>All of the gospels are dated to have been written around 80-90 AD. But according to Christian tradition, the apostles who are said to have written them died before this time. >Half of Paul's letters are 2nd century forgeries.>Josephus's mention of Jesus was edited by later Christian scribes (would Josephus, a literal Pharisee btw, really call Jesus the messiah? At best you can argue he wrote a more neutral and brief mention of Jesus which later Christian scribes edited to affirm Jesus as the messiah).>King Abgar V's letter is universally considered by scholars a forgery. Even the church admitted it was an apocryphal work centuries ago.
>>18631361>King Abgar V's letter is universally considered by scholars a forgery. Even the church admitted it was an apocryphal work centuries ago.There was an infamous apologist who hung around r/Christianity and other places on Reddit years ago who was convinced of this letter’s authenticity. But he absolutely could not wrap his head around the idea that pious Christians in antiquity would ever lie or forge documents which basically led him to accept the authenticity of every single text which simply claimed to be authentic, like the letter of Herod to Pilate too, etc.I really think this is one of those instances where people's impulse to accept its legitimacy comes almost exclusively from ulterior religious motives, and not any true critical analysis.In any case, whenever you see an ancient text that claims to be a copy of something that was "found in the archives," or that it was translated from something found there, even if the author says that it's still in the archives and can be consulted, you should immediately be skeptical.This is a very common pseudepigraphical device. For more info, search up the "Bücherfunde" motif.Funny enough, just a couple of days ago I actually found another late instance of this motif, in an 18th century book by Voltaire, one that he claimed was a record of some proceedings that he translated from an original "Spanish copy in the Brunswick Library." But of course he simply invented the whole thing himself.
>>18631361If Jesus's Disciples were mostly illiterate fisherman, how would they have written their Gospels in the first place? Of course it had to be passed on in an oral tradition first.
>>18631368>how would they have written their Gospels in the first placeThey didn't, the gospels are 2nd hand accounts. Plus if you read them in the order they were first written, you'll notice that each gospel gets more exaggerated and supernatural over time.
>>18631373Most Biblical scholars agree the Virgin birth / resurrection narratives were definitely a later interpolation
>>18631361>Josephus's mention of Jesus was edited by later Christian scribes100% incorrect
>>18631381>Most Biblical scholars agree the Virgin birth / resurrection narratives were definitely a later interpolation100% incorrect.
It is extremely obvious to a close reader who isn't a Christian that Acts nor the Gospels were written by the apostles Christians say wrote them.>Half of Paul's letters are 2nd century forgeriesI contend that they are all forgeries. Nina Livesey persuaded me of this, but in hindsight I should have noticed myself that this has simply gone unquestioned that the very Apostle to the Gentiles Paulus né Saulus wrote New Testament letters, so the fact that it can't be sustained they have the same author could only entail he didn't write some of them. He didn't write any of them, they represent a scholastic setting and the same (not unparalleled) Christian tendency to write catechistic pseudepigrapha that gave us all of the New Testament letters, plus many others like the Seneca-Paul correspondence and 2 Clement. I doubt Paul even existed, he is probably an accretion of various memories of the time of the first Christianization of gentiles, as represented by the Didache vorlage.
>>18631405>I contend that they are all forgeries./his/ is the stupidest board
>>18631389https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2016/resurrection-appearances-in-the-longer-ending-of-mark
You know those datings are complete bullshit based on the materialist secular presupposition that there is no way Jesus could have ever predicted the destruction of the Temple and so they simply must postdate that event, but do not care.
>>18631488not the fact that the books portray an atmosphere more fitting to the 70s onwards than the 30s what with all the sicarii and stuff running around?
>>18631429Not an argument
>>18631381The empty tomb narrative is found (with various inconsistencies and probable additions) in all four gospels. While it's true Mark ended before talking about the resurrection in explicit terms, he or whoever the author was certainly seemed to believe that Jesus had come back from the dead
>>18631518The Zealots had been running around since the year 6.But regardless, the passage in Acts (not one of the gospels, you moving the goalposts here) refers to an incident the time of Felix which Josephus corroborates.Paul was arrested in Jerusalem sometime around 57 or 8, which is around the same time Jonathan the High Priest was assassinated by these guerillas.
>>18631368Holy Spirit superpowers
>jewtheist makes shit up and gets mad about itLemme guess the dead sea scroll are real though?
>>18631640The angel of God taught Joseph all the Egyptian languages in a single night.
>>18631573The original story would more likely imply his body was miraculously taken to heaven as an Enoch-esque figure rather than resurrected
>>18631654>Lemme guess the dead sea scroll are real though?No, they are all forgeries
>>18631488>presuppositionThe only people who engage in this are religious apologetics, so quit your bullshit
>>18631361The dating is kind of shaky to be honest. It's all based on the temple being destroyed in 70AD and the gospels referencing the event in one way or another. It's also possible the gospels were actively being written before the temple was destroyed and the were simply rewritten to include it later. Or alternatively the gospels were based on even older more rudimentary texts that predate the temple destruction.For example Luke (which most scholars will agree was written after Mark) includes passages that are often attributed to one of Paul's travel companions who shared his experiences, hinting at the gospels being written by Paul's contemporaries. Obviously all the Paul related events of the NT happened before the temple destruction. He died around 67 AD. So Luke-Acts must be at least partially pre-70AD. Which pushes Mark back as well.
>>18631755Jesus could've simply accurately predicted it. After all, he was a preacher of the apocalypse, the temple had been destroyed before, and him saying "destroy this temple and I'll rebuild it in three days" might have very well been one of the provocations he was executed for.
>>18631763Yes, even from a secular viewpoint it's also possible he simply got it right on accident or was using a figure of speech that looked prophetical in hindsight. At least in Mark he certainly got the timing for the arrival of the Kingdom of God wrong. He said it would come within the life span of his audience members and that didn't happen obviously. Win one, lose one I guess?
>>18631726Just from a literary standpoint I like the original Mark ending much better. It's somewhat open-ended, but Jesus' words in previous chapters hint at what happened. Makes you use your imagination a little. The fake ending just crudely spells it out for the retard audience and names a bunch of witnesses as well in order to silence some critics. Cheapens the whole thing.Generally Mark is the best written Gospel. Jesus questioning his faith in his last moments is a great touch and makes it more believable. John and Luke couldn't let Jesus be imperfect even in his death throes.
>>18631783He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.
>>18631809>hey will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at allIt's so dumb it hurts
>>18631818I wish God grants you understanding.
>>18631863Show me ONE Christian who is immune to deadly poison
>>18631405>they are all forgeriesHaven't heard this one before.When were they written? What was the goal? Was the author of Acts in on it too? Was there ever a church in Corinth or an Apollos?I'm not arguing for the supernatural. I'm just thinking, if only for simplicity's sake, at least one person from antiquity must have existed.
