you stupid? (Yes.)

>>18137875 (OP)
this is equally applicable to the torah, as well, of course. moses didn't exist and he certainly didn't write anything down, much less his own funeral.


Fun Fact: There are ZERO facts in the entire Bible.....none. It's 10000% pure bullshit. That's it.

>>18138091
there fine. threads like this are the reason, legit nothing is being talked about. its just crying about christianity but using some topic to cover it. legit first 5 words he just completely unloads his purpose of this.

>>18137875 (OP)
There is ZERO scientific justification for the dates given here and ZERO original texts from the dates claimed either. ZERO.

>>18138116
Noooooo they didn't make 21st century studies when writing down dates noo what will I do someone help iM GOING ALLCAPS

>>18138095
>>Or Greek, since it was the lingua franca.
>Random Galilean fisherman wouldn't have known greek.
Source?
>They are so similar that they had to come up with a phrase, synoptic gospels
Synoptic gospels is Mark, Matthew and Luke, each sharing different bits and only Mark and Matthew having passages that are claimed to be "verbatim copied" beyond chance. Anon, please.

>>18138116
>There is ZERO scientific justification for the dates given here
Mark was written in a response to the jewish war which happened finished in the early 70s. Matthew was made using Mark as a source. Luke used Josepus' Antiquities of the Jews as a source which was published in 93. John was written is response to Luke.

>>18138112
>>18138116
Keep seething, gaytheist. God hates you. :)

the jews are experts are rewriting history

>>18138136
please back up your claim regarding Mark with references to the text within his Gospel, I'm genuinely intrigued.

>>18138128
Koine greek was used, in Judea, by high ranking officials in government and trade. Random fisherman would not have used it because they wouldn't have been involved with that.
>Synoptic gospels is Mark, Matthew and Luke
Yeah I know. They are bundled in this phrase because of how much they took from Mark. That's why the phrase exists.
>and only Mark and Matthew having passages that are claimed to be "verbatim copied" beyond chance.
Something like 50 percent of the versus of Mark are in Luke either verbatim or near verbatim, with very slight minor alterations.
Luke: 36 All the people were amazed and said to each other, “What words these are! With authority and power he gives orders to impure spirits and they come out!” 37 And the news about him spread throughout the surrounding area.
Mark: 27 The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, “What is this? A new teaching—and with authority! He even gives orders to impure spirits and they obey him.” 28 News about him spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee.

>>18137875 (OP)
Buddha and Muhammed also didn't exist. They didn't write anything down.

>>18137893
Paul never met Jesus. Suspiciously Paul never mentions that Jesus founded a cult, had disciples, performed miracles, spoke in parables, and he never mentions Pontious Pilate. He said he got all his information about Jesus from visions and secret messages in scripture. Paul's Jesus was a sky jew that lived in the sky.
https://youtu.be/I9PcG5M9lZ0?si=c6i03eWhkqZn1iZj

>>18138177
Sure. It's believed that Mark was written as a response to the jewish war and the destruction of the temple even, to explain this new event.

13 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!”
2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”
5 Jesus said to them: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 6 Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. 7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.

This was explained by the parable of the fig tree a couple chapters earlier. Jesus saw a fig tree that wasn't producing fruit because it was out of season so he cursed the tree.
13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.
Then he enters the temple. The tree is a metaphor for the temple which is why they are directly connected in the story. It wasn't the season for figs and it was no longer the season for the temple. It's use had run out, at least that's how it was explained here.

>>18137890
>All Jesus's literature appeared after his death
If you met Jesus IRL and believed him when he said the kingdom of god and resurrection was imminent theres no reason to write a book. Im not sitting down to write a gospel when the son of man is coming next thursday

>>18138220
Those flames just got hotter.

>>18138229
>denying the message of christ
Tik tok

>>18138243
Meds.

