Was Jesus married, Veeky Forums?

>but every other figure that's recorded must be real
If you are referring to primary sources, there none for Jesus.

If ALL the sources for Jesus were for a General X in Battle Y we would hesitate to declare said General myth. As we should Jesus.

But user, a bunch of dudes have decided 400 years after the fact that those are not canon, how could you dispute that?

Regardless of what you think about Christianity as a religion, the historical clusterfuck that was trying to agree what was and was not canon for them is just delicious. I mean, in 330 they still listed Judas and Thomas as "commonly accpeted" gospels, and didn't reject them yet.

*would NOT hesitate*

No. There are some gnostic references in false gospels that claim otherwise; nobody in Christianity holds the belief that gnostics tell the truth.

What would you call a person who preached the Law in the temple to the elders, and amazed the elders with his authority?

>false

the Gospel of Judas is by far the best gospel

Oh I enjoy a good clusterfuck as much as the next guy. I particularly enjoy pointing out to hardcore Christfags evolution deniers (YEC) that their little brand of faith is itself the product of an evolutionairy proces.

Yes, false. Mary wrote no gospel, neither did the other Mary. Nor did Thomas. Nor did Judas. Nor did any of the infancy gospels, or any of the unnamed gnostic gospels that were penned 100 to 300 years later.

I don't know what value the "best" false gospel is, because I don't love carefully crafted lies, or the liars who tell them.

Or spread them.

Proving for anyone with eyes that you have no idea what evolution means.

t. 4th century bishop

Nigga are you trying to pass any gospel as a hard historical evidence?

>I don't love carefully crafted lies, or the liars who tell them.
>Or spread them.
That's exactly what you are doing with the four gospels you preach

Like John? John was penned at least a century later.

You were saying?

I'm not a Christian so this isn't my problem. As an historian, I simply point out that this idea was apparently mainstream in at least some early Christian communities.

Heretic

A Pharisee.

Absolutely. Matthew, Mark (Peter), Luke (Put in order) John, Paul to the Hebrews, Paul to the Romans

That's what I mean by 'historical clusterfuck', the typical picture being much more distorted than what is presented in writing later on

And again you lie, as you do the work of your father, the father of lies.

I will continue to do the work of my father, as accounted for in the gospels about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Yea, to the game

None of the Gospels was written by it's putative author, are you seriously this ill-informed? You think an illiterate fisherman wrote a gospel? The Gospels are fanfic, they combine the genuine sayings of Jesus, as preserved in other sources such as the Gospel of Thomas, with the apocalyptic messianism fashionable at the their time of writing, just after the Jewish Revolt ended with the sack of Jerusalem.

Ironicaly the Gospel of Thomans, whihc western christians reject, might be the only gospel legitimately compiled by it's alleged author, since it takes the form of nothing but the direct teachings of Jesus in the form of his sayings, with no additional narrative.

>Nigga are you trying to pass a historical writing as evidence

Pack it up guys, written accounts aren't evidence anymore. No more Veeky Forumstory

John finished writing the Revelation in 95 AD, so no, that would be 63 years later, and he was an eyewitness to the events.

Not only that, but he had the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit of God, Who brought all things to his remembrance.

I'm saying that early christianity runs through today.

no

Jesus impressed the Hebrew elders, so no. And he didn't do what they did, which was to quote famous rabbis and put their thoughts into the text.

Jesus taught in his own authority, and the temple marveled.

A puzzle more than a clusterfuck. The early christians covered their tracks pretty well, but discoveries such as the nag hammadi scrolls and the dead sea scrolls has confirmed long-held suspicions among biblical scholars quite nicely.

>95 AD

Do you have any credible scholarship from an academic institution to back that up?

>Not only that, but he had the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit of God, Who brought all things to his remembrance.

Sorry, but schizophrenic delusions are not evidence.

No, that's what you call a member of the Pharisees, which Jesus never was. Jesus tore down Pharisaical Judaism.

Matthew the tax collector wrote his in Hebrew, bad Hebrew; John Mark wrote Peter's account; Luke put all the accounts into good order; John the beloved wrote his own account.

