Christianity redpills

Correct me where I'm wrong

>OT stories written hundreds of years after the fact with little modern archaeological research supporting evidence of figures such as Moses and David as they are described in the bible (therefore likely jewish cultural heroes, written to reflect the needs of their audience)
>OT stories often contain vestiges of Judaisms pre-monotheist origins
>Jesus likely existed
>however NT gospels composed decades later and even then not codified until much later
>half of NT made up of the writings of some guy who never met jesus who all the other apostles hated

Now this need not shake one's faith in God/Christianity however Christendom's relationship to the bible and understanding of what it is is almost completely wrong, right?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

The bible was written by humans, not God, if you truly believe that the bible is 100% accurate your fooling yourself.

What I don't get is how saying "this is the word of the Lord" in mass after reading from the gospels isn't considered blasphemy.

is god a retard? that was a stupid fucking idea

pretty much true. this is interesting re NT: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source

Yes. All these are true. There's a few prophets/kings we have enough proof to say existed, but for most there simply isn't any. There is more evidence for insignificant Hebrew kings like Jehu than Jesus.

You are wrong in going half a road in understanding something; then stopping and making shit threads like this and posing like some know-it-all.

Every religion is syncretic and retro-actively justifies most of it's teachings.

You accuse believers of literalism (which is justified) but then you do the same thing the other way around.

For us today; it's not even relevant if Moses existent as a singular personality or an abstraction of multiple ones; or if Jesus was the one or the other.

What is relevant is to try and understand the symbolism, the archetypes and study the functions of a myth and the mythopoetic processes.

The Word of God is not something to be taken literally as a concept. The Logos is a concept much more broad than what the Church made out of it.

Admit it, if you applied the same burden of proof for Jesus's existence that you did for any other person/event in the ancient world, you couldn't prove anything existed.

Everything we know about the ancient world comes from a single reliable source (or two if you are lucky). Everything we know about Alexander the Great wasn't recorded in written form 200+ years after his death.

If you are going to use the same burden of proof for Jesus, at least be honest and apply it to everyone else and live with not be able to prove the existence any anyone who lived before the year 1100.

>OT stories written hundreds of years after the fact with little modern archaeological research supporting evidence of figures such as Moses and David as they are described in the bible (therefore likely jewish cultural heroes, written to reflect the needs of their audience)
Yes. The point is that there is such thing as monotheism and somebody must have started it. It is notable that Abraham is a Mesopotamian, that Moses was raised by Egyptians, they never made into the Holy Land. The Hebrew Bible wants to tell us something about the origins of monotheism, look past the names. Moses didn't just mantain a private relation with God, he showed him to all of Israel.
>OT stories often contain vestiges of Judaisms pre-monotheist origins
Yes, if you want more read The Origins of Biblical Monotheism investigates them in light of the Ugaritic texts. Even after polytheism became monolatry, and monolatry became monotheism, it continues to be sorrounded by and reverting into polytheism (f.e. the endless apostasies and idolatries in Judges) and the Hebrew Bible can tell us a lot about them.
>Jesus likely existed
That's what Ehrman and other non-God fearing Biblical scholars say, yes.
>however NT gospels composed decades later and even then not codified until much later
Read Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium for more on the historical Jesus and what can we salvage from a very critical reading of the Gospels.
>half of NT made up of the writings of some guy who never met jesus
The Conversion of Paul is a sizable controversy for any and all Biblical scholars. The figure of Paul in general is, as he's this Greek-speaking Roman citizen, formerly Christian-persecuting, Hellenistic Jewish man whose relationship with the Jewish sects contemporary to early Christianity isn't even all that clear. And the earliest Christian writings are his own. The guy is a real piece of work.
>who all the other apostles hated
Citation needed here.

