Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Unsupportable Assertions, Re: Authorship

annanicole
Posts: 19,792
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 11:11:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I decided to list off a few assertions that were rattled off as "evidences" relating to the authorship/date of composition of the gospel accounts. These may be found in the original form on Post #95 of the Jesus Didn't Exist thread.

I'm listing off ten or twelve of them with only brief comments. One will notice that they are all either (1) raw, unsubstantiated assertions, (2) a twisting of the facts, or (3) an argument based upon silence.

(1) "the gospels were written in Greek, not Hebrew (not "proof", but certainly evidence)"

Reply: It's not either one. Reportedly, the Gospel according to Matthew was written in Hebrew, then translated. If that's true, then your "evidence" is wrong.

"Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could." - Papias, circa 100-120 AD

The same writer reports that Mark was not an eyewitness of Jesus, but that he served as an interpreter for Peter. I take it that an interpreter necessarily served as a secretary as well. One would expect an interpreter to speak/write two or three languages which in this case would include Hebrew and Greek.

"Mark, in his capacity as Peter"s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory"though not in an ordered form"of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai" - Papias

(2) "'Mark' misquotes the 10 Commandments which were commonly known by heart to most Jews"

Reply: No reference is given, but the quibble evidently involves Mark 10: 19 in which "Do not commit fraud" is substituted for "Thou shalt not covet." Since riches were involved in the discussion, "committing fraud" is merely an extension of coveting. The Jews did not always quote the decalogue word-for-word.

(3) "'Mark' attributes sayings to Moses, which Jewish texts nearly always attribute directly to God"

No reference for this given, and this appears to be a quibble which, as pointed out, has no hard-and-fast rule in the first place.

(4) " 'Matthew' presents parallel verses for some 600 of the verses in "Mark" (evidence it was copied)

Evidently the greatest latitude is employed in determining what is and is not a "parallel verse." What the objector is doing is assuming that the Book of Mark was written first - and perhaps it was. Nobody knows for sure. We need to know precisely what a "parallel verse" is, and my bet is that if both Matthew, Mark, and Luke are merely describing the same event, the passages are called "parallel."

(5) "Luke 9:18 is contradictory and is clearly the merging of Mark 6:46 and Mark 8:27 (more evidence of copying)"

Well, we'll see:

Jesus and His disciples go to Bethsaida and feeds the 5,000. Then the text says, "And it came to pass, as he was praying apart, the disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Who do the multitudes say that I am?"

Point #1 is that there is no self-contradiction in Luke 9: 18. It is not outside the realm of possibility that Jesus separated Himself from His disciples, yet they were still with Him. "And it came to pass" is of unknown duration: we do not know how much time transpired between verses 18 and 19. Do you get that? Would you like other examples of such a usage? "And it came to pass" could represent weeks or months.

Now let's look at Mark 6: 46 and Mark 8: 27:

The disciples were sent away by boat, while Jesus Himself sent away the multitudes: "And after he had taken leave of them, he departed into the mountain to pray."

In this case, Jesus is all alone. And that's that. Mark 6: 46 has nothing to do with Luke 9 or Mark 8.

Mark 8: 27, "And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, into the villages of Caesarea Philippi: and on the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Who do men say that I am?"

I'll combine Mark 8: 27 and Luke 9: 18:

"And it came to pass that Jesus and His disciples went forth to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. On the way, he was praying separate from His disciples who were with him: and he asked them, saying, Who do men say that I am?"

Now that's a very easy, plausible explanation. Jesus was walking separate from His disciples, engaged in prayer, yet close enough to easily re-unite and ask the question.

(6) "Luke/Acts contains references found only in "The Gospel of John", "Jewish War" and Antiquity of the Jews (evidence of copying)"

No examples are given of this, and no connection is established among these works.

(7) "The gospels are KNOWN to have been anonymous"

The gospel of John is hardly anonymous, and the "disciple whom Jesus loved" is generally thought to have been John. The Gospel of Luke is likewise hardly anonymous when naturally connected to Acts.

(8) 'The authorships came - not as a result of intense textual criticism or comparative study, but as the result of a vote held over 200 years later"

Reply: ~~ Shaking My Head ~~ No comment on that one.

(9) "We know of historians (one in particular), who wrote specifically of this exact topic, yet never mentions Jesus"

Reply: Argument from silence. What is "this exact topic"?

(10) "This same historian offers no comment on any major event of the New Testament"

Reply: That's not exactly a compliment, for many of the "major events" of the NT are documented from other sources.

(11) "No historian from the time of Jesus, or any ancient historian ever claims any personal knowledge or even second-hand knowledge of Jesus, only rumor and tradition"

Reply: One will notice that the complaint alleges a certain source, "rumor and tradition", in the writings of Tacitus and Josephus when no such source is stated. Did they get some information from Roman records? From Christians? From Jews? From "friends" of Christianity - or from enemies?

(12) "Archaeological evidence suggests that Nazareth was not populated when the Bible claims Jesus lived there."

Reply: To the best of my knowledge, this is untrue. Moreover, have you considered how ridiculous it would have been to claim a man was born in a place that did not even exist?

(13) "Paul wrote that Jesus was a "high priest" but also tells us if he had been on Earth, he would not have been a priest."

Reply: Dishonest to the core. Jesus could NOT be a High Priest while on the earth. He wasn't even of priestly lineage. Paul never said anything about "had been" as if "if He had ever been". He simply said, "If He were ... "

(14) "I haven't presented any evidence, Anna? I have an idea for you. Try for just a moment to align yourself with some kind of interest in the truth, and show me all of the evidence you have that they were eye-witness accounts, written by the names assigned for authorships."

Reply: You have presented very, very little reliable evidence. You presented a lot of your own assertions, along with a few blatant inaccuracies. I have not claimed that all four gospels were eyewitness accounts - nor would I make such a claim. I will make the claim that Matthew and John were.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 11:37:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just want to hit one ... even if written in Greek, that was the Academic language of the period. It about as unusual as claiming a guy in Canada wrote in both French and English. So?

The fact that Canadians use two languages in many cases, but certainly not all (many Canadians only speak one or the other, with many speaking both), is not exactly a strong reason to reject God ... but its a great attempt at evidence from a guy that claims only he has objective evidence.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 1:42:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 11:11:15 AM, annanicole wrote:
I decided to list off a few assertions that were rattled off as "evidences" relating to the authorship/date of composition of the gospel accounts. These may be found in the original form on Post #95 of the Jesus Didn't Exist thread.

I'm listing off ten or twelve of them with only brief comments. One will notice that they are all either (1) raw, unsubstantiated assertions, (2) a twisting of the facts, or (3) an argument based upon silence.

(1) "the gospels were written in Greek, not Hebrew (not "proof", but certainly evidence)"

Reply: It's not either one. Reportedly, the Gospel according to Matthew was written in Hebrew, then translated. If that's true, then your "evidence" is wrong.
And if that's not true, then the evidence is correct. And New Testament scholars tend to agree that all New Testament manuscripts were originally written in Greek. Many of them agree that had the gospels been written by the named authors, it would be reasonable to expect them to be written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Resting your objections on an "IF" is a slippery slope, Anna. Especially when you lack evidence to support that "if".

"Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could." - Papias, circa 100-120 AD
You seem to forget that Papias didn't look to what is now called "The Gospel According to Matthew" and claimed that was the manuscript. He simply claimed that Matthew did write a gospel.

The same writer reports that Mark was not an eyewitness of Jesus, but that he served as an interpreter for Peter. I take it that an interpreter necessarily served as a secretary as well. One would expect an interpreter to speak/write two or three languages which in this case would include Hebrew and Greek.
And to write his most important work in his most fluent language. Yet the form of Koine Greek used for the manuscript in this case, was very crude and rough.

