How Jesus changed the world and our current timeline.

>>1830917
>except if someone finds a way to travel through time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_principle

Time autism aside, focusing on Jesus as what changed the world is just like saying the peasant that looked at jesus at one point in time changed the world. It's all a butterfly effect down the timeline until we get the present. Sure, christianity did a lot, the church was very influential. So was the reformation (for better or for worse), but if not Jesus, it would have been someone/something else. It'd be a different present, may have arrived sooner, later, who knows, but progress was inevitable.

>>1830917
Wait wait wait let me get this right. You're saying that events in the past... cause events in the future? A sort of, cause and effect, if you will. Hold on, I need to sit down.

>>1830917

Wtf I love Jesus now!

>>1830927
>>1830943
>>1831121

You guys are memeing, right?

Jesus Christ affected the course of history more than any one person.

>>1831175

Paul affected the course of history way more than Jesus did.

And since Paul is one person, and affected the course of history more than Jesus, your statement is false.

>>1831175
The first homo sapien did if wer're being pedantic.

>>1831178

Paul was a servant of Christ, guided by Christ in all things and gave all glory to him.

So your statement is misleading

>>1831178
Paul just promulgated Jesus's teachings. Pretty big, but come on, now.

>>1831188

Paul was an outsider, who never met Jesus and preached a hybrid between what he preached and mainstream Hellenic thought which made it palatable to gentiles. It's Paul's Epistles, not the Gospels, which are the core of Christian theology. It's Paul's changes which made Christianity something more than another cult blowing out of Judean society, to be forgotten in a century.

In terms of macrohistorical effect, Paul>Jesus. It's not even close.

>>1831196
What evidence do you have that Paul changed anything? His description of disagreement with Peter, for instance, is not that Peter favors the Mosaic Law, rather he complains Peter is a hypocrite because he no longer follows the Mosaic Law, yet still prides himself as a Jew above gentiles.

>>1831196
>Paul's Epistles, not the gospels which are the core of Christian theology

Lmaooo are you joking? The Gospels are the corner stone of Christianity. Have you read them?

>>1831224
Is this a joke? the gospels were written pretty late compared to the epistles. until Ignatius no christian writer shows knowledge of them

>>1831218

What evidence do you have of any of Jesus's teachings at all? Books written by anonymous authors decades to centuries after the fact, written in a language that Jesus may or may not have even known?

But the fact that you think a bunch of books are infallible demonstrations of truth is just precious; they're not even history books. They're literary creations that in the case of the Gospels can't even get contemporary practices right.

>>1831224

The Gospels are a series of stories about Jesus. They don't teach about Christian beliefs as to the structure of the religion, beliefs about what Jesus, salvation, sin, death, etc. All that stuff is from the epistles.

>>1831196

>Paul was an outsider, who never met Jesus

What was the road to damascus...

The Gospels state that it shall be preached to all nations, to the gentiles too.

A new covenant was created through Christ's resurrection for the jews, the gentiles were put under that new covenant as well.

Paul clarified the nature of the new covenant for all, jew and gentile alike via inspiration from Jesus.

File: ece44b1231eefa0633c8a5122a05381b.jpg (12KB, 236x275px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 236x275px

>>1831240
>They don't teach about Christian beliefs as to the structure of the religion, beliefs about what Jesus, salvation, sin, death, etc.

The gospels structure the foundation of Christianity, the life, death, resurrection of Christ, the new covenant he established, the order to preach to all nations, gentiles too; the essence of the Moral Law, the two highest commandments: the love of God and neighbor, the nature of salvation, baptism, eucharist, the sacraments, the clarification on marriage and divorce....the nature of the kingdom of heaven, etc.

The epistles add clarification but the meat of Christianity is the gospels.

>>1831240
>centuries after the fact
What, they entire NT was written in the first century, scholars are unanimous on this.

The criteria of skepticism you're apply to history about Jesus is WAY higher than what you'd apply to any other ancient history. Granted, the miraculous aspect makes it more problematic, but besides that the sources are hardly that far removed from the source.

The Gospels are fine as far as contemporary practices go.

>>1831240
>written in a language that Jesus may or may not have even known?
Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. Most Jews spoke Greek at the time anyway, even if it wasn't their first language.

>>1830917

To be perfectly honest, Mohamed has had more impact on the modern world that Jesus.

I mean if the refugees were Christians it wouldn't be as big as an issue in Europe now would it?

>>1831289
>Matthew was originally written in Hebrew
citation very much needed

>Most Jews spoke Greek at the time anyway, even if it wasn't their first language.
only Jews in Hellenized areas. rural Galilean fishermen would have only spoken Aramaic

>>1831262

>What was the road to damascus...

Yeah, and I had a vision about Jesus being killed by a zombie clown. Oh wait, that was a video I saw on Youtube. That's not history, that's called making shit up, and dumb assholes like you swallowing it lock, stock, and barrel.

>via inspiration from Jesus.

And yet he can't keep his own metaphors straight. Inspiration from Jesus kind of sucks, doesn't it?

