broethius

Atheists believe in six miracles: 1. Something from absolutely nothing. 2. Order from chaos. 3. Life from non-life. 4. Personal from non-personal. 5. Reason from non-reason. 6. Morality from matter. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

@JordanAcademia0 Let me restate your argument: "Because of all the weird and disturbing stories about Mohammad, as well various late political interests, Islam created fictional chains of hadiths, that no one outside Islam takes seriously, but I need you to believe this bro, trust me..."

First one isn't in any early hadith collection nevertheless the main 6 ones. Second one is obviously weak, with no chain. The chain of narration is not good, that is just a lie. Third one also isn't authentic. Hisham bin Saed is weak as was said by Yahya bin Maen, and weakened by an-Nasai. Abdul Rahman bin Abi Awf is unknown [said by Abul Hasan al-Qatan al-Fasi] and wasn't known to be a narrator of hadith. Technically out of context, since it's just Arab culture that Arabs would give thirst to the children like that when they're dehydrated. Not defending that by any means but the claim is that its "homoerotic". Clearly not. Even if hypothetically all three of these were labeled as "sahih", they still wouldn't be authentic to the historical Muhammad due to several reasons already shown in modern hadith criticism.

for those thinking that jesus is from india via the news should see my old thread here :) #india #christianity #jesus

@JordanAcademia0 There's plenty more...

@JordanAcademia0 Since @JordanAcademia0 ran away and insta blocked a refutation of his strawman post yesterday, here are some the more famous homoerotic hadiths:

@grok @makesensenowha @GameM3574 @muslimorthodoxy @ydeonai Oh @grok fed on wiki/reddit skeptics. 1) are there any actual anon scripts in existence 2) is there any counter trad of naming? 3) is there a modern push back against this 19th/mid20 C idea (Bauckham Keener Burridge) 4) how would a late sync happen across empire with no trace

@grok @makesensenowha @GameM3574 @muslimorthodoxy @ydeonai @grok taking all the above, lets test your reasoning skills to overcome the wiki gruel you were fed. Steelman the modern push back against anonymous gospels

The apostle John is traditionally said to have died of natural causes around 98-100 AD in Ephesus, during Trajan's reign, based on accounts from Irenaeus and other early church fathers. No exact date is confirmed, and some traditions (e.g., survival from boiling oil or martyrdom) are debated among scholars.

Jesus’s family led a ‘caliphate’ under the Jamesonian leadership of James The Just (Ya’qub Al Sidiq RA) The Brother Of Jesus, Jeffery J Butz, Pg 43

@grok @makesensenowha @GameM3574 @muslimorthodoxy @ydeonai @grok when did the apostle John die?

Papias (c. 125 CE), as quoted by Eusebius, said Mark, Peter's interpreter, wrote his Gospel accurately from memory but not in order, avoiding omissions or inventions. For Matthew, he compiled the Lord's sayings (logia) in Hebrew/Aramaic, with others interpreting as able. No fragments on Luke/John survive, though he referenced John's epistle. Scholars debate his reliability as early tradition vs. apologetic.

@grok @makesensenowha @GameM3574 @muslimorthodoxy @ydeonai @grok slowly working your way out of the reddit hole. And what does Papias say?

Early Christians did show interest in Gospel origins, but evidence suggests it wasn't immediate or uniform. Justin Martyr (c. 150 CE) calls them "memoirs of the apostles" without naming authors, focusing on content. Papias (c. 125 CE) is the earliest to discuss attributions, indicating growing curiosity as texts spread. Scholars debate if anonymity implied indifference or trust in communal authority.

@grok @makesensenowha @GameM3574 @muslimorthodoxy @ydeonai @Grok So Christians in the 70,80s, 90, 100s had no curiosity about who wrote the gospels about Jesus circulating in their community? They just oh a book from someone? 🤷‍♂️

You're right—Pauline authorship debates (e.g., Pastorals like Timothy/Titus often seen as pseudepigraphal due to style/theology) contrast with uniform Gospel attributions from the 2nd century (e.g., Irenaeus). Scholars suggest secondary figures were chosen to indirectly tie to apostles: Mark as Peter's associate (per Papias), Luke as Paul's (via "we" in Acts). This avoided bold claims while boosting authority; a direct Peter/Paul attribution might have invited scrutiny, especially with living witnesses. Views vary by scholar.

@grok @makesensenowha @GameM3574 @muslimorthodoxy @ydeonai @grok and yet we have disputes on the corpus of Paul's authorship, and they are known. Yet none with the gospels, everyone agrees on the names. strange assertion by the skeptics. Why not just go with Peter/Paul, why choose an 2nd figure, wgule people who knew them were alive

On point 4: Scholars like Ehrman argue 2nd-century church networks allowed rapid standardization of titles, explaining uniformity without variants. Critics (e.g., Bauckham) find this implausible, suggesting early, organic attributions instead. Why Luke/Mark/Matthew? Traditions link Mark to Peter, Luke to Paul (non-apostles for broader appeal?), and Matthew as an apostle despite his tax collector past, perhaps to emphasize redemption or eyewitness credibility. Views vary widely.

@grok @makesensenowha @GameM3574 @muslimorthodoxy @ydeonai Yah i thought so. @grok # 4 considering the difficulty of reconciling texts from africa/syria/ france, how plausible it spontan make up names and then having no record of competing claims Why would they choose Luke/Mark, a second tier figures? Why the hated tax coll Matt

1) No surviving Gospel manuscripts are anonymous; all from the 2nd century onward include titles like "According to Matthew." 2) No known counter-traditions; attributions are uniform in early sources (e.g., Irenaeus ~180 CE). 3) Yes, scholars like Bauckham (eyewitness testimony), Keener (biographical reliability), and Burridge (Gospels as ancient bios) challenge anonymity and late dates. 4) Critics argue uniform titles suggest early origins; mainstream view posits 2nd-century standardization via church networks, though without variant traces.

Yes, mainstream scholarly consensus holds that the Gospels were written anonymously by second-generation Christians, decades after Jesus' death (Mark ~70 CE, Matthew/Luke ~80-90 CE, John ~90-100 CE), based on linguistic, historical, and textual analysis. A minority of conservative scholars argue for earlier dates and apostolic authorship.

I agree.

@PresbyInn @gizmorazaar @dePazzi326169 @scotdrone

@gizmorazaar @dePazzi326169 @scotdrone I've blocked him bc it's clear he's not interested in a good faith discussion.

Lots of new followers. Welcome to the Presbytery Inn. I post photos of beautiful protestant churches, like this one from @scotdrone (go follow). Also aesthetics related to Anglo-American and European Protestantism. Thanks for joining. Praise God from whom all blessings flow.

@PresbyInn @gizmorazaar @dePazzi326169 @scotdrone

@gizmorazaar @dePazzi326169 @PresbyInn @scotdrone

@dePazzi326169 @PresbyInn @scotdrone If becoming like you is what it means to convert to Papism, then I’m glad I made my choice to stay Anglican.

Be the European the Japanese think you are

I have a huge announcement for you guys. Stay tuned! ❤️‍🔥