"Mark, in his capacity as Peter"s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory"though not in an ordered form"of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai" - Papias

(2) "'Mark' misquotes the 10 Commandments which were commonly known by heart to most Jews"

Reply: No reference is given, but the quibble evidently involves Mark 10: 19 in which "Do not commit fraud" is substituted for "Thou shalt not covet." Since riches were involved in the discussion, "committing fraud" is merely an extension of coveting. The Jews did not always quote the decalogue word-for-word.
You heard it here first, folks... if you can assert that riches are involved, then wanting something is the same as obtaining it fraudulently... or making claims which simply aren't true, or writing texts claiming yourself to be someone other than who you are.

And this further illustrates the common Christian belief that if you can think of any argument/excuse/lie to present, then a mistake isn't a mistake. Face it, Anna. He misquoted the 10 Commandments. The fact that you can't even admit that pretty much sums up your entire persona.

(3) "'Mark' attributes sayings to Moses, which Jewish texts nearly always attribute directly to God"

No reference for this given, and this appears to be a quibble which, as pointed out, has no hard-and-fast rule in the first place.
Except that Jews were always careful to give credit to God, for things which Moses claimed came from God. And had Mark written that gospel, it is perfectly rational to expect him to adhere to that Jewish tradition. But the author didn't. And when you combine the evidence (i.e. didn't write in Hebrew, misquoted the 10 Commandments, attributed sayings to Moses), we come up with the very well evidenced conclusion that Mark wasn't the author. Of course Anna would rather die by being lowered slowly into a vat of molted lead than to ever admit that there are obvious and HUGE problems with Christian/Bible history.

(4) " 'Matthew' presents parallel verses for some 600 of the verses in "Mark" (evidence it was copied)

Evidently the greatest latitude is employed in determining what is and is not a "parallel verse." What the objector is doing is assuming that the Book of Mark was written first - and perhaps it was. Nobody knows for sure.
It's a fairly reliable rule that that which is copied is written first, while the copy is written later.

We need to know precisely what a "parallel verse" is, and my bet is that if both Matthew, Mark, and Luke are merely describing the same event, the passages are called "parallel."
This is more desperation on Anna's part. When you ask two people to write an account of things they witnessed, and as you track through their narratives you find that each sentence in each work pretty much reflects the same details and claims as the same sentence in sequence in the other work, you can be nearly 100% certain that one was copied from the other. Anna would have no problem recognizing this among two essays in a classroom where the authors sat side-by-side, but not when it comes to her glorious "word of God" (as deemed by a council of men 200-years later).

(5) "Luke 9:18 is contradictory and is clearly the merging of Mark 6:46 and Mark 8:27 (more evidence of copying)"

Well, we'll see:

Jesus and His disciples go to Bethsaida and feeds the 5,000. Then the text says, "And it came to pass, as he was praying apart, the disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Who do the multitudes say that I am?"

Point #1 is that there is no self-contradiction in Luke 9: 18.
Notice how Anna not only picks a latter interpretation, but still manages to just blow past the point that Jesus was "praying apart" (off by himself... not with anyone), and at the same time, "the disciples were with him"? To a dyed-in-the-wool Christian, that's not a contradiction because they're not allowed to see any contradictions. If they did, God might pluck their eyes from their skulls.

And of course, that's only part of the evidence. Anna wouldn't want to be overly honest in her attempts to discredit, or she might find herself giving credit where she's hoping to discredit the evidence.
If one performs a horizontal reading of Mark and Luke, they track in a general synchronicity. But this becomes lost at Mark 6:46 where mark goes on to mention multiple events, including some miracles, which aren't found anywhere in Luke. But 74.5-verses later, at Mark 8:27, the two gospels fall back into synchronicity, as though the author had worked through the damaged portion of the copy of "Mark" from which he was working, and could again return to his copying.

Enough time wasted on here rhetoric. She continued making the same type of desperate and ridiculous evasive excuses. And no matter how obvious it becomes that she's wrong, ANNA WILL NEVER ADMIT TO BEING WRONG... EVER!

