/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>7764

its /protestant/ or /buddhism/ essentially

>>7764

Check out the rules

>>68

That's how free.

>>7765

This board is majority catholic though. But maybe it 'd be time for a new poll, there's been a change in the userbase, I'll admitt.

Well, lets say that you couldn't have this thread in that other board for example

>>7765

Oh please

Most users here are catholics or mormoms, and of course its going to have more protestants than over there since we can't post over there

>>7779

>Implying /fringe/ is Mormonism.

No. Granted, its still mystical bs like most stuff here, but its a distinct flavor of superstition.

>>7773

>>7782

wew lad

There's no denying you're one of us now.

>>7782

>>7782

> but hold fast to equally ridiculous beliefs of the SDA movement, or any Christian derivation.

>>7787

>Its like for a while I managed to keep all the actual, non-hagiographical history I know about Christianity nicely dammed, and now the thing has burst, washing away everything.

Sure. Explain why Christianity is a scam.

>>7789

Shit, where to begin. Just the fact that it requires faith (meaning suspension of disbelief) is already a pretty big strike.

Historical inaccuracies in the Old Testament are rampant, and I don't mean things which in modern times are interpreted as symbolic like the Garden of Eden story. I mean straight up shit that did not happen like David's supposed kingdom and slavery in Egypt.

The you've got the NT, boy, which is a patchwork compilation of different authors that bring contradicting events together, usually by taking average, common miracle stories (a dime a dozen at the time, several other Hellenic characters exhibit the exact same MO as Jesus of Nazareth as imagined by Paul and friends) and inserting Jesus instead of, say, Appolonius of Tyrna. The art of myth-making, they did id well but they weren't the first to and you can see the strings if you look close enough.

I'm down to get serious and start source flinging if you want to get serious about it as well.

>>7794

Sure, lets go one by one. David's Kingdom being super awesome has been proven to lie exclusively in the Bible, as there are no other records to back up such a claim, and archaeological evidence shows no sing of structures and civilization as large and powerful as claimed in the Hebrew text.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/24/1265119/-How-Archaeology-Disproves-Biblical-History

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Israel_(united_monarchy)

These two have sources attached.

>The archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus[5] and most archaeologists have therefore abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/11/great-pyramid-tombs-slaves-egypt

Same with these. The Egyptians were meticulous record keepers, and they kept records about all the shit they did that today we would consider morally reprehensible, so the idea that "they didn't write about it to hide their shame" doesn't work. They didn't write about Moses or the plagues or the exodus because it didn't happen. It is a Jewish myth that was retrofitted into their history after the Babylonian captivity.

>Yet ie Mohammed has no such myths around him, alhough it would have been so easily possible to make them up.

That's because Muhammed isn't presenting himself as the archetype of the Holy Man, but the archetype of the prophet. He has no power save the ability to see and hear heavenly messengers and communicate the word of God. Jesus is different. Compare Muhammad more to a man like Joseph Smith.

Also, think of the world in which the Qur'an came to be. 600's in Arabian Peninsula, which was a completely different world than the 1st century Hellenistic world in which Christianity was manufactured. Here is a list of people who would have been popular cult figures at the time that the Christian writers such as Mark, Paul, Luke and Matthew were inventing their gospels. Goes without saying these figures pre-date the writing of the Bible, or these individual Gospels.

>Epidauros, famous for his healing stories.

>Roman Emperor Vespasian also

>Pythagoras, famous for his fish miracle stories a la Matthew, Luke and John

>Dionysus, turned water into wine, see John 2:1-10 for the Jesus rip-off

>Orpheus, calms the storms, see Mark 35-41

>The aforementioned Apollonius of Tyrna, who performed many of these miracles as well as the ever popular resurrection stories, exactly as those in Luke and Mark.

>They claim he was a sorceror, affirming his supernatural abilities.

They themselves are superstitious, so it doesn't really prove anything. The bible itself has accounts of people performing "false miracles" and such, like Simon in the book of acts, also called a Sorcerer. In the ancient world, all you had to do to get people to think of you as such is to claim it. Are you referring to a specif instance, a passage in the Talmud or what? Please don't say "the pharisees in the Bible said".

>But can I also trust YOU ?

I kek'd. You have a good sense of humor.

>>7795

Saved. Thanks.

**/atheism/ looks dead as old dick btw/

>>7782

not even close.

those webms were just banter m8

>>7784

stop your clawns satan

>>7798

>those webms were just banter m8

That's cool. We don't have to talk about it. I'm admittedly on edge and not at all happy about my current situation, but regarding this

>not even close.

I'll say this, because it is, actually, close.

>>7796

This place is alright and already a lot more interesting than that other board

>>7797

/atheism/ is more active on a Friday afternoon. There are about as many lurkers as here, and some of the longer threads have decent debates.

>>7796

>Sure, lets go one by one. David's Kingdom being super awesome has been proven to lie exclusively in the Bible, as there are no other records to back up such a claim, and archaeological evidence shows no sing of structures and civilization as large and powerful as claimed in the Hebrew text.

Yet. There is no proof yet, maybe there'll never be. Not everything that ever hppened is tracable.

It is however not disproven.

>Same with these. The Egyptians were meticulous record keepers, and they kept records about all the shit they did that today we would consider morally reprehensible, so the idea that "they didn't write about it to hide their shame" doesn't work. They didn't write about Moses or the plagues or the exodus because it didn't happen. It is a Jewish myth that was retrofitted into their history after the Babylonian captivity.

Maybe the Egyptians have kept record and destroyed it? Maybe they didn't keep record about it in the first place?

The fact that we have never found Egyptian records (or recognised them) about ancient Israelites does not prove that there were none.

>1st century Hellenistic world

Yeah, no. I'm sure that Galilae peasents cared way less about hellenism than modern historians imagine. But they are a tool anyway, so that's that.

> Goes without saying these figures pre-date the writing of the Bible,

If I were to actually look them up, would this claim stand firm?

> Are you referring to a specif instance, a passage in the Talmud or what?

Yes, it is said in the Talmud. Modern jews believe him to have been a sorceror.

>>7767

>Well, lets say that you couldn't have this thread in that other board for example

>Most users here are catholics or mormoms, and of course its going to have more protestants than over there since we can't post over there

ABSOLUTELY THIS

B

S

O

L

U

T

E

L

Y

T

H

I

S

This place is essentially r/christianity