>>18138220
>If you met Jesus IRL and believed him when he said the kingdom of god and resurrection was imminent theres no reason to write a book. Im not sitting down to write a gospel when the son of man is coming next thursday

And he said he will come back and establish his kingdom on earth within his disciples lifetime.

So if he was "Son of man", why did he lie?

>>18138214
Ok, but that doesn't prove anything.

>>18138279
The jewish war and the destruction of the temple being written about in Mark doesn't prove that it was written with knowledge of this event?

>>18138285
It's not like that would have been the first destruction of the Temple. Did any of the players in the Jewish War claim to be either Jesus or another Messiah? Was it impossible to make the claims presented in the previous post before the Jewish War?

>>18138296
What seems most likely to you, that someone made up on the spot that there would be a war in Jerusalem, that the temple would be destroyed, and that the city would be depopulated and then all of these coincidentally did happen 40 years later.
Or that this was written after the event? There is one correct answer. I'm afraid you my not be smart enough to choose properly

atheist here, how would that prove the book was real or inspired?

>>18138305
I must be retarded, since I cannot find those 40 years which you have been refering to in the text which you have previously posted.

>>18138324
Yeah i guess you are. Jesus is said to have died in the 30s and the jewish war, referenced in the gospel of Mark, concluded in the 70s. 70 minus 30 is 40. Is your childlike mind able to keep up here?

>>18138332
Why are 40 years signifcant?

>>18137883
L. Ron Hubbard wrote books.

>>18138338
It was said in this post >>18138305
If your memory can't go back 2 posts then I think history and biblical study may not be right for you.
Again, which is most likely: that someone wrote that there would be a war in Jersualem, temple destroyed, and lands depopulated, and then it just happened to come true sometime in the next 40 years, or that the book was written after the fact and with knowledge of what already happened? Will you be able to answer it this time?

>>18138350
I don't know whether the text was written afterwards, but I am very certain that someone had it written down that the temple would be burned down in the future. Just from the usual doomsday prophecy croud. Not to speak of the debtors who had a clear interest to destroy the social order and burn down the temple to order to erase their debts with the temple bank.

>>18138350
Do remember: God hates you, and he will torture you accordingly. You will never be able to escape. You will never be able to have a day off. An eternity of agony and shame is all you have to look forward to, along with deep regret that you were ever born. I'm so glad I'm not you. Enjoy. :)

>>18138345
Maybe Scientology is real?

>>18138369
>I am very certain that someone had it written down that the temple would be burned down in the future
There were jews who wanted to get away from temple sacrifices before it was destroyed, like Paul, running around. He and they never made predictions, or said that Jesus had predicted, that their temple and the entire city would be destroyed. All of those predictions conveniently came from documents made after the event. Additionally, the first attestations of the existence of this gospel were made after the war. If you "don't know" then you are lying to yourself.

>>18138399
Those flames just got hotter.

>>18137904
>its right there in paul

>>18138256
>So if he was "Son of man", why did he lie?
Thats a different question for a different thread. The point is an apocalyptic movement believing in an imminent end isnt going to write anything down immediately. Everything paul writes too is correspondences, not narratives

>>18138399
Daniel 9:
24“Seventy ‘sevens’[a] are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish[b] transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.[c]
25“Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One,[d] the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.[e] The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

>>18138399
>Additionally, the first attestations of the existence of this gospel were made after the war.
You can't just take a statement which we evaluating the truth of in order to prove itself. I'm sorry my attention span is too long for this too work.