You have a LOT to learn, Anna. When two witnesses write an account of say... an automobile accident, they don't track sentence to sentence, commenting on the same aspects and details in order. The two narratives - while conveying the same information - tend to do so in very different orders, and with focus upon different details. When you find two narratives which track together as with "Mark", "Matthew" and "Luke", copying is responsible.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 2:09:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 1:42:14 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/2/2014 11:11:15 AM, annanicole wrote:
I decided to list off a few assertions that were rattled off as "evidences" relating to the authorship/date of composition of the gospel accounts. These may be found in the original form on Post #95 of the Jesus Didn't Exist thread.

I'm listing off ten or twelve of them with only brief comments. One will notice that they are all either (1) raw, unsubstantiated assertions, (2) a twisting of the facts, or (3) an argument based upon silence.

(1) "the gospels were written in Greek, not Hebrew (not "proof", but certainly evidence)"

Reply: It's not either one. Reportedly, the Gospel according to Matthew was written in Hebrew, then translated. If that's true, then your "evidence" is wrong.
And if that's not true, then the evidence is correct. And New Testament scholars tend to agree that all New Testament manuscripts were originally written in Greek. Many of them agree that had the gospels been written by the named authors, it would be reasonable to expect them to be written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Resting your objections on an "IF" is a slippery slope, Anna. Especially when you lack evidence to support that "if".

Why is it even an issue? Anyone hoping to export their teachings, as early Christians were and did, would have written in Greek. Given that Christians were pretty open in sharing with the gentile community ... the only way to do so would be to write it out in Greek where it could be widely disseminated as the learned community throughout Rome understood Greek.

On the contrary, rather than casting doubt, it adds to the level of authenticity and contextual knowledge.

To even raise it as an issue is to reject period understanding. To deny that there is evidence tat many documents were also written in Hebrew ... as the Apostles were Jewish, and that there are fewer surviving copies, as we would expect given that these would have been for local or personal consumption is ... again ... non-professional quibbling.

That Ana has to call you out repeatedly rather than you just accept and concede a point is ... Neanderthalic.
annanicole
Posts: 19,792
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 2:22:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 1:42:14 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/2/2014 11:11:15 AM, annanicole wrote:
I decided to list off a few assertions that were rattled off as "evidences" relating to the authorship/date of composition of the gospel accounts. These may be found in the original form on Post #95 of the Jesus Didn't Exist thread.

I'm listing off ten or twelve of them with only brief comments. One will notice that they are all either (1) raw, unsubstantiated assertions, (2) a twisting of the facts, or (3) an argument based upon silence.

(1) "the gospels were written in Greek, not Hebrew (not "proof", but certainly evidence)"

Reply: It's not either one. Reportedly, the Gospel according to Matthew was written in Hebrew, then translated. If that's true, then your "evidence" is wrong.

And if that's not true, then the evidence is correct. And New Testament scholars tend to agree that all New Testament manuscripts were originally written in Greek. Many of them agree that had the gospels been written by the named authors, it would be reasonable to expect them to be written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

And many early Christians stated that Matthew wrote his gospel either in Hebrew or made a copy of it in Hebrew. I actually do not take a position on the subject, since I have enough sense to know that a conclusive argument cannot be made either way.

"Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own language." _ Iranaeus, c. 180

Resting your objections on an "IF" is a slippery slope, Anna. Especially when you lack evidence to support that "if".

I'm pointing out the "IF" in your assertion.

"Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could." - Papias, circa 100-120 AD

You seem to forget that Papias didn't look to what is now called "The Gospel According to Matthew" and claimed that was the manuscript. He simply claimed that Matthew did write a gospel.

Then how do you propose to know what he read, other than the witness of Dr. Ehrman?

The same writer reports that Mark was not an eyewitness of Jesus, but that he served as an interpreter for Peter. I take it that an interpreter necessarily served as a secretary as well. One would expect an interpreter to speak/write two or three languages which in this case would include Hebrew and Greek.

And to write his most important work in his most fluent language. Yet the form of Koine Greek used for the manuscript in this case, was very crude and rough.

