/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19165685]

*refutes christianity*

[Anonymous No.19165712]

>refutes
Reminder that it doesn't count unless it's retroactive

[Anonymous No.19165749]

>>19165685
You could say this about any historical-critical Biblical scholarship really. Christianity is a laughable religion that literally treats forged letters as divinely inspired.

[Anonymous No.19165827]

>>19165685
I don't think so.

>>19165749
Nah. Existence of Jesus and Apostles is well documented. Judaism is laughable, not only did jews write new book Talmud around 500 A.D. it's also laughably horrible writing mostly seething. Then they reinvented their religion and basically ceased to exist. Then came back claiming theyre Bible people while waving Talmud and speaking fantasy "Hebrew" they made up.

[Anonymous No.19165871]

>>19165827
>Nah. Existence of Jesus and Apostles is well documented.
Sure. Joseph Smith is well documented too so Mormonism is credible then? That Jesus and his early followers existed has nothing to do with the fact that later Christians forged a ton of literature in their name and tried to pass it off as divinely inspired.

Re: Judaism, what's laughable about them is stuff like accepting the Exodus story as historical, believing in a bunch of made up prophets like Daniel, worshipping Yahweh who is a composite of multiple Canaanite gods, not noticing the stuff like Genesis having two different creation stories stitched together that are ripped from Mesopotamian mythology etc. etc..

Of course, Christians believe all of this too, which makes them twice as stupid once you take into account they believe all of the stuff made up in the New Testament also.

[Anonymous No.19165885]

>>19165685
You tried this yesterday. Vermes was a seething kike who disregarded verses that didn't fit his narrative.

[Anonymous No.19165895]

>>19165871
I also regurgitate long discredited views from 19th Century German Unitarians.

[Anonymous No.19165904]

>>19165685
*unrefutes it*
nothing personnel, kid

[Anonymous No.19165914]

>>19165871
>worshipping Yahweh who is a composite of multiple Canaanite gods
You have no idea about the analogical transposition of revolution of gods and societal revolutions, which is the founding representation of myth. So yes, you don't know what you're talking about.

>Genesis having two different creation stories stitched together that are ripped from Mesopotamian mythology
What was ripped from it?

>later Christians forged a ton of literature in their name and tried to pass it off as divinely inspired.
Such as? Platonists literally did the same. If you don't think anything is revealed then why even argue?

[Anonymous No.19165927]

>>19165895
Everything I mentioned is standard and mainstream Biblical scholarship today, including what most Christian scholars would agree with. I feel sorry for the narrowness of your intellectual horizons if you're unaware of this.

[Anonymous No.19165964]

>>19165927
Just like it's "mainstream" that gender is a social construct.

[Anonymous No.19165970]

>>19165749
Another bugman filtered by mythopoesis

[Anonymous No.19165994]

>>19165685
Post his early life section.

[Anonymous No.19166000]

>>19165970
If the value of Christian scripture is in treating it as mythological fiction, then sure I can vibe with that. :)

[Anonymous No.19166004]

>>19165871
>forged
No. They copied the letters over and over again until they were canonized. That's how you preserve a text.

Jews don't believe in Torah unless necessary to fake belief to appear legit to outsiders. They have Talmud now.

[Anonymous No.19166028]

>>19165871
>Yahweh who is a composite of multiple Canaanite gods

[Anonymous No.19166031]

>>19165927
>most Christian scholars would agree with
Believing that God is ""actually"" a composite of multiple pagan gods automatically makes one a non-Christian.

[Anonymous No.19166032]

>>19166004
No, someone literally forged letters pretending to be by Paul and tried to cover it up, which got accepted as canonical because the church fathers didn't realise someone else had wrote them.
>I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the mark in every letter of mine; it is the way I write.
Kek.

Funnily enough the first person to collect and copy Paul's letters was the heretic Marcion.

[Anonymous No.19166090]

>>19166032
>because the church fathers didn't realise
Implying they did not receive the Holy Spirit who guided them as Christ promised.
Modern scholarship collapses completely if you know Christ is God. It's such an absurdist self-reliant system that it only shows you "truths" which itself rely on atheism being true.

