/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>691788

Don't worry about it to much.

>>691790

what do you mean "don't worry about it too much"

if any books of the bible were written under false pretenses, the jewish faith was a lie, ect. this whole religion is false and thats catastrophic

>>691792

I know so have faith in the Lord. I could link you to thousands of articles proving this and that but at the end of the day you need to have faith.

>>691788

The validity of the authors is only as relevant as their association with Christ. The reason we trust them is because Our Lord did. If He saw them as worthy to be trusted (basically all the OT), then so do I. Who wrote those books is of no concern to me, although it is good to trust the traditional attributions, as it makes the system more whole. What is Canon is at least 73 books, although I personally accept many, many more than that. Ask God.

Also do note, "false pretenses" is a modern BS understanding of writing. Take for example the book of the Wisdom of Solomon, Solomon had nothing whatsoever to do with that book, but it is called that, why? Because he was wise. So of course attribute it to Him. Psalms and such, David had nothing at all to do with the majority of those psalms attributed to him likely, but they are attributed to him, why? Because he was famous for his musical skills, and they played a part in his life, so of course, attribute it to him. It's like what Plato did with putting words into Socrates mouth because he was wise, in order to put forth his own wisdom. This is not "false pretenses" but attributing your work to someone who was virtuous in this area to "father" it and 1) help the reader know what they should expect from it, and 2) credibility in that this work is attributed to them, the author had the boldness to do this, the general consensus of the people is that this work is good, and so you should care about it.

Stop reading anti-Christian BS and come to love the Lord.

>those are the words of people, that's not something said in the bible

At this point you should realise that God doesn't reveal truth only through Scriptures and BEGOME GADOLIG

>>691952

>tfw already catholic

i just have an anxiety disorder, pray for me brother

>>692127

You cant be catholic and support the sola scriptura nonsense

The only redeeming life lessons in the christian bible is the direct quoted words of Jesus.

Watered down buddhism basically. Everything else is just repurposed assholes

>>692255

Good thing nobody mentioned or brought up sola scriptura then, eh?

>>692320

>He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me t. Jesus

wow those buddhists

>>692255

Yes we do otherwise new revelations would never come about. We just have an authority like the church had in the bible to establish doctrine and dogma so we don't come to retarded conclusions or become a bunch of Judaizers.

Find me a jesus quote that you feel is bad advice.

You can find merit in almost any culture.

Its asinine to ignore valuable insight just because you're edgy

>>692981

>Jesus lied

Please leave.

>>693019

Meant for

>>692982

>>691788

There was no debate until the 19th Century when a bunch of proto-fedora wearers took Voltaires anti-Christian polemic to heart and started "studying" scripture with the explicit purpose of trying to find ways to undermine it. The arguments secular scholars make for books being pseudographical are exceedingly weak compared to the weight of tradition.

In the end the question is are you going to trust a bunch of atheists or the testimony of the early Christians and Christian scholars all throughout history?

>>693023

>There was no debate until the 19th Centur

This is false and lying so blatantly does not reflect well on Christianity. What books are canon even differs between denominations, which is clear evidence that debates about book authenticity had been had in the past. There are even patristic writings in which the authenticity of the various books are discussed.

>>693374

People like you drag the quality of the board way, way down.

>>693387

>This is false and lying so blatantly does not reflect well on Christianity. What books are canon even differs between denominations

Taking about lying blatantly then bringing up differences in canon as if you don't already know that the New Testament canon is universal and the only differences are in what books of the Old Testament are included. What relevance does the fact that some canons include Maccabees 1,2,3,4, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, etc have to do with the authenticity of the New Testament scriptures? Nothing. So saying "Canon differs between denominations" is being deliberately disingenuous. Which denomination rejects Romans, or Hebrews, or 1 Peter, or 1 John? None of them

I'll repeat for you, there was no debate over which New Testament scriptures were genuine from the time of the canon being officially developed in the 4th Century all the way to the 19th Century. Period. The 'scholarship' that claims some books are pseudographical or forgeries is absolutely laughable in the face of tradition and the writings of the earliest Christians who attest to those writings being genuine.

https://www.biblequery.org/Bible/BibleCanon/EarlyChristianNTGridReferences.html

>>693404

>he keeps projecting

>he thinks the NT is the whole of the Bible

>he is not aware that the authorship of various NT books like the Revelation or 2 Peter has been brought into doubt all the way back in the Middle Ages

I hate this board. Full of low IQ zealots who don't know anything about anything.