Again, you ask us to take your word for it? Look what you did on "unanimous consent".

"Mark, in his capacity as Peter"s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory"though not in an ordered form"of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai" - Papias

(2) "'Mark' misquotes the 10 Commandments which were commonly known by heart to most Jews"

Reply: No reference is given, but the quibble evidently involves Mark 10: 19 in which "Do not commit fraud" is substituted for "Thou shalt not covet." Since riches were involved in the discussion, "committing fraud" is merely an extension of coveting. The Jews did not always quote the decalogue word-for-word.

You heard it here first, folks... if you can assert that riches are involved, then wanting something is the same as obtaining it fraudulently...

I didn't "assert it", exactly. I assumed you knew it: "One thing thou lackest: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. But his countenance fell at the saying, and he went away sorrowful: for he was one that had great possessions."

And, no, "wanting something" is NOT the same as "obtaining it fraudulently." However, "obtaining it fraudulently" is prima facie evidence of coveting. That was the point.

or making claims which simply aren't true,

Oh, c'mon. I never said your silly assertions regarding an imaginary group of men who convene, bickered for 42 years, then said "aye" to Matthew had anything to do with "Commit no fraud" or "Thou shalt not covet."

And this further illustrates the common Christian belief that if you can think of any argument/excuse/lie to present, then a mistake isn't a mistake. Face it, Anna. He misquoted the 10 Commandments. The fact that you can't even admit that pretty much sums up your entire persona.

Sir, it is a matter of record that folks commonly cited extensions, necessarily implications, of the Commandments as if they were the actual Commandments themselves. And Jewish priests, not Christians, were the most notorious at this.

(3) "'Mark' attributes sayings to Moses, which Jewish texts nearly always attribute directly to God"

No reference for this given, and this appears to be a quibble which, as pointed out, has no hard-and-fast rule in the first place.

Except that Jews were always careful to give credit to God, for things which Moses claimed came from God.

It looks like we've gone from "nearly always" to "always, without exception". How do you know that the Jews did not at times credit Moses?

And had Mark written that gospel, it is perfectly rational to expect him to adhere to that Jewish tradition. But the author didn't. And when you combine the evidence (i.e. didn't write in Hebrew, misquoted the 10 Commandments, attributed sayings to Moses), we come up with the very well evidenced conclusion that Mark wasn't the author. Of course Anna would rather die by being lowered slowly into a vat of molted lead than to ever admit that there are obvious and HUGE problems with Christian/Bible history.

Again, I'll ask: "Is "Do not commit fraud" necessarily implied in the Ten Commandments? Is it or not?

(4) " 'Matthew' presents parallel verses for some 600 of the verses in "Mark" (evidence it was copied)

Evidently the greatest latitude is employed in determining what is and is not a "parallel verse." What the objector is doing is assuming that the Book of Mark was written first - and perhaps it was. Nobody knows for sure.

It's a fairly reliable rule that that which is copied is written first, while the copy is written later.

... and you do not know for sure that the Book of Mark was written first.

We need to know precisely what a "parallel verse" is, and my bet is that if both Matthew, Mark, and Luke are merely describing the same event, the passages are called "parallel."

This is more desperation on Anna's part. When you ask two people to write an account of things they witnessed, and as you track through their narratives you find that each sentence in each work pretty much reflects the same details and claims as the same sentence in sequence in the other work, you can be nearly 100% certain that one was copied from the other. Anna would have no problem recognizing this among two essays in a classroom where the authors sat side-by-side, but not when it comes to her glorious "word of God" (as deemed by a council of men 200-years later).

And yet oftentimes this scenario is NOT what we see among Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Sometimes, yes. Many times, no.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,792
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 2:27:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 1:42:14 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/2/2014 11:11:15 AM, annanicole wrote:

(5) "Luke 9:18 is contradictory and is clearly the merging of Mark 6:46 and Mark 8:27 (more evidence of copying)"

Well, we'll see:

Jesus and His disciples go to Bethsaida and feeds the 5,000. Then the text says, "And it came to pass, as he was praying apart, the disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Who do the multitudes say that I am?"