>You are wrong in going half a road in understanding something; then stopping and making shit threads like this and posing like some know-it-all.
>You accuse believers of literalism (which is justified) but then you do the same thing the other way around.
You seem upset user

>What is relevant is to try and understand the symbolism, the archetypes and study the functions of a myth and the mythopoetic processes.
Yes, it's nice to understand the cultural context and not take things at face value however even when this is done people will still fall into the trap of treating this as the word of God, only obfuscated, rather than a collection of writings produced by - and for - man.

>Citation needed here.
idk, I always hear that as a point against Paul. Could just be a meme I hadn't bothered to investigate.

Cheers for the recommendations though.

Simply not true.

Jeremiah 8:8
How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.
1 John 5:19
We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.

According to the bible, a fallen angel wanted to be God, and his people populate the earth and are the majority.
This fallen angel was to deceive all so they worshipped him.
According to the bible, God is evil as fuck, just like a demon, very unjust, very boastful, very arrogant.

It is very easy to tell what has happened here.

Christians, muslims and jews, all of them worship the devil.

It's actually very true, if fedoras did that, the world would have spontaneously generated in the year 1400

Bullshit, you simply don't have real contemporary sources on the historic Jesus because he was simply not important at the time. Heck even the entry in Flavius Josephus about Jesus is an outright fake by Christcucks.
Face it, he was a rag tag Zealot with a dozen or followers at best, no one saw him as the Messiah at his time and likely he didn't worked wonders. Thats just not enough to make the papers.

>Heck even the entry in Flavius Josephus about Jesus is an outright fake by Christcucks.
source

>Jesus

For starters jesus is the antichrist, the name was changed, as for people believing, people started the most insane cults arround the guy.

Louis Feldman has stated that in the period from 1937 to 1980 at least 87 articles had appeared on the topic, the overwhelming majority of which questioned the total or partial authenticity of the Testimonium.
Josephus, the Bible, and History by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata

sorry, was meant for

Did that and Jesus is not mentioned byoutside sources unlike Alexander Akhenaten and Darius or even king Ashoka. Jesus is just a biblical figure not an historical one and no book written by christfags lile st Augustine will change hat

He was probably a keyfigure in the Jewish revolt who received cultstatus. Honestly my current hypothesis. What do you think?

Sounds delusional and not supported by facts.

Josephus 32 - 100 ad
Jewish revolts 66 - 73 ad
Biblical Jesus 0 - 32 ad

The only important Jesus Josephus would have known would be presenr during the Jewish revolt.
Which is why he mocked the early Christians for worshipping their hung leader.
Hung, which is probably what happened to those who participated in the revolts.
Or this Jesus willingly became a scapegoat for his people, we see this often in gangculture too.

Look below

And the "Jesus died for us" is the entire premise of the religion. The rest of it is just a compilation of traditions/religions that were popular. Like Jewish, Buddhist (temptation during fasting, corrupt priests, etc), Mytraic etc.

The Josephus source has been proven to be a fake and was later added.

Proof it was proven fake?

Except Babylon wrote Alexander's entry into Babylon with the exact date and wrote his date of birth and death in his lifetime (except his death technically.

...

I know/so they say, but why use Josephus at all?
Probably, because he was a famous historian and using his name would give the gospels credibility and credibility was what the Roman empire needed to turn this fantasy into a state religion.
So this is why my hyothesis is most likely correct. The core of the religion "sacrifice for us" is very similar to the Roman creed of "Gods, state and family first" in which you're expected to die for them.
So, i still see no flaws in my hypothesis.

>Alexander the Great
>Jesus of Nazareth

One o these figures had far more reason to leave a paper trail than the others. There was no reason for anyone other than followers of Christ to ever write about him, especially in a time where other "miracle workers" were out and about trying to obtain their own followings. Alexander had a high, high official state position for most of his life and traveled much more than Christ did; I'm surprised, actually, that there's not a religion worshiping him.

There was no reason for the same multitudes that considered Jesus a loon and had him crucified to bother keep good documentation of him, and if they did, it's very possible it was destroyed with Jerusalem.