>>18137875 (OP)
>random books written under pseudonyms
If so then most of the pseudonyms they picked sucked ass big time, and wouldn’t have been useful for forging the claimed authenticity of the texts.
>Mark
Not mentioned by name once in the Gospels and only *possibly* mentioned as “John Mark” in the book of Acts as a wandering scribe with Paul. This guy is obscure as shit and not claimed as a direct witness to Jesus, so why was his name chosen to authenticate a text about the lifetime of Jesus?
>Matthew
By the Gospel’s own admission Matthew was a Jewish tax collector for Rome, which the Jewish audience the gospels were directed at would’ve hated with a passion, especially in the decades after Jesus lived, when Judea was crushed by Rome. Why would they trust someone who was essentially allied with their main political enemy, a traitor to their people and cultural religion, as an authentic eyewitness?
>Luke
The only reason we know who this guy is at all is because of the authorship claim of him writing this gospel and the book of Acts. Otherwise we’d have no idea who this guy is, as he’s mentioned only 3 times in passing by Paul’s letters (only twice if you count 2 Timothy as inauthentic) as a traveling physician with Paul. Again, this guy is super obscure. Why would his name be used to authenticate the texts, especially when, as you mentioned, Luke’s gospel explicitly claims to be a secondhand account?
>John
Within the text itself, the claimed eyewitness writer goes by the vague pseudonym “the beloved disciple”, and takes great pains to hide his identity. The gospel was written very late into the generation that claimed to see Jesus as eyewitnesses, and by this time there were other gospels directly claiming to be from famous disciples like Peter, Judas, Thomas, etc. So why not follow their lead and directly forge into the text that it was written by John himself, and not use a vague pseudonym?

(Cont’d)

>>18138951
This is unrelated. The anointed ruler here is in reference to Onias III (according to Leviticus 4 high priests were called annointed).. "The word" "to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" was made in 605BC according to Jeremiah:
25 The word came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon.
From this there would be sixty-two sevens, or 434 years, until this person died. That year would be 171BC which happened to be the exact year that Onias III died. The world didn't end shortly after his death so this is actually a failed prophecy.

>>18139023
>(Cont’d)

If they were truly anonymous with forged attributions after the fact, 3 of the 4 had massive drawbacks that wouldn’t help authenticity claims, and the one that would actually help is intentionally censored out of the text with a pseudonym. None of these are hallmarks of forgers with the goal of faking authentic attributions to the canonical gospels. They’re working against themselves massively if you truly believe this to be the case.

>>18138460
Paul was a schizo, but I doubt he'd just make shit up and convince the other christians that the 12 were wrong about everything.
>>18139023
>and wouldn’t have been useful for forging the claimed authenticity of the texts.
According to the Gospels the 12 were mostly illiterates, if you're going to attribute a text to somebody of course you're not gonna chose the key players for this simple reason.This is also working under the assumption that the attributions came about by deliberate lying rather than hearsay in all cases, which is faulty. In the case of John I think we're dealing with lies by the proto-orthodox (Polycarp was likely involved somehow), but Mark and Matthew are likely accidental, Luke being debatable.
Unfortunately for us the earliest source doccumenting the gospels (Pappias) is lost, but if we had it I think we would have an easier time determining how the names came to be attributed to the texts.

From the little we do have it doesn't look very promising, and I suspect that his writings were deliberately destroyed since I can't imagine that such an early source would just be lost, especially since he was used by Eusebius.

>>18139023
>By the Gospel’s own admission Matthew was a Jewish tax collector for Rome,
Historically the main reason Matthew was attributed to Matthew is that the tax collectors name is changed from Levi in Mark to Matthew in Matthew, so the church fathers reasoned if hes writing his own book he knows his own name. Plus the jewish content of the book was associated with the tax collector. Thats really it, its similar for the other gospels where the authorship tradition comes from a close reading and big interpretation of single words.
Church fathers also reasoned its good to have two gospels attributed to Paul's circle and two attributed to Peter's circle as a balance.
People who find the gospel author traditions important should look into where the traditions come from.
Lastly lots of jewish texts are anonymous whereas greek texts had authors and hellenstic jews rushed to attribute authors to their anonymous books, aka solomon writing ecclesiastes moses wrote job etc