Point #1 is that there is no self-contradiction in Luke 9: 18.

Notice how Anna not only picks a latter interpretation, but still manages to just blow past the point that Jesus was "praying apart" (off by himself... not with anyone), and at the same time, "the disciples were with him"? To a dyed-in-the-wool Christian, that's not a contradiction because they're not allowed to see any contradictions. If they did, God might pluck their eyes from their skulls.

Sir, a man could "pray separate" or "pray apart" from his wife and kids in his own house, yet his wife and kids would still be "with him."


If one performs a horizontal reading of Mark and Luke, they track in a general synchronicity. But this becomes lost at Mark 6:46 where mark goes on to mention multiple events, including some miracles, which aren't found anywhere in Luke. But 74.5-verses later, at Mark 8:27, the two gospels fall back into synchronicity, as though the author had worked through the damaged portion of the copy of "Mark" from which he was working, and could again return to his copying.

Enough time wasted on here rhetoric. She continued making the same type of desperate and ridiculous evasive excuses. And no matter how obvious it becomes that she's wrong, ANNA WILL NEVER ADMIT TO BEING WRONG... EVER!

You have a LOT to learn, Anna.

Says the fella who discredited his own self by fabricating an entire scenario, humorously adding great detail to the farce, all based upon the fact that he does not know what "unanimous consent" means. Be my guest. Look it up! Make sure I didn't alter the definition! It simply means "no objectors" in common lingo.

When two witnesses write an account of say... an automobile accident, they don't track sentence to sentence, commenting on the same aspects and details in order. The two narratives - while conveying the same information - tend to do so in very different orders, and with focus upon different details. When you find two narratives which track together as with "Mark", "Matthew" and "Luke", copying is responsible.

We'll analyze this in a little more detail.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,792
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 2:36:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Three passages chosen pretty much at random:

"Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. And He said to them, Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down." (Matt 24: 1-2)

"As He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!" And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down." (Mark 13: 1-2)

"And while some were talking about the temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said, As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down." (Luke 21: 5-6)

(1) Is the preceding passage some of your "evidence" of copying?
(2) How can you tell who, if anyone, copied whom?

Now I'm sure those are but two of the supposed plagiarized passages. Do any of the three even have the exact same words in the quote from Jesus?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,792
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 2:54:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 1:42:14 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/2/2014 11:11:15 AM, annanicole wrote:


Enough time wasted on here rhetoric. She continued making the same type of desperate and ridiculous evasive excuses. And no matter how obvious it becomes that she's wrong, ANNA WILL NEVER ADMIT TO BEING WRONG... EVER!

I can hardly be wrong, sir, when my answer to certain questions is, "I don't know". Did I climb out on a limb and dogmatically declare that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. I don't think so! Nor did I dogmatically declare that it was written in Greek. For ought I know, it was written in both, two versions of the same book.

I can hardly be wrong when I state, concerning the order of composition of the gospels, "I really don't know". Mark could have been written first. Perhaps Matthew was. I would guess that John was written last. I'm certainly not gonna ape someone else's probably flawed theory, then swear by it.

You have a LOT to learn, Anna.

As do you, especially when it comes to the meaning of common little phrases, such as "unanimous consent." You didn't know that it merely means "No objectors can be found", did you? That is, unless everyone is defining it wrong - except you.

Remember, YOU -not me - are the one who constructed out a thin air a total farce, and by dingies you stuck with it too. It is nothing short of hilarious that you'll cling to something so obviously and palpably false, then try to blame the word choice of the NIV writers.

"When two witnesses write an account of say... an automobile accident, they don't track sentence to sentence, commenting on the same aspects and details in order. The two narratives - while conveying the same information - tend to do so in very different orders, and with focus upon different details. When you find two narratives which track together as with "Mark", "Matthew" and "Luke", copying is responsible."