You're a victim of modern liberal scholars who don't believe in Jesus, like Bart Ehrman.

Genuine curiosity: what suspicions did they confirm?

>this book is canon and history because it is written down
>t-that other book? w-what about it, there is n-nothing true in there

They literally cherrypicked what fit their current agenda, 400 years after the events.

John the Divine is not John the Baptist, they are quite different people. Revelation is not an exceptional document, there are a great many like it authored around the same time as the gospels, apocalyptic fanfic that was for the most part kept out of the bible. Revelation was only included because the early bishops made the same mistake you have, of thinking the author was saint John.

That gnostics were always the enemy of Christianity? That the Old Testament is different from the New Testament?

>You're a victim of modern liberal scholars who don't believe in Jesus, like Bart Ehrman.

And you're a victim of a couple thousand years of sunk cost fallacy.

Reminder: Bart Ehrman started out quite religious and sought only to confirm the historicity of his faith, he didn't have a reason to twist facts towards atheism.

I hope one day you realize how futile and empty your personal philosophy is.

Spinoza impressed them too, but he was still denounced as a heretic. But Jesus seems to have been pretty orthodox for most of his life, barring his brief ministry.

Back atcha.

Nobody but you said that John the Divine was John the Baptist.

John the Beloved is John the Revelator.

John the Baptist died before Jesus his cousin did.

Bart was always a tool of the devil.

Oh, and they decided to keep Pete's revelation non-canon because of reasons. Both from the same era

Spinoza did not teach in the second temple, no. You keep conflating the holy with the unholy, to your error.

He already knows. Why do you think he spends his time and energy trying to discredit God

I don't have a personal philosophy.

I have the Holy Spirit of God living in me, resurrecting me to eternal life in Christ Jesus.

In a vain attempt to push back the darkness, I would suppose.

>everyone that disagrees with me is a tool of the adversary

Are you fucking insane? He started out as a fundamentalist.

>John finished writing the Revelation in 95 AD, so no, that would be 63 years later, and he was an eyewitness to the events.

For an eyewitness, don't you think it's rather odd that he can't tell the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic, like he slips up in 19:13 and 19:17?

>I don't have a personal philosophy.

Google Marcan primacy. It had long been suspected that Mark was the first gospel, and the others were basically fan edits of Mark. The theory relies on the existence of a now-lost "sayings gospel" of Jesus, the discovery of the gospel of Thomas pretty much confirms the existence of this document, "Q" (from quelle, german for source).

Alternatively, I'm bored, and talking to crazy people can be pretty fun.

Which you adopted with the same faulty mental equipment as everyone else. Your choice to believe in JEEBUS was a personal philosophical one.

Odd, as he parrots a number of Pharisee ideas, and basically quotes Hillel word for word in Matthew 7:12.

That's what Jesus says, yes. Everyone not For Jesus is Against Jesus; everyone not gathering people to Jesus is scattering them away from Jesus.

Neat. Thanks.

So there was a written bunch of Jesus' teachings, from which Mark and Thomas derived, and then the rest just copied Mark?

I think it's more odd that you hold that against him, while ignoring the other 99.9%, yes.

You know Hebrew came from Aramaic, yes?

Have you ever talked to a psychiatrist? Their extensive knowledge of psychology and psychological pharmacology could help you.

I don't care whether he existed or not, but the evidence suggests to me that he very much did. This doesn't mean I have to accept anachronistic dates for the gospels, I certainly don't believe they were written by their named authors, the fact they are all in greek and not aramaic suggests as much. The letters of Paul are the earliest documents in the bible,and he never claims to have met Jesus.

Nice meme

Jesus is the author and finisher of my salvation.

I merely consented to be saved.

A gnostic bishop very nearly became pope, the early church was very diverse. And yes, in my opinion the NT has almost no relation to the OT. It seems to me that the OT is used solely as a justification for Jews to follow Jesus,and the decision to include it in the christian canon was a mistake.

What meme? I'm genuinely trying to help. You display a classic pattern of paranoid delusions. Believing that every disagreement is the conscious work of an unseen supernatural adversary is very typical of paranoid schizophrenics.

There is no Q, none of the gospels are dated precisely, and the Markian primacy is a hypothesis, not a fact.

