Tradition has misattributed authorship of every single book of the Bible

>bible not infallible
>descent
Protestants smfh.

Yes, surely CS Lewis, who is still needled by modern Christians for flirting with universalism, would want to burn heretics.

It doesn't matter which people wrote the Bible, whether it was Matthew the tax collector, Luke and John, or Maximus from Gladiator, Lactantius or J Lo but to the people who did - why did you make the dullest book in the history of literature? Seriously, each episode following the fickle God and his chosen people as they fight assorted unbelievers has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the book's only consistency is its lack of excitement and ineffective use of prophecies, all to make miracles unmiraculous, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when God vetoed the idea of Satan directing the book; He made sure the book would never be mistaken for a work that meant anything to anybody, just ridiculously profitable cross promotion for His ideology. The Bible might be pro-Gnostic (or not), but it's certainly the most anti-Greek pantheon in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the prose was good though

No!

The writing is dreadful, the book was terrible.
As I read, I noticed that every time a character had a child, the author wrote instead that the character "begat". I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times.

I was incredulous. God's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that He has no other style of writing. Later, I read a loving, lavish review of the Bible by Joseph Smith. He wrote something to the effect of "if these kids are reading the Bible at 11 or 12, then when they got older they will go on to read golden plates". And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read the Bible, you are, in fact, trained to read Joseph Smith.

>the traditional views of authorship are very defensible

The more you try to conjure up ways that the Bible isn't authentic, the more its divine origin becomes apparent.

Biblical scholarship can sometimes feel like economics, to an observer -- everybody has something to say about it, almost no one actually understands it. The main difference of course is that the least you can say for Christianity is that there is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that has dedicated thousands of years to the study and understanding of sacred scripture.

And yet we have this bunnyposter on Veeky Forums to help us understand with neither facts nor citations how the Church has failed to perform its holy function.

The Mormon rejection of metaphysics and the capabilities of the human intellect is almost Muslim in its audacity. Few popular religions succeed while being so transparently heretical and simultaneously incapable of soundly justifying themselves.

Like Islam, the near-cultlike devotion to the family unit with high and possibly dangerous "exit costs" has proven to do wonders to the longevity of the Mormon belief system, and all its works and empty promises.

>Biblical scholarship can sometimes feel like economics, to an observer -- everybody has something to say about it, almost no one actually understands it

And it's all subjective and used as a tool to further your chosen agenda.

Read Ehrman

The Catholic rejection of empiricism and the capabilities of the scientific fields is almost Muslim in its audacity. Few popular denominations succeed while being so transparently ridiculous and simultaneously incapable of soundly justifying themselves.
Like Islam, the near-cultlike devotion to the family unit with high and possibly dangerous "exit costs" has proven to do wonders to the longevity of the Catholic belief system, and all its works and empty promises.

This

Back to /r/eddit you stupid child
>but it's certainly the most anti-Greek pantheon in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement
Absolutely wrong. Perhaps you should actually read it.

Catholicism is more properly empiricist than your garbage STEMsperg ideology.
Science is for children. It is the death of experience and the creation of mere observation.

>can't recognize obvious bait
>tells other anons to go back to /r/eddit
so THIS is the power of christcucks

That's not wrong at all, the "" "" "" "" "miracles" "" "" "" "in the Bible are mundane as miracles go and as a whole the Greek pantheon and related mythology is far more interesting and less repetitive than the mythology of christcucks

Also, you're an obvious newfag

>Catholicism is more properly empiricist than your garbage STEMsperg ideology.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh God, please tell me how you arrived at this conclusion.

>Science is for children.
>has led to the most obvious, tangible and widespread benefits for humanity
>has increased quality of life hugely
>lets you release the anti-science shitposts
>for children
Lel

It is the death of experience and the creation of mere observation.
Experience is undeniably mere observation. Even any emotions you think are evoked by your experiences, you merely experience as an outside observer looking in on your consciousness and the results of its inner material workings

>some anons make threads criticizing the Bible on an Andalusian bread ornamenting online bootcamp
>society does not respect my religion anymore

You're more pathetic than the SJWs. I bet you wouldn't have been happy even in the times of the Inquisition

Very well reasoned post, I have seen the same posts almost verbatim in Facebook creationist groups, good job

test

who is paying for these threads

>mundane
Back to /r/eddit
>newfag
project harder

>Experience is undeniably mere observation
Wrong. Go back to /r/eddit, child.
>inner material workings
Begging the question. Back to /r/eddit, child.
>has led to the most obvious, tangible and widespread benefits for humanity
Wrong, it has done nothing.
>has increased quality of life hugely
Wrong
>lets you release the anti-science shitposts
Wrong

back to 8gag

>wrong
>wrong
>wrong
Good arguments, maybe you should try some of the boards more to your speed. Like /v/

>science has done nothing
You're literally disconnect from reality, how could you even think this?

>Begging the question
How exactly?

>Arguments are good becuz reddit sed it
>You're literally disconnect from reality,
Reality doesn't exist, it's a projection upon existence.
>How exactly?
Supposing materialism to confirm materialism.
Maybe you STEMspergs should actually study logic instead of redditing it up all day.

>not even a single argument

Some of Paul's writings were attributed correctly. 1/3 of them are considered definitly by him, 1/3 of them are considered non-forgeriges, and 1/3 of them the historians are still debating. This is still debated. Everything else every written, including the entire old testament is wrongly attributed.

For contrast about 70% of the dialogues attributed to Plato are considered correct with 30% either forgies or debate. Which is a much batting average.

>arguments are good becuz reddit sed it
So much for 'critical thinking'

>reality doesn't exist, it's a projection upon existence
And why do you believe this?

Materialism is what's supported by the evidence, extra additions are not, sorry if it hurts your feels

Actually they're good because the savior of western civilisation said so in his literary masterpiece

But are you actually so far down the rabbit hole of retardation you don't even see the value of argumenta any more?

>evidence
Doesn't exist. Also, you're still begging the question. That is, presupposing materialism (and order) to confirm materialism (and order).

Again, so much for 'critical thinking'.
'western civilization' is something that must be destroyed.

DA JOOOS

>evidence doesn't exist
This is probably a convenient way to not have to justify your beliefs. You still haven't explained why you believe reality doesn't exist.

How am I presupposing materialism and order?

>This is probably a convenient way to not have to justify your beliefs.
>this is what reddit actually believes
'justification' is only required of the weak, uncertain, uncaring. My faith rings in heaven, to defend it is absurd. Can an ant defend an elephant?
>You still haven't explained why you believe reality doesn't exist.
Wrong, I have, you just didn't understand.
>How am I presupposing materialism and order?
Why don't you actually think for once? Fucking hell, so much for 'critical thinking'.

cuck

>No Deity above No Atonement/No Resurrection

So you can't defend your viewpoint
Problem there is an elephant is visible and we all believe (well, maybe not you) that it exists. Heaven is not the same as it's existence is questionable at best, so you're a visible ant defending an invisible elephant, so yes your defense is required.
And to be uncertain is natural and rational until you are convinced by sufficient reasoning, if you ever are.

Well, for such intellectual lightweights as myself, please deign to explain how you did explain and how I did not understand. Likewise, please lower yourself to explain your surely correct and definitely not unjustifiable claim that I'm presupposing materialism and order

>the bible is just a rorchsach test for me to interpret how I like
implying you haven't done the same with reality