[Anonymous No.19166109]

>>19166090
Most Christian scholars agree that the pastoral epistles of Paul plus were forged. The only ones who defend the traditional authorship are braindead Protestant fundies in US bible colleges.

[Anonymous No.19166115]

>>19166090
Jesus is a soul man

[Anonymous No.19166122]

>>19166109
>Most Christian scholars
I don't hold unbelieving scholars as an apriori authority, sorry.

[Anonymous No.19166124]

>>19166000
>Doubling down on your ignorance
Embarrassing. Read Bulgakov

[Anonymous No.19166128]

>>19165749
>>19165970
daily reminder that catholics shit on protestants while they literally worship relics that are fake 90% of the time, for literal centuries

this is some actual third world tier behavior LMAO so i don't want to hear it from catholics about how protestants are crazy heretics or whatever. especially when your pope now says islam is a valid path to heaven and worships nigger feet and encourages trannies, you are just as bad as the worst protty denominations. it's unironically over for christianity, from catholoids to protestants, perhaps the only "real" christians left are sedevacantists but they are irrelevant tradlarpers so they might as well be fake too. god is clearly not on their side (or real) else he would elevate them from their embarrassing station.

good god it pains me to see the religion of my own mother in such an abject state but at the same time, the game was rigged from the start.

[Anonymous No.19166130]

>>19166109
>Most scholars agree and anyone who doesn't agree doesn't count

[Anonymous No.19166132]

>>19166122
>no true scotsman!!!
Kek

[Anonymous No.19166135]

>>19166132
>>no true scotsman
go back

[Anonymous No.19166138]

>>19166032
>No, someone literally forged letters pretending to be by Paul and tried to cover it up, which got accepted as canonical because the church fathers didn't realise someone else had wrote them.
Secular scholars are notoriously retarded I wouldn't take them seriously. Their hypothesis for the gospels is that some random scribe added the names 70-100 years after they were written and the name was accepted by every single church from Alexandria to Rome without question, and this happened not once, not twice but four separate times. They're the biggest group of charlatans in academia and most of their shit comes from the Young Hegelians who explicitly made it up to try and undermine the Prussian state

[Anonymous No.19166139]

>>19166130
Oh they count, they're just in a small minority and using motivated reasoning.

[Anonymous No.19166152]

>>19166128
Become Orthodox

[Anonymous No.19166154]

>>19166138
It was once: they were probably named by Irenaeus, who needed to boost the canonical status of the gospels as having first hand testimony in order to fight his non-orthodox opponents.

[Anonymous No.19166156]

>>19166132
I deny modern scholarship itself as valid. It assumes atheism is true and that there was no Pentecost, then reasons on that basis. I know both of their presumptions to be false so why would I ever trust the reasoning made by them?

[Anonymous No.19166170]

>>19166152
He won't, because even his hatred of Roman Catholicism (a false heresy) is just an excuse to not be Christian.

[Anonymous No.19166183]

>>19166154
>they were probably named by Irenaeus
>probably
lol
yes, and everyone just blindly trusted him because they were stupid people.
modern scholar smart, christian stupid!

[Anonymous No.19166184]

>>19166152
I don't know much about orthodoxy but from the magic rituals I've seen (like russian clerics sprinkling magic water over tanks to bless them for war for cameras in front of a bunch of zoomers as a sideshow, and all the corruption involved with the orthodox church and russian government) I'm inclined to think they are just as bad as westoid "christians".

I'm not going to simp some idiot russian nigger priest with a giant beard just like I won't simp some child molester bishop in boston, fuck this lame shit.

[Anonymous No.19166186]

>>19166156
Anon, there are countless Christian scholars with a historical-critical analysis of their scripture because it's the only reasonable position in the face of piles of evidence. It doesn't assume atheism, it just assumes a brain.

[Anonymous No.19166187]

>>19166152
I can respect the method but I can't take the theology

[Anonymous No.19166188]

>>19166154
Irenaeus wasn't Pope he didn't have that kind of authority to just make a declaration like that and have everyone fall in line. He wasn't even the most important Bishop of his time period it is highly unlikely he could have made it up and not had any other Bishop challenge him considering the other Churches would've known they were "anonymous" or maybe even had their own traditions about who wrote them. It simply doesn't match with the facts. We have no record of the authorship of the gospels ever being a disputed issue in the early Church and we know there were disputed texts like 2 Peter and Hebrews

[Anonymous No.19166200]

>>19165827
>Nah. Existence of Jesus and Apostles is well documented.
Like 7 or so of Paul's letters are almost certainly forged
Also I believe Jesus existed also, but "well documented" is a stretch

[Anonymous No.19166203]

>>19166184
Maybe you're just disconnected from actual genuine Christianity and your view has been warped by Protestant doctrines that didn't exist within Christendom until the 16th Century? The "magic rituals" were part of the Christian faith from the earliest days, it's the reformers who decided to remove them and create a soulless, spiritually bereft form of Christian life that embraced nominalism.

[Anonymous No.19166205]

>>19166183
Christians believed the attribution because they wanted them to be written by first hand apostles. Not really blind or stupid, just motivated reasoning.

Despite occasionally quoting from them, no Christian author mentions there are gospels by Mark/Matthew/Luke/John until Irenaeus, who is fighting muh heretics.

[Anonymous No.19166214]

>>19166186
>It doesn't assume atheism, it just assumes a brain.
What's the stance of the historical critical method on the providence of God in preserving the Canon of scripture? If it doesn't take that into account then it's wrong from the get go isn't it?

[Anonymous No.19166222]

>>19166138
Do you realize how difficult it was to verify shit back then? Letters were the only form of long-distance communication.
A verse from Isaiah mistakenly translated "young woman" from Hebrew into "virgin" in the Greek, completely confusing non-Hebrew speakers for 2000+ years (still confused today). That's how easy it was to get shit wrong, someone claims this is the right translation you just have to trust it. You can't verify shit.

[Anonymous No.19166232]

>>19166214
>assuming God preserved "the canon of Scripture"
Why lmfao, so retarded

[Anonymous No.19166240]

>>19166205
That doesn't address the huge gaping hole in the theory that we don't have any misattributed gospels nor do we have any record of anyone disputing the claim. Your argument is that every single Church fell in line with what Iraeneus, a relatively backwater Bishop in southern Gaul, claimed without dissent because they wanted to. Your hypothesis sounds far more like motivated reasoning. It simply doesn't make any sense and defies credibility.

[Anonymous No.19166244]

>>19166240
The early church was full of dissenting opinions on all kinds of shit, which texts to consider Scripture included.

[Anonymous No.19166253]

>>19166188
>>19166240
Why would other people in the church have challenged him if it bolstered orthodoxy? Obviously the gospel accounts were written by someone, early Christians just didn't know by who. Hell, someone probably did challenge him and we don't know about it because his attribution won out. As for authority, Irenaeus was the most learned and important Christian author of his generation, a pupil of Polycarp too. Of course he would have been listened to.

I don't know if the gospels actually were attributed to Mark/Matthew/Luke/John by Irenaeus personally, but it's at least plausible.

[Anonymous No.19166254]

>>19166156
>It assumes atheism is true
No it doesn't. It treats artefacts such as texts, archaeological items, linguistics etc as objects of study in themselves. It probably sounds atheist to you because it's not wrapped up in "praise Jesus", "thank you merciful Lord" type language.
If you only accept devotional literature and reject anything that isn't then you're locked in circular reasoning.

[Anonymous No.19166255]

>>19166244
Yes it was, but NOT on the authorship of the gospels. Weird huh? You're only hurting your argument by pointing out there was dissent about many issues but not the massive one of who actually wrote the eyewitness testimony of the gospels. Strange that not a single church has its own tradition like saying maybe Mark was written by Peter, or any other explanation that conflicted with Irenaeus. How convenient!