>>1831283

>The epistles add clarification but the meat of Christianity is the gospels.

The justification of Christianity, should you believe it, is in the Gospels. That there was this Jesus and you attempting to buy into his sacrifice provides the underlying force of belief. Literally everything else? The new covenant, the divide between Moral law and other law? Salvation, Baptism, Eucharist, sacraments, what all that shit IS? None of that's in the Gospels.

The theological foundation of Christianity is Paul's writings. Deal with it.

>>1831286

>What, they entire NT was written in the first century, scholars are unanimous on this.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/gospels_second_century_writings.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Authorship.2C_date.2C_and_origin

>John is usually dated to AD 90–110.[20][Notes 6]

Idiot.

>The criteria of skepticism you're apply to history about Jesus is WAY higher than what you'd apply to any other ancient history. Granted, the miraculous aspect makes it more problematic, but besides that the sources are hardly that far removed from the source.

No, it isn't. I don't deny the Gospels exist. I do, however, have skepticism that a bunch of anonymous writings long after the fact contain his exact words as opposed to say, contemporary beliefs which are then attributed to Jesus.

And for the record, I have grave doubts that the exact words of "Socrates" that Plato puts into his mouth are accurate too as well as pretty much every other non-autobiographical source as for the teachings or words of another party. Take your strawmen somewhere else,


>>1831289

>Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.

Funny then, how there's never been an "original Hebrew manuscript" of Matthew uncovered, or how its grammatical structure, especially of noun-verb order, matches Mark and Luke a hell of a lot more closely than anything else, including actual Hebrew writing.

> Most Jews spoke Greek at the time anyway, even if it wasn't their first language.

Hence, "Might or might not"

>>1831289
>Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. Most Jews spoke Greek at the time anyway, even if it wasn't their first language.

no. They all spoke Aramaic.

>>1831329

Cantankerous skeptical anon here, but that's not true either. We actually have more 1st century ossuary inscriptions in Greek than we do in Aramaic or Hebrew. It's fair to say that a lot of Jews spoke Greek, and if Jesus is as educated as the Gospels make him seem (A big if, I admit), then he probably knew at least some Greek. It's certain that some of the Christian community would have known the language, even before they started spreading from Judea.

>>1831325
All four Gospels are attested to by Papias.

>long after the fact
What are you basing this on?

> contain his exact words
Presumably, he repeated his teachings many times, his ministry lasted three years. Oral tradition being verbatim after that, is not really unlikely.

>And for the record, I have grave doubts that the exact words of "Socrates" that Plato puts into his mouth are accurate too as well
That's pretty reasonable, but if Plato were one of four sources and they had said mostly the same things, that would be something else.

>Funny then, how there's never been an "original Hebrew manuscript" of Matthew uncovered
Because unless it made it to the time of parchment, by continuous copying, it wouldn't last so long. The oldest complete copy we have the Iliad, for instance, is only about a thousand years old. The oldest fragments mostly come from Egypt, which has a climate to preserve them, but a Hebrew Gospel probably would not continue to be copied after the downfall Bar Kokhba brought on Israel.

>>1831329
Incorrect. Aramaic was the language Jews used with Jews (only within Israel), but speaking Greek was also common in the same way Mexicans in the U.S. very frequently know English. There were a ton of gentile settlers and communities in Israel, and even though the Jews did not hobnob much with them, they nonetheless still had frequent dealings with them.

>>1831335
>>1831335
>if Jesus is as educated as the Gospels make him seem

Jesus was an ordinary carpenter. Where do you get the idea that he was educated? Who educated him other than his father?

This is Matthew 6:9-13 in Aramaic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROM5EpCQUlg

>>1831357
>Aramaic was the language Jews used with Jews (only within Israel)
>Israel

stopped reading there

>>1831366
It was still called Israel all the time. It wouldn't be referred to as Palestine until after the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt.

>>1831357
>Aramaic was the language Jews used with Jews (only within Israel)
Not at all true. Aramaic was the common tongue of the whole Near East at the time. any non-hellenized community would have spoken it as their primary language

>>1831351

>All four Gospels are attested to by Papias.

And Papias almost certainly wrote in the second century. Your point being?

>What are you basing this on?

The dates of the manuscripts we do have versus the supposed dates of this shit going down.

>Presumably, he repeated his teachings many times, his ministry lasted three years. Oral tradition being verbatim after that, is not really unlikely.

Presumably, oral traditions being what they are, and there actually being quite an interregrum between circa 30 and the first fragments, you had a game of telephone going on, and what got put down isn't quite what Jesus said. Especially in translation, which you're going to have since all evidence points to the Gospels being in Greek.

>That's pretty reasonable, but if Plato were one of four sources and they had said mostly the same things, that would be something else.

You do realize that has absolutely nothing to do with my point, right? I want to make sure you do realize that, and I'm not wasting my time talking to someone who can't grasp English.

>Because unless it made it to the time of parchment, by continuous copying, it wouldn't last so long.

