try again fren. The Bible has tons of great and exciting stories, like when David hid in a Philistine city by pretending he was insane. they're not flashy and childish like pagan shit because they're real historical accounts. just watch Marvel movies if you want to enjoy fiction
-
-
You're presupposing a univocal series of scripture which isn't what we find when we read the Bible. Sometimes singular books don't agree with themselves, never mind the entire artificial corpus. I can't reconcile the Pastorals & Acts with Paul. I'd argue it's impossible.
-
Must remember that every book can be read on 4 levels, and that what seems contradictory on a lower level is resolved on a higher level, this is especially relevant for 'inspired' works (but is also relevant for something like the Divine Comedy)
-
In some cases but the pastorals were deliberately (in my view) written to be polemical works against the original gnostic Paul. Co-opting his movement. Acts is an unreliable historical narrative that fucks with Paul's message and introduces ahistorical junk w/ Peter/Paul
-
Eh, are there any major christian churches that exclude Acts?
-
No. But I could give a fuck. It's historically unreliable and I'd argue it's apart of that Lukan redaction community that messed with Marcion's gospel. There might be some true parts of it (I think the part where Christ quotes Dionysus is authentic) but it stems from prior trads
-
Nah, I trust more in the early church fathers than in modern criticism of "historical unreliability"
-
The same church fathers who initially suspected the Petrine epistles of being forgery? The same fathers who didn't mention the pastorals til something like the 3rd century? The same fathers who never had a consensus on the canon? Please, you're grasping here.
-
Source for those claims?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.