/lit/ - Literature

>>6087016
Also, God is a pretentious faget.
>Oh look at me I'm so perfect and I'm such a genius writer, with all this christian metaphores
Come on, its main character dies and resuscitates after 3 days.

>>6087016
>they would have discovered America, a few centuries later
>a few centuries later
>actually long over a fucking millennium later
Stopped reading there.

>Dawkins-san, my fedora is tipping on its own

>>6087082
But the world is only 6,000 years old

>>6087082
Nigga 10 or 12 centuries can be described as "a few centuries".

Don't be so anal.

>>6087117
>Nigga 10 or 12 centuries can be described as "a few centuries".
Fuck off.

>>6087016
Nice. Well sourced.
I like it.

>>6087125
no u

fucking autists, man

>>6087117
learn the meaning of words before you defend their misuse
>a few
three
>a dozen
twelve

>>6087128
>he doesn't know such obvious stuff and can't even do a 3 minutes google search to confirm it

did you make that image op? it's pretty fucking dumb

>>6087016
>We don't even know if the original gospels were written in Greek or Aramaic
uwotm8

>>6087139
Suck my cock before you suck my cock.

A few centuries was perfectly acceptable, cunt. A few does NOT mean three.
Ignorant and autistic.

>>6087248
There are 2 different hypothesis: the greek one and the aramaic one.

Scholars are fighting among themselves since 1500 years ago, nigger.
So, a few centuries.

>>6087016
>implying the gospels were ever taken fully literally

Right, beyond your reading comprehension. I bet you also think the Bible was some sort of ancient manual.

>>6087256
>implying the gospels were ever taken fully literally
You mean beside these past 2 millennia in which they totally were and beside the tens of thousands of people that still totally do?

>>6087259
Prove to me that they were, and theology, as well as critical readings, weren't a thing.

>>6087255
"Since we have no autographs of this or any other New Testament book, it's wise to look at what the early Church had to say on the subject. Catholic apologists, theologians, and Scripture scholars of the second through fifth centuries provide us with a wealth of information on this subject.

Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that

>Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)

Fifty years earlier Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote,

>"Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could" (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39]).

Sometime after 244 the Scripture scholar Origen wrote,

>"Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language" (Commentaries on Matthew [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 6:25]).

Eusebius himself declared that

>"Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue [Aramaic], so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote" (History of the Church 3:24 [inter 300-325])."

>>6087277
Source: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/was-matthews-gospel-first-written-in-aramaic-or-hebrew

Literally five minutes in google.
Oh, also >>6087255
>Scholars are fighting among themselves since 1500 years ago, nigger.

>"This peculiar argument against the long-standing belief that Aramaic (or Hebrew) was the language in which Matthew originally composed his Gospel was first raised in the 16th century by the Dutch theologian and patristics scholar Desiderius Erasmus. He reasoned that, since there is no evidence of an Aramaic or Hebrew original of Matthew's Gospel, it is futile to argue that the work originally appeared in Aramaic and was subsequently translated into Greek (as most patristics scholars hold)."

>a few centuries later
if by a few you mean thirteen
>And the real authors of the others are all but sure.
what is this supposed to mean?
>it's common knowledge that the gospels of Matthew and John are just copies of the gospel of Mark
Matthew and Luke*

>>6087251
>Just a few centuries after the fall of the Roman Republic, the Soviet Union also collapsed.

>>6087016
You realize that you have the cause/effect wrong with that Irenaeus quote, right? He taught using four gospels as his source material, THEN made up a cool analogy.

>>6087141
all of this is covered in any religious studies 101 course and can be backed up by bart d ehrman's a historical introduction to the new testament; however, your line of thinking is quite retarded

>such obvious stuff
then what's the point of making / posting an infographic explaining it? if it's obvious, then there would be no need to explain it. if, on the other hand, you feel as though it isn't obvious to everyone, and it does bear explaining, then there's no point in expecting your target audience to already know the sources.

>do a 3 minutes google search
generally speaking, telling the other side to go and perform your research for you because you're too lazy, isn't a great way of winning a debate

>>6087264
Sure, now I'll go get my time machine and my mass-mind-reader machine and bring you the printed thoughts of the 100 billion people that lived in the past 2000 years.

You wait there, ok? I'm gonna come back.

(How to recognize a religious moron? From shit like this: you can't mathematically prove something obvious, so I'm allowed to make up the shit I prefer about it and blindly believe it.)

>>6087251
ITT: things that happened a few centuries ago

>>6087311
Perfectly correct sentence on every account.

>>6087334
Not at all: he made that bullshit up and THEN the people in charge of choosing which gospels were real and which fake followed his theory.
Also: cool analogy? That? You're religious, aren't you?

>>6087345
>ITT: autists that don't realize they're arguing over the correct use of a very simple word and keep bringing up examples that prove it's correct.

>>6087340
Not the one you're responding to, but I like how your argument is that it's impossible to perform historical study. You really showed that christfag!

>>6087348
>a few centuries ago

am i doin it rite?

>>6087354
>your argument is that it's impossible to perform historical study
I don't believe you're another person. There can't be 2 autists of this magnitude.
Now re-read my post and tell me what my REAL argument was.

>>6087356
Being an autistic imbecile trying to be funny? You're crushing it.