[Anonymous No.19166262]

>>19166186
>countless Christian scholars
I don't care about non-orthodox scholars and heretics.
> it's the only reasonable position
It is not reasonable to deny the Holy Spirit and His working in the Church. It is literally an anti-reason act to do so.
If you mean "reasonable" as in it takes non-Christian assumptions as axioms and reasons from them, trying to interpret the historical evidence, then why should I give much weight to this when all the reasoning is heavily colored by their axioms?

[Anonymous No.19166264]

>>19166203
it's not that the rituals are inherently bad, it's the obvious insincerity of it (given the little i know about russian clergy and the ones here too)

i would argue that the biggest indicator of a church's blessing is its popularity, which may seem silly at first but if god is the literal master of the universe then it must be trivial for him to have a huge following on earth. why should one choose a lesser church over one that has many more millions? why would the house of god be a tiny group of contrarians? and yet, if you look at the most popular sects today, they are all degenerate organizations full of hypocrite holy men and braindead, faithless followers which will disintegrate as soon as the grift runs out.

if it's god's plan to have a soulless, atheist earth (which looks to be the case in 50 years as christianty is relegated to the myths of the past like the gods of antiquity) then his plan must be mysterious indeed, and fucking retarded lel. i want nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous No.19166266]

>>19166264
>obvious insincerity of it
how do you know the sincerity of other people?

[Anonymous No.19166268]

>>19166266
due to all the scams in russian newspapers about orthodox clergy fucking prostitutes and being involved in russian government corruption

you know, like the pope of catholocism did for centuries.

[Anonymous No.19166270]

>>19166253
>Why would other people in the church have challenged him if it bolstered orthodoxy?
Because if Irenaeus pulled it out of his ass then it's likely that some other Church in the Mediterranean had it's own traditions that conflicted with that claim. Again I feel the need to point out that Irenaeus was NOT an important Bishop in his own time. He would not have had the authority of the Bishop of Antioch, or Alexandria. You think every other church just read what he wrote and thought "Oh yeah that sounds good lets go with that". Ludicrous

[Anonymous No.19166275]

>>19166255
I don't know about authorship of the Gospels personally, I was only dispelling the implication that the early church had any kind of unity in anything besides some form of spiritual hope in Jesus. This disunity even continues today with churches affirming different sets of Scripture as well as theologies.
>Strange that not a single church has its own tradition like saying maybe Mark was written by Peter, or any other explanation that conflicted with Irenaeus.
Wouldn't really surprised me, history is written by the victor after all. We have a tiny fraction of literature from dissenters who lost the ideological war due to the destruction of communities and texts.
Not saying there was for sure alternatre theories on who penned the Gospels but it wouldn't shock me in the slightest if it was and the dissenters were simply silenced.

[Anonymous No.19166276]

>>19166268
>scams

*scandals, whatever, I'm drunk. so are you a russian or just a convert? either you are an absurd vatnik or a gullible retard, but orthodoxy is not some pure example of the cross, it is just as bad as catholics and prots have ever been.

[Anonymous No.19166277]

>>19166264
>god is the literal master of the universe then it must be trivial for him to have a huge following on earth
This is false reasoning as you exclude the free will of humans, who can either follow or reject God. In the end times, there will be very little believers.
>if it's god's plan to have a soulless, atheist earth
It is not His plan, but it is something which will happen more and more because of the will of evil humans. God just lets this happen because it fits His plan for saving those who want to join and follow Him.

[Anonymous No.19166279]

>>19166264
>i would argue that the biggest indicator of a church's blessing is its popularity
You've never actually read the Bible have you.

[Anonymous No.19166293]

>>19166268
How does this show the sincerity of most of clergy and believers who are not engaged in this? Also, Orthodoxy is not just Russian.
How does it show the untruth of the doctrines taught and that Christ is not present there? It's not an inconsistent position that Christians, even bishops or clergy, fall into hypocrisy or sin. This is what happened for a lot of the Church's history, at a time most clergy even denied the divinity of Christ.