The more the dating of the gospels is performed, the earlier the dates they were written become. We're now in the 40's.

You're an idiot and a devil worshipper. Enjoy your lake of fire, you dumb bastard.

>We're now in the 40's.

[Citation needed]

I'm a different guy than who you replied to

Still, nice meme

More or less, yes.

You're completely wrong and dishonest.

>I think it's more odd that you hold that against him, while ignoring the other 99.9%, yes.

No, there's plenty more about John that's obviously pointing to the fact that the author had only a vague idea of what was going on in 1st century Judea, or is in contradiction to the other gospels, but that's about as smoking of a gun as you can find.

>You know Hebrew came from Aramaic, yes?

The ("modern") Hebrew ALPHABET came from Aramaic. The language did not. Alphabet!= language you idiot.

Which of course has nothing to do with the fact that some thousand years later, the two were very well distinct, and a native witness would have Aramaic as his cradle-tongue, so to misattribute Aramaic words as Hebrew means that John has a poor grasp of the language. Do you think he was just retarded, or wasn't actually a native witness?

Had nothing to do with philosophy.

Had everything with wanting to know the living God.

Jesus taught the Law.

The New Covenant did not come into power until He died. Like any Will.

actually both hebrew and aramaic came from an early form of Phoenician. aramaic became widely spoken in Judea during the persian period, which is why hebrew now uses the aramaic alphabet instead of the paleo-hebrew script found in Judah pre-exile

Hahaha, you think evolution demands ancestors must be extinct

No.

If you think Jesus is crazy, I'd say you have a pretty big problem.

Scratch that last link to ...737

(F#@$ mobile key pad)

Why would the people that disbelieve be the authority?

Would that be acceptable in any other field of endeavor?

Acts 9
Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”

5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?”

Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.[a] It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”

6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?”

Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

There's no difference between a lost and evil gnostic and a lost and evil pope to the Kingdom of God.

These threads are always a hoot. You get people that want to talk about the Bible as a document influenced by history, who can point to evidence of its evolution as such, and then you get people with an ideological reason to deny that it's anything but the divinely inspired word of God who refuse to acknowledge any evidence who will shitpost endlessly.

I worship the creator of the devil, while you worship the created devil.

I'm happy to let the chips fall where they may.

Google early dating of the gospels.

>Why would the people that disbelieve be the authority?
>Would that be acceptable in any other field of endeavor?

Why would people that reject history be the authority? You don't get historians talking about theology, so leave the history to the historians, and the work of historians points to the Bible being a work of human fiction.

Telling people there is a Q is dishonest. It was a hypothesis in Germany, and as all things German, it has failed.

There is no Q.

Matthew, Peter and John were all eyewitnesses to the same events.

No. Not necessarily because I reject your position, but because every attempt to anything like that brings up Christian websites, and I don't want anything with so obvious an ideological slant. Got anything from a credible secular academic institution?

So, he's exiled on Patmos because Rome can't kill him, and you're concerned that he's not keeping up with the kardsashians?

I think he was in his 90's. And I think he spoke Aramaic mostly, as did most Hebrews. And a little Hebrew. Like most Hebrews.

That's pretty much Veeky Forums in a nutshell though, no? For every 2 anons that would like to discuss Bible as a document/signifance of battle x in war y/origins of philosophy z there will be 5 others who derail the bread into shitposting

Frankly I think /shi/ would be better name for the board at this rate

No, I'm saying the graph is false.

Early Christianity should be a gray line under all of those other offshoots, with an arrow indicating it will be like that forever into infinity.

>Why would the people that disbelieve be the authority?
>Would that be acceptable in any other field of endeavor?

Yes? Who do you think would be a better judge of islam, a muslim or a secular koranic scholar? Do you not know what a selection bias is?

And fine if you want to count that as actually meeting Jesus I won't object, I'm not disputing Paul's centrality to christianity in any way, quite the opposite in fact christianity as we now know it is largely his creation.

He'd have known he difference between Hebrew words and Aramaic words. It would be like an Englishman who speaks a little German forgetting the difference between those two languages.

I agree, god is love, all are saved.