>>18139150
> According to the Gospels the 12 were mostly illiterates, if you're going to attribute a text to somebody of course you're not gonna chose the key players for this simple reason.
Matthew was a tax collector. For him to do this he would have to know how to read and write to keep records. By your logic if any of the 12 could’ve reasonably written a gospel, it’d be him.
> In the case of John I think we're dealing with lies by the proto-orthodox (Polycarp was likely involved somehow)
Again, why would he lie about the authorship of John and not also forge John’s name directly into the text? Polycarp was claimed to be a direct disciple of John and was alive in the age range when it was written, so he would have all opportunity to attribute the text directly to John, either by altering the pseudonym to directly mention him or writing the text directly himself. Either way Polycarp had to either intentionally use the pseudonym or leave in the pseudonym for John throughout the entire work. It was against his interests to not write in John’s name directly unless the text’s author was well enough known under the “beloved disciple” pseudonym that changing it would be very noticeable. None of these approaches is the hallmark of a forged attribution.

There is also the book of Revelation, which was written within the same time frame and has John’s name directly in the first verse, giving precedent that John did not always go by a pseudonym, so why not follow that precedent to align the works?

>>18139496
> Historically the main reason Matthew was attributed to Matthew is that the tax collectors name is changed from Levi in Mark to Matthew in Matthew, so the church fathers reasoned if hes writing his own book he knows his own name. Plus the jewish content of the book was associated with the tax collector. Thats really it, its similar for the other gospels where the authorship tradition comes from a close reading and big interpretation of single words.
The gospel of Matthew explicitly states that Matthew (9:9-11) was the tax collector in question.
>> As Jesus passed on from there, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office. And He said to him, “Follow Me.” So he arose and followed Him. Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

To someone reading this particular gospel that Matthew is attributed, the author going by this name is directly claiming this fact to be about himself. Given the poor social status and ire of tax collectors in Roman Judea, along with the the tax collector in the other gospels being called Levi, the author choosing to co-opt this story and directly associate it with himself is a very weird move if the name was to prove authenticity. This would sink his reputation among the Jews, one of their primary audiences, down the drain.

Also of note, Matthew’s gospel mentions money much more than the other gospels and has many unique stories relating to money, which would make sense for a tax collector to do (picrel).

>>18139930
Forgot the picrel, fml

>>18139928
>By your logic if any of the 12 could’ve reasonably written a gospel, it’d be him
Uhh yeah, that's probably why it was attributed to him, that's the point I was making.
>Again, why would he lie about the authorship of John and not also forge John’s name directly into the text
So first off, I was perhaps a bit careless when I said it was forged. I moreso mean that there was an original gospel that was later redacted and assigned to John for perhaps quite shady reasons, perhaps not so.

The gospel shows clear signs of multiple redactions (the intro and ending being the most obvious signs), and given the clues in the Gospel I'm guessing Lazarus was the original "beloved disciple" but that more explicit refrenced were later cut out for obvious reasons, and the gospel was assigned to John.
Why Lazarus? Well for one the title is never used in the story before Lazarys is introduced, when he is introduced he is literally called the one whom Jesus loves (John 11:3) and when the beloved and Peter rush towards the grave he is the only one who understands what's happened (because he himself was raised from the dead).
Finally at the end of the Gospel when he is talking to Jesus and Peter asks him if he was ever going to die, Jesus rebukes him and says it's none of his business. Why would Peter ask such a question? Because he had already been raised from the dead once and it wasn't obvious if that could happen twice.

>Polycarp was claimed to be a direct disciple of John and was alive in the age range when it was written
I'm guessing he or someone in his circle edited the original and that his association with John is somehow related to this fact. As for why they didn't just name the beloved John I cannot say, perhaps they wanted to avoid explicitly lying, or perhaps they thought the Gospel they'd recieved had been edited to more or less replace John with Lazarus and they wanted to "fix" it. We know Gospel harmonizations were common in the mid 2nd century.

>>18139932
Based Matthew, complete Chad in The Master and Margarita.

>>18137893
>Paul wrote loads of letters thoughever
Paul never met Jesus and only mention two things Jesus taught. And one of them was pay the preacher (IE ME).

>>18138081
t. muzzrat