[Anonymous No.19166294]

>>19166277
>it's not His plan
>he lets this happen because it fits His plan

big think

[Anonymous No.19166296]

>>19166275
>I was only dispelling the implication that the early church had any kind of unity in anything
It had unity in all the major issues. You wouldn't find any middle ages period Bishop denying the efficacy of the sacraments, or the three tiered Priesthood, or the authority of the Church

[Anonymous No.19166300]

>>19166296
>It had unity in all the major issues. You wouldn't find any middle ages period Bishop denying the efficacy of the sacraments, or the three tiered Priesthood, or the authority of the Church
>early
>middle ages
The fuck? I'm talking about the first two to three centuries.

[Anonymous No.19166316]

>>19166276
>so are you a russian or just a convert?
I'm a Russian convert.
>either you are an absurd vatnik or a gullible retard
I feel extreme pity for you if you speak like this and judge yourself to be an arbiter of what is "a pure example of the cross". This is extreme pride and just your excuse to not become Christian (all other Christians are bad on the surface look, so there is no Christianity). It is illogical even from an atheistic perspective.

[Anonymous No.19166320]

>>19166279
so you guys think we are in the end times of Revelation then? bold take, let's see if it pans out

*waits 200 years*

yep still waiting

[Anonymous No.19166324]

>>19166275
>history is written by the victor after all.
Atheistic presupposition that the Holy Spirit is not sovereign over history and creation.

[Anonymous No.19166329]

>>19166277
>This is false reasoning as you exclude the free will of humans
>God just lets this happen because it fits His plan for saving those who want to join and follow Him.
And so you're back to the flaws of all Abrahamic religions. An all-knowing all-powerful God creates humans knowing how each and every one of them will turn out. He must have willed it in some sense.
>bbbut free will
Free will is not compatible with an all-knowing all-powerful Creator. It's just a claim by those wanting to believe both are true

[Anonymous No.19166332]

>>19166320
Idolatry was extremely popular in Old Testament Israel, this does not make it "blessed" according to God. God's people have a tendency for falling away from Him in mass numbers.

[Anonymous No.19166338]

>>19166324
Nah it isn't, I believe in God but God's ways are not our ways and God's thoughts are not our thoughts. There is no reason to assume that Scripture has been "guided" to its current form, as Satan is the prince of the world and rules it.
Even in Scripture itself God has allowed large groups to continue on in disbelief, to be confused, and has been silent for centuries. And probably some idiot dogmatic Jew who confused faith in a human institution and flawed men for faith in God, thought to himself "I must be right, because why would God allow me to be wrong", so it repeats today

[Anonymous No.19166340]

>>19166329
You're falling into the basic mistake of thinking that if God foreknows your actions, you have no control over them and are completely deterministic in nature.

[Anonymous No.19166344]

>>19166270
I don't think he pulled it out of his ass. I think it was at least partly based on reading into Papias talking about Mark and Matthew plus some other educated guesses (e.g. "this gospel claims to be authored by the disciple whom Jesus love, that sounds like John").

I also don't understand the point about "authority". For one, it was quite diffuse pre-Nicene. For another, if the Bishop of Antioch or whoever thought Irenaeus was right then what's the problem?

[Anonymous No.19166351]

>>19166329
Free will is never once mentioned in the Bible, on the other hand determinism is supported several times. Don't believe retards who talk about free will it was a later addition to a theological system.

[Anonymous No.19166359]

>>19166338
>There is no reason to assume that Scripture has been "guided" to its current form
God promised that we would receive the Holy Spirit who would lead us into all truth. If there is truth, then only in the successors of the apostles who preserve it for all eternity until Christ comes, as per His promise of the gates of hell not prevailing against His Church.
>as Satan is the prince of the world and rules it
This is literal satanism. Christ is always in charge of creation, Satan's power is only limited to whatever God allows him to do.

[Anonymous No.19166371]

>>19166332
I'm not coming back to the fold if this is all the cope you have.

[Anonymous No.19166375]

communists are the new christians

[Anonymous No.19166389]

>>19166375
the fact that christians indirectly created commies and worse, neoliberals, justifies china's historical persecution of them

bottom text

[Anonymous No.19166396]

>>19165685
Christ is King
Trump Won
Christ is Reinstating Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvRu8-RN07s [Embed]

[Anonymous No.19166402]

>>19166344
>For another, if the Bishop of Antioch or whoever thought Irenaeus was right then what's the problem?
There's no reason to believe he would. You're kind of swinging around like a weathervane here. You believe that the early Church was very diffuse with little unity and a lot of debate over theological issues but you also believe the early Church universally snapped into line with the declaration of a Bishop in Gaul over one of the most important and major issues in Christendom which is the authorship of the Holy Gospels.

These are contradictory positions. And it seems like the only reason you would accept this theory is realistic if you were already precommitted to the idea that the gospels weren't written by their traditionally ascribed authors.

[Anonymous No.19166404]

>>19165970
Most scholar agree that Jesus did exist

[Anonymous No.19166408]

>>19166371
Ι didn't expect myself to be able to do anything to bring you back into the fold. It's all dependent on your cooperation with God's grace and rejecting the primacy of your own intellect, which I pray does happen.

[Anonymous No.19166410]

>>19166340
>the basic mistake of thinking that if God foreknows your actions
Either God is all-knowing or he is not. You are suggesting that he is not. Either he knew when he created humans how every single one would turn out or he would not.
If you're proposing that God is not omniscient I'm interested. What do you see as the attributes of the Creator God?

>>19166351
Similarly with Islam. with Qadar, where Sunnis try to argue for omniscience and free will at the same time, with a similar flaw of logic

[Anonymous No.19166413]

>>19166351
>Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.
The Bible strongly supports free will. Calvin and Luther were just retards

[Anonymous No.19166415]

>>19166090
Which book being in the canon wasn't determined by revelation but by debates and arguments

[Anonymous No.19166418]

>>19166402
>the only reason you would accept this theory is realistic if you were already precommitted to the idea that the gospels weren't written by their traditionally ascribed authors.
This. Absolutely all of modern critical scholarship does this. It seems like a very elaborate scheme to justify living a life of sin and ignoring Christ. It's like they think they will be justified at the Day of Judgment if they present this as a reason for not believing.

[Anonymous No.19166428]

>>19166415
>debates and arguments
Those are also guided by the Holy Spirit.
>Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine.

[Anonymous No.19166431]

>>19166359
>God promised that we would receive the Holy Spirit who would lead us into all truth. If there is truth, then only in the successors of the apostles who preserve it for all eternity until Christ comes, as per His promise of the gates of hell not prevailing against His Church.
None of this adds up to "therefore my books are legit" without a shitton of self-serving assumptions on top.
>This is literal satanism. Christ is always in charge of creation, Satan's power is only limited to whatever God allows him to do.
I guess the Gospels are satanic then? And 2 Corinthians as well?
2 Corinthians 4:4
>In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them
Luke 4:6
>And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
Maybe spend a little less time arguing on the internet and little more time studying your Bible

[Anonymous No.19166435]

>ITT people who think they are expert in textual analysis of ancient greek documents because they read blogs and watched video by ideologues who have clear bias about the interpretation

[Anonymous No.19166436]

>>19166410
>he knew
He knew, but He did not precreate your choices and gives you absolutely everything for salvation if your heart seeks Christ. Is this really too hard of a concept to understand?

[Anonymous No.19166439]

>>19166413
Big cope, read Romans and weep
tip: it is God who hardens the hearts of men or makes their hard hearts into hearts of flesh again

[Anonymous No.19166440]

>>19166431
>>19166439
>sola scripture bugman argumentation
>guys it says this word therefore it means it exactly how i see it!
Discarded.