Have you ever heard two or three people tell the same story so many times that they get to where they tell it the same way? Same phraseology, same inflection ... they'll even PAUSE at the same moments. They'll deliver the punch line the same way. How many times do you reckon that "Not one stone shall be left upon the other" was uttered before it was ever written?

And even if some of the gospel writers had read the works of other of the gospel writers, well ... that's no crime.

I betcha one thing: no atheist on here is gonna plagiarize, copy, or paraphrase your stories about obtaining "unanimous consent". No, sir. You've got the sole rights to that one.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 3:21:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 11:11:15 AM, annanicole wrote:
I decided to list off a few assertions that were rattled off as "evidences" relating to the authorship/date of composition of the gospel accounts. These may be found in the original form on Post #95 of the Jesus Didn't Exist thread.

I'm listing off ten or twelve of them with only brief comments. One will notice that they are all either (1) raw, unsubstantiated assertions, (2) a twisting of the facts, or (3) an argument based upon silence.

(1) "the gospels were written in Greek, not Hebrew (not "proof", but certainly evidence)"

Reply: It's not either one. Reportedly, the Gospel according to Matthew was written in Hebrew, then translated. If that's true, then your "evidence" is wrong.

"Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could." - Papias, circa 100-120 AD

The same writer reports that Mark was not an eyewitness of Jesus, but that he served as an interpreter for Peter. I take it that an interpreter necessarily served as a secretary as well. One would expect an interpreter to speak/write two or three languages which in this case would include Hebrew and Greek.

"Mark, in his capacity as Peter"s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory"though not in an ordered form"of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai" - Papias

(2) "'Mark' misquotes the 10 Commandments which were commonly known by heart to most Jews"

Reply: No reference is given, but the quibble evidently involves Mark 10: 19 in which "Do not commit fraud" is substituted for "Thou shalt not covet." Since riches were involved in the discussion, "committing fraud" is merely an extension of coveting. The Jews did not always quote the decalogue word-for-word.

(3) "'Mark' attributes sayings to Moses, which Jewish texts nearly always attribute directly to God"

No reference for this given, and this appears to be a quibble which, as pointed out, has no hard-and-fast rule in the first place.

(4) " 'Matthew' presents parallel verses for some 600 of the verses in "Mark" (evidence it was copied)

Evidently the greatest latitude is employed in determining what is and is not a "parallel verse." What the objector is doing is assuming that the Book of Mark was written first - and perhaps it was. Nobody knows for sure. We need to know precisely what a "parallel verse" is, and my bet is that if both Matthew, Mark, and Luke are merely describing the same event, the passages are called "parallel."

(5) "Luke 9:18 is contradictory and is clearly the merging of Mark 6:46 and Mark 8:27 (more evidence of copying)"

Well, we'll see:

Jesus and His disciples go to Bethsaida and feeds the 5,000. Then the text says, "And it came to pass, as he was praying apart, the disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Who do the multitudes say that I am?"

Point #1 is that there is no self-contradiction in Luke 9: 18. It is not outside the realm of possibility that Jesus separated Himself from His disciples, yet they were still with Him. "And it came to pass" is of unknown duration: we do not know how much time transpired between verses 18 and 19. Do you get that? Would you like other examples of such a usage? "And it came to pass" could represent weeks or months.

Now let's look at Mark 6: 46 and Mark 8: 27:

The disciples were sent away by boat, while Jesus Himself sent away the multitudes: "And after he had taken leave of them, he departed into the mountain to pray."

In this case, Jesus is all alone. And that's that. Mark 6: 46 has nothing to do with Luke 9 or Mark 8.

Mark 8: 27, "And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, into the villages of Caesarea Philippi: and on the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Who do men say that I am?"

I'll combine Mark 8: 27 and Luke 9: 18:

"And it came to pass that Jesus and His disciples went forth to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. On the way, he was praying separate from His disciples who were with him: and he asked them, saying, Who do men say that I am?"

Now that's a very easy, plausible explanation. Jesus was walking separate from His disciples, engaged in prayer, yet close enough to easily re-unite and ask the question.

(6) "Luke/Acts contains references found