I swear Christians are Christianity's worst enemies. With friends like these…

>>693405

Another fedora tipper walks in here gets BTFO and tries playing the "I'm so much more informed because I skimmed the SAP a few times and read a few atheist talking points off a blog" card. Clockwork. Please go back to your LARPagan board or r/atheism, whichever of those you came from

>>693409

I am not a "fedora tipper". I'm just not an uninformed moron.

>>693414

This is another major problem with this board. Anyone that makes a slightly more nuanced point or does not join in with the brain-dead circlejerking is immediately labeled an "atheist" or some other "enemy". Because obviously, bringing up matters of historical fact means you're an atheist.

This board is pretty much a caricature at this point, outside the occasional theological debate thread, which are increasingly harder to come by due to idiotic moderation.

>>693415

Dude, you have literally written 5 posts in this thread only to complain about how much this board sucks and how everyone is stupid except you, and then one short vague post without any references or arguments. If you want a high quality discussion in here then start with yourself…

>>693414

>I'm just not an uninformed moron.

I'm afraid your apparently certainty on that fact is unwarranted. There was no dispute over the authorship of the New Testament scriptures until the 19th Century when the historical critical method of analysis started to gain popularity. The scholarship that ensued was little more than baseless atheist polemic. Basing their conclusions on such amazing rationale as "Well it doesn't really sound like something Peter would write".

A lot of the theories that were posited that gained prominence in secular biblical scholarship are now being reeled back because they're based on very flimsy arguments that don't hold up under scrutiny. The use of an amanuensis to compose letters for example is a more than satisfactory explanation for stylistic discrepancies, in fact in 1 Peter, Peter thanks Silas for helping him to compose the letter, so we know that Peter didn't actually pen the script.

>Because obviously, bringing up matters of historical fact means you're an atheist.

They're not historical fact, they're atheist talking points based on terrible knowledge of history and actual textual analysis. Now there are two possibilities, either you're a Christian who was duped by simplistic atheist talking points that can easily be debunked by cursory research, or you're simply an atheist who actually thinks the arguments for biblical pseudographia are cogent.

In either case your statement that you're "not an uninformed moron" is dead wrong. You're the very definition of an uninformed moron, one who brings up debunked secular arguments like biblical pseudographia and tries parading them around as "historical fact"

>>693417

I'm 95% sure it's simply a fedora tipper who is trolling around. Christians should really know better than to give any credence to secular arguments disputing the authorship of the biblical texts because they're almost always based on the presupposition that the biblical accounts are fabrications or myths.

>>693417

>muh references

At some point, leading a bunch of dishonest idiots by the hand gets really tiring and annoying.

The fact that

>What books are canon even differs between denominations

and

>There are even patristic writings in which the authenticity of the various books are discussed.

should be common knowledge to any serious Christian. You're basically asking me to provide references for common sensical claims that are easily accessible for investigation by anyone with two neurons to rub together, like the US once being a British colony for example. It gets really strenuous after a point.

>>693419

Eusebius doubted whether 2 Peter was authentic. That was in the 4th century!

You are a plain liar, or grossly misinformed.

No two ways about it.

inb4 the kiddie diddling mods delete the thread

>>693421

Also meant for this >>693418 wall of text full of falsehoods.

>i-it's all the modernists I swear

>but Luther wanted to remove the Revelation from the canon

>P-Protestants are 19th century modernists too!

>but Aquinas and other scholastic theologians also debated the authenticity of various books in the canon

>… i-it's all atheists lies, you're an atheistpaganinfiltratortroll

>>693019

But, conveniently, the parts that have been rewritten are just the parts you're uncomfortable with. Right?

Other ancient cultures myths are altered versions of the true account, which is found in Genesis.

>>693426

I really can't tell if you're serious or trolling anymore. What a charade.

BUMP

>>693427

Just post citations or pooh off. At this point you really do look like a bitter atheist, or like that Barnabas guy.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY

You welcome.

If any of you have doubt, lean not on your own understanding but know and you'll find the light.

The people who wrote the bible were guided by the holy spirit, Just like the apostles and church. The proof is in all the fulfilled prophecies and revelations, history itself is proof of the validity of the Catholic church

>>700568

>Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

I agree, too bad your church wasn't what the Father/Jesus/apostles intended, and the clear development of beliefs over time demonstrate that this is the case. Hell, even your modern syllabus of errors is really different to anything prior Vatican II