Unlike say, the 2nd century GREEK manuscripts we've got of the gospels?

Not to mention that again, syntactically, Matthew is very similar to the other 2 synoptics. A translation matching that well is honestly less likely than it having been in Greek from the get go from structural analysis alone.

>>1831371
No, at the time "Israel" was referred to as Samaria

>>1831364

>Jesus was an ordinary carpenter.

What makes you say that?

Furthermore, we have other rabbis of the time, who were educated and came from even poorer backgrounds than the one attributed to Jesus. Hillel did odd jobs around town. Akiva was a shepherd. The Raish Lakish was a mugger before doing a stint in the arenas, and they all someohw managed to get educations. Why not a carpenter's son?

>This is Matthew 6:9-13 in Aramaic.

You do realize claiming it to be originally in Aramaic, or translating it into Aramaic doesn't make it so, in fact? And that Aramaic and Hebrew are two different languages?

>>1831375
Most communities were very Hellenized, compared to Jews. They might have spoken variants of Aramaic in many contexts, but Greek was in heavy use in most communities, because they didn't have any stigma against pagans, they weren't struggling to define themselves in contrast to pagans and stay insular.

>>1831388
>And that Aramaic and Hebrew are two different languages?


You don't say?!

They spoke in Aramaic. Romans translated the gospels into Greek.

>>1831393
>They might have spoken variants of Aramaic in many contexts, but Greek was in heavy use in most communities
that doesn't line up with what we know. when Christianity spread to Syria and much of the Near East they didn't keep copies of New Testament texts and apocrypha in greek, which would make sense if this was their common every day language, but instead kept Syriac copies

>>1831398
>Romans translated the gospels into Greek
You can certainly claim this but you have no evidence to back it up. your case certainly isn't helped when the gospels quote mistakes in the Septuagint which aren't in our hebrew texts

>>1831398
No, according to Papias, all the Gospels save Matthew were originally written in Greek.

>>1831400
They had copies in Syriac and other languages, but they also had copies in Greek. Some of the oldest Greek Christian writings come from Egypt.

>>1831398

>Romans translated the gospels into Greek.

Or, and follow me closely on this one, the Gospels were originally written by Hellenized Christians, not the original Jewish Christians, who would have written them in Greek from the start.

>>1831413
>You can certainly claim this but you have no evidence to back it up.

Who is the Roman Catholic Church? By the way, the gospels were written 70 years after the death of Christ.

>>1831415
that's because Egypt was heavily Hellenized. I'm not speaking about Egypt. I'm talking about Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia.

>>1831383
>>1831371
>>1831366

It was called Judaea

>>1831175
>more than any one person
>person

he's a character in a story.

actually having walked the earth as a human being is completely irrelevant

>>1831436
Sort of like Julius Caesar.

>>1831427
How exactly is the catholic church proof that the gospels weren't originally written in greek?

>>1831224
>>>1831196
>>Paul's Epistles, not the gospels which are the core of Christian theology
>Lmaooo are you joking? The Gospels are the corner stone of Christianity. Have you read them?

lol corner stones of christianity
the whole bible is the cornerstone of christianity
read the last 4 verses at the end of the book (revelations)

plus the faith is held up by 4 pillars

scripture
tradition
reason
experience

>>1831427
>By the way, the gospels were written 70 years after the death of Christ.
There is only speculation about that with John, and it's not really substantiated. Everyone agrees the other Gospels were written earlier, albeit obviously no earlier, or not much earlier, than the Destruction of the Temple, since they predict that.

>>1831445
I'm not arguing that the gospels weren't originally written in Greek. They were.

The original language being spoken of by Christ and his apostles were in Aramaic.

>>1831452
No kidding, the Gospels themselves say Christ spoke Aramaic.

>>1831452
but you literally said "Romans translated the gospels into Greek."

>>1831323
>The theological foundation of Christianity is Paul's writings. Deal with it.

what do you mean by "theological foundation"?

>>1831461
I should have rephrased that. They spoke in Aramaic originally, and the apostles translated the oral teachings of Christ into Greek and Latin for Romans to understand.

>>1831466

I mean the set of metaphysical beliefs one needs to hold to be a Christian as opposed to a non-Christian. Stuff like cosmology, the nature of the soul, what things like sin are and why the crucifixion is necessary in the first place.

Jesus didn't do shit in his own time

>>1831490
He started the fire.

>>1831478
First three were already established long before Christ. The necessity of the crucifixion kind of was too, just not explicitly.

>>1831496

You had Jewish/Judean/Hebrew/whatever you want to call them theological beliefs about the same subjects, but let's not pretend that the Christian ideas concerning said subjects were the same.


Ask a 1st century mainstream Judean and a Christian (and even within Christianity, I imagine your denomination would count for a lot in the way of variation) about what the purpose of the Law of Moses was, and you'd get very different answers.

>The necessity of the crucifixion kind of was too, just not explicitly.

This I've got to hear. What pre-Christian writing demonstrated a necessity of the crucifixion?