/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>806107

He was, and Christianity is still an apocalyptic religion expecting the end of the world, what exactly is to reconcile here? If you read Matthew 24-25 (or 26, don't remember) you can see how apocalyptic we are from the Lord's own mouth. Scholars notice what has been noted for our whole religion, stunning.

>>806107

>Schweitzer

>Fredrikson

>Ehrman

>Meier

>Sanders

I trust it

>>806107

>apocalyptic prophet

Well, Wasn't Jesus a prophet of a coming apocalypse or not??? Just because a bunch of wankers say it like it's a bad thing doesn't make it so. This just comes across as a re-branded attempt at "Because there's multiple religions, Christianity can't possibly be the correct religion" argument which is pretty laughable opener that at best doesn't directly disprove or prove anything other than the person in particular has some sort of bandwagon doubt.

>>806140

This. Every "secular" NT/OT "scholar" is an activist that engages in gaslighting. It's a lot of rabbit hole sources. For example, someone may be disingenuous about the dating of a Biblical event, then they go to the location the faulty date combined with the sources would point to and do a large archeological dig. Surprise, there's nothing there indicating that X event in the Bible happened in this scientific expedition, hence it didn't happen. That study is then cited by activist scholar #2 in his published work, which is cited by activist scholar #3, etc. The study and these papers are then used as the basis of another study that's going to be done and will, surprise, yield results that make the Bible look wrong. This sort of stuff happens ALL THE TIME with OT events because they're so far removed. Look at how sodom and gamorah are handled as well as the exodus period. You have to be already educated enough on the subject to smell the bullshit and diligent enough to trace it back to the source. The vast majority of people won't do that, and normies will only consume the name of an article from Normie Times, let alone actually dig through the gaslighting. This is less prevelant in the NT because of how relatively recent it is and the insane amounts of evidence for most things. What they tend to do here is also gaslighting but from a different approach. For example, Matthew is dated until after the sacking of Jerusalem despite all evidence saying otherwise because Jesus predicts the destruction of the Tempe. Because Jesus couldn't have possible do that, then it is assumed that the dating is after the sacking. This is covered up similarly by using it as a foundation for a myriad of papers and studies and citations. Take a look at Ehrman's theories on Jesus, too. On the one hand, he says that the NT is not reliable as a historical document and therefore we shouldn't believe what it says about Jesus. On the other hand, his alternative hypotheses depends entirely on nitpicking parts of the NT as if they reflected history. If you want to actually do scholarly work on this, you have to do it yourself. Logos is a great start if you've got the cash or if there's any pegleg way of getting a hold of some of its resources.

>>806107

>How do we reconcile this with our faith, /christian/?

You ever think about how this apocalyptic prophet's religion managed to survive for 2000 years and literally every other one has faded into absolute obscurity?

When you even take the last part, how do we know his time was full of apocalyptic prophets if there isn't any evidence of others?

For the sake of your own soul stay away from 'scholarly' works on the historicity of Jesus and textual criticism. This anon couldn't have explained better >>806181

Paula Fredriksen is openly an apostate who fell for judaism.

>>806107

((Schweitzer))

((Fredriksen))

((Ehrman))

((Sanders))

:thinking: