Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2017/01/28: An issue regarding the front page of /jp/ has been fixed. Also, thanks to all who contacted us about sponsorship.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
>> No.12577574 [View]
File: 47 KB, 267x400, 6101996.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12577574

This guy believes most of what is written in the bible was written by other people that didn't know jesus decades later, and assumes this means other interpretations based on those writings are wrong.

At the same time, he claims objective knowledge coming from a historical point of view of the gospels by claiming Jesus's original words are those that he claims they were, without any proof whatsoever and just basing his interpretation as the interpretations of the people he vehemently opposes.

For example, he claims Mark is the earliest of our Gospels and puts a great deal of explaining to his audience that whatever is not found in the earliest copies of Mark, are just later, fabricated traditions of Jesus's theology. He also stresses that these additions are written decades later after the historical Jesus, and points to the Sources Q and M from which Luke and Mathew drew inspiration in their own Gospels.

Despite what he argues in the second half of his book, he just claims he knows the True, Objective, Unaltered sayings of the original historical Jesus...... by quoting sayings from the very same decade old traditions he was so critical about in the first half of the book.

Who the hell takes this hack seriously?

>> No.12576576 [DELETED]  [View]
File: 47 KB, 267x400, 6101996.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12576576

This guy believes most of what is written in the bible was written by other people that didn't know jesus decades later, and assumes this means other interpretations based on those writings are wrong.

At the same time, he claims objective knowledge coming from a historical point of view of the gospels by claiming Jesus's original words are those that he claims they were, without any proof whatsoever and just basing his interpretation as the interpretations of the people he vehemently opposes.

For example, he claims Mark is the earliest of our Gospels and puts a great deal of explaining to his audience that whatever is not found in the earliest copies of Mark, are just later, fabricated traditions of Jesus's theology. He also stresses that these additions are written decades later after the historical Jesus, and points to the Sources Q and M from which Luke and Mathew drew inspiration in their own Gospels.

Despite what he argues in the second half of his book, he just claims he knows the True, Objective, Unaltered sayings of the original historical Jesus...... by quoting sayings from the very same decade old traditions he was so critical about in the first half of the book.

Who the hell takes this hack seriously?



Navigation
View posts [+24] [+48] [+96]