>>6087347
>Not at all: he made that bullshit up and THEN the people in charge of choosing which gospels were real and which fake followed his theory.

"Scholars have postulated a variety of reasons why only Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were ultimately accepted as canonical. Some suggest that this decision was largely due to the need for church structure and organization and the corresponding attempts by early bishops to solidify their authority against those who would practice Christianity in their own way.

Another major reason early church leaders seemed to have had for rejecting all but the four gospels is apostolic authority. Matthew and John were presumed to be written by Jesus' disciples of the same name. Although Mark and Luke were not apostles, they were believed to have had direct contact with the apostles Peter and Paul, respectively. The notion of apostolic succession and authority was very important to early church leaders, for it was seen as a way of ensuring the integrity of the gospel message was preserved after the deaths of eyewitnesses. In fact, the Gospel of John was questioned for a time before being accepted because its authorship by the Apostle John was in some doubt.

This emphasis on apostolic authority and authorship meant that only early writings were accepted. According to one scholar, "not a single document written after about 120 was ever considered for inclusion in the canon, not least because such documents were not written by people in direct touch with the apostolic tradition, much less with the apostles themselves." {4}

The following excerpts from early "orthodox" writings illustrate the importance assigned to authorship of canonical texts:

>There is current also an epistle to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to further the heresy of Marcion, and several others which cannot be received into the catholic Church. {5}

Another possible reason for the rejection of Gnostic and other gospels is they rarely referred to the Old Testament or its teachings. As New Testament scholar Pheme Perkins explains:

>"Gnostic exegetes were only interested in elaborating their mythic and theological speculations concerning the origins of the universe, not in appropriating a received canonical tradition. . [By contrast] the Christian Bible originates in a hermeneutical framing of Jewish scriptures, so that they retain their canonical authority. {6}

Source: http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/texts/gospels.htm

>>6087255
No serious present-day secular scholar of biblical history endorses any "Aramaic hypothesis." Are you sure you didn't hear that at the unaccredited bible college you went to — the one where faculty endorse the young-earth narrative?

>The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis (or proto-Gospel hypothesis or Aramaic Matthew hypothesis) is a group of theories based on the proposition that a lost gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic lies behind the four canonical gospels. It is based upon an early Christian tradition, deriving from the 2nd century bishop Papias of Hierapolis, that the apostle Matthew composed such a gospel. Papias appeared to say that this Hebrew or Aramaic gospel was subsequently translated into the canonical gospel of Matthew, but modern studies have shown this to be untenable.[1] Modern variants of the hypothesis survive, but have not found favour with scholars as a whole.

Im not totally sure i agree with u, literature takes a lot of your own imagination and understanding, so theres a bit of self reproach and misconception in stating that some literature is just "bad", in my opinion theres no bad literature, just inapropiate readers, Maybe different people is not capable of enjoying different kind of literature (including me), or not in that moment or stage

>ITT: Sperglord getting BTFO by Christians who defend their arguments with facts and cited sources

I never thought I'd see the day.

>>6087366
Your argument was that the study of history requires a time machine.

To which my response is:

BWAAA HAHHAHAHHAHAAHAHA WHAT A RETARD

Is there anything else you'd like to debate?

>>6087386

>cited sources
>those 'sources' being religious websites that have a very high stake in all of this being true

>>6087016

The non-canonical gospels are out there. Most of them have been subject to the same process of redaction/revision by many hands over a long period, as the canonical gospels. The Gospel of Thomas is included in the Yale OCW Intro to New Testament course. There are also non-canonical letters, apocalypse narratives, etc. Most of the non-canonical stuff isn't very good though, so Iranaeus was actually doing us a favor, if he's responsible for cutting it out.

>>6087406
>Wants sources on religious topics
>Those sources may not discuss religious topics
You're a joke

>>6087415
>>Those sources may not discuss religious topics

No, those sources may not be hopelessly biased, to the point where "public relations people" would be a better name for them that "source"

>>6087424
Point out one flaw with any of the quoted material posted
here >>6087277
here >>6087282
or here >>6087371

>>6087251
2few adjective
: not many

: not many but some

12 centuries is not many centuries?

>>6087434

>catholic.com

Anyway, why should I care about what Christians thought of it more than a century after the events? Most scholars agree that only the baptism by John and the crucifixion are reliable.

>Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[8][9][10][11] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[12] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[13][14][15] Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.[16][17][18][19][20][21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels

>>6087469
Way to dodge the question, fag.
We aren't talking about the historic accuracy of the gospels themselves, we're talking about the history behind the compilation of the New Testament.

Try again.

>>6087016
>ignore the majority of the gospels
>this blatent bullshit

*touches brim of hat*

What is even the point of going through the same fucking Christian/Atheist bitch-boy dance every single time

>>6087016
>I wonder what old Irenaeus would have said if he had known the would have discovered America

Aside from the gad-awful syntax, that's why Joseph Smith was given a new gospel for the new continent, obviously.

I remember when this board actually discussed literature. Once upon a time it wasn't a meme board for insecure juvenile atheists who post completely untrue and unsubstantiated jargon to advance the narrative of Harris and Dawkins etc...at least the theology general threads talk about historical and literary subjects...sigh...