[Anonymous No.19166443]

>>19166439
This is going to be a big shock but despite what reformed Christians think there are other books in the Bible apart from Romans. Shocker I know. You can't just take a verse from Romans and interpret it in a way that goes against the grain of every other book in the Bible but that is what reformed do.

[Anonymous No.19166451]

>>19166440
Butthurt you lost the argument lol, pretty common reaction in copers. Hope there's no anger in your heart towards me or you're in sin - that is if you actually care about following what you say you believe in. I have my doubts.

[Anonymous No.19166454]

>>19166428
let's take the book of revelation for example, it was a highly contested addition in the canon for century and what sealed it's inclusion was the belief that it shared an author with the gospel of john.
Basically every historian nowaday believe it is not the case.
You can dismiss because of your faith, but at that point you might as well admit that the one and only arguments that matters to you is the withness of the holy spirit

[Anonymous No.19166457]

>>19166443
I've read the entire Bible front to back, there's a consistent thread of determinism throughout all of Scripture.
>You can't just take a verse from Romans and interpret it in a way that goes against the grain of every other book in the Bible but that is what reformed do.
Ah? Are you aware that this also applies to you? Probably not

[Anonymous No.19166459]

>>19166408
I can't reject it and become a fool, or a cuck, when the entirety of the world disdains such a thing. It was easier for medieval people and even those 100 years ago, right now this is the hardest time ever to be a Christian. In previous cultures at least the average person believed. Why should I bear the burden of being an "end times believer"? Because that's what I must be, if I were to take up the christcuck mantle in 2021.

No. It's over. Sayonara. I don't want it to be like this, but it do.

[Anonymous No.19166460]

>>19166431
>>19166439
This.
“There is no God.”
Psalm 13:1
«Great is Diana of the Ephesians!»
Acts 19:34

[Anonymous No.19166466]

>>19166454
> was the belief that it shared an author with the gospel of john
Yes, that would be correct. This is how revelation of the Holy Spirit works in history too.
>Basically every historian nowaday believe it is not the case.
I do not believe what they say.

[Anonymous No.19166475]

>>19166460
Retarded comparison mate, and you know it so the hypocrisy is pretty blinding. You're taking fragments of sentences that don't express complete thoughts whereas I'm taking complete statements. I can post the entire chapter of each verse I posted, I only didn't for convenience, whereas posting the entire chapter of your stated verses would quickly show the trickery.
Its a false equivalence. P funny that you mispresent Scripture and I do not.

[Anonymous No.19166486]

>>19166402
>There's no reason to believe he would.
Is there reason to believe he wouldn't? Early Christians needed apostolic accounts to fight heresy (as Irenaeus was invested in). How were they supposed to call e.g. the Gospel of Thomas fake if they didn't have any apostolic narratives of their own?

I don't know if the church all snapped into line all at once, they might not have. But that doesn't really matter for the source of the attribution. And it's not like Irenaeus was some rando bishop, he was one of the most important, learned and influential Christian authors of his day, a pupil of Polycarp who was in Rome frequently and had pull with the Pope.

>precommitted to the idea that the gospels weren't written by their traditionally ascribed authors.
They weren't titled, circulated pseudonymously for decades and aren't named as such until Irenaeus. So yeah, if we look at the evidence someone at some point came up with the traditional authorship and Irenaeus is a good candidate.

[Anonymous No.19166489]

>>19166459
> right now this is the hardest time ever to be a Christian
In a way you are correct, but this is only because sin and intellectual pride have become so strong right now that people are completely controlled by it. It's easier to be a Christian in the sense of having easier access to Holy Scripture and such a great wealth of patristic writings and not being killed or persecuted for believing (at least for now in the modern world).
>Why should I bear the burden of being an "end times believer"?
It's nowhere near as bad right now since churches still exist. You should bear the burden because to take up your cross is always a burden and a guaranteed path of suffering. If it's harder for you today to be a Christian, God placed you in this age that you would gain a bigger reward for overpowering your evil inclinations and repenting more than someone who was just born into it and believed lukewarmly. It's completely in His providence that you were born in this age.

[Anonymous No.19166492]

>>19166466
Protestant could use the same argument to say it was the guiding of the holy spirit that lead to Luther denouncing the apocrypha

[Anonymous No.19166499]

>>19166486
>circulated pseudonymously
this does not somehow exclude that people knew their authorship
>aren't named as such
that we know of in writing today*

> at some point came up with the traditional authorship
only if you really want to believe that the Church is not guided and can just make up lies without any consequence of ratification from God in history down the line.

[Anonymous No.19166505]

>>19166492
They would be wrong, because the 'apocrypha' were divinely revealed to be Holy Scripture far before Luther even existed. You cannot contradict Holy Tradition and still be guided by the Holy Spirit. It is rather satan who does everything in his power to try and tempt you into following innovations and schisms.

[Anonymous No.19166514]

>>19166475
>I can post the entire chapter of each verse I posted
You still think that if there are words in the text that your subjective understanding is correct, and not that of the Holy Fathers of the Church.
My subjective understanding is that the rest of Psalm 13:1 is a later interpolation, but that part where it says there's no God is true.

[Anonymous No.19166519]

>>19166459
>I can't reject it
Then you are in pride. Only a fool trusts something imperfect with such degree as to place all of your hope in it.

[Anonymous No.19166521]

>>19166514
>You still think that if there are words in the text that your subjective understanding is correct, and not that of the Holy Fathers of the Church.
I'm not some cuck who has faith in flawed, fleshly men, so yes I trust the spirit God has given me over any "church father".
Call no man your father, for you have only one Father, who is in Heaven. Sound familiar hylic?

[Anonymous No.19166523]

>>19166505
the book of enoch was recognised as canon and quoted in Jude and second peter long before the birth of the church father who decided on which book should be included in the canon were born.

[Anonymous No.19166583]

>>19166521
>has faith in flawed, fleshly men
But you do place faith in your own interpretation. It is precisely you who is flawed and fleshy. The saints are purified of their flaws and become spiritual, even their bodies attain spiritual characteristics upon certain degrees of sanctification.
>God has given me
When and how did He give the Holy Spirit to you?

>Call no man your father
>“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.
>nooo jesus said not to call Him good!

[Anonymous No.19166592]

>>19166523
>was
Exactly. It was at some point recognized, or some parts of it, but ultimately its rejection by the Church showed us that it's not canonical.
>church father who decided on which book should be included in the canon
The Holy Spirit decided this, using church fathers as an instrument.

[Anonymous No.19166602]

>>19166583
>But you do place faith in your own interpretation. It is precisely you who is flawed and fleshy. The saints are purified of their flaws and become spiritual, even their bodies attain spiritual characteristics upon certain degrees of sanctification.
Eh nah, only God is good but nice try Satan.
>>Call no man your father
>“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.
>nooo jesus said not to call Him good!
By your own rule interpretation and using your mind to reason isn't reliable so if I were to accept your viewpoint, then I would have to immediately not accept it also, because I can't rely on your interpretation and thoughts on things, bizarre
To play along though in that verse Jesus never said not to call him good, you lied about Scripture yet again, very Satanic of you to constantly twist God's word although you're not very good at it (yet?)

[Anonymous No.19166607]

>>19166602
>only God is good
>nooo god can't give his goodness to his children as a result of their faith in him!!!!!

[Anonymous No.19166619]

can somebody please explain how christianity has lasted this long with all these fucking loopholes and contradictions

[Anonymous No.19166639]

>>19166607
You think you get a second try when you showed you're willing to twist God's word the first time? Its like you're taking your lessons straight from the story of Jesus's temptations in the wilderness
In any case God can do absolutely whatever He wants, He could raise new children of Abraham up from the stones. But still no one is good but God alone, a man's goodness comes only from his personal identification with God

[Anonymous No.19166646]

>>19166619
They convinced massive amounts of people that not trusting their own reasoning abilities, or in other words "being stupid on purpose", was actually a virtue
they did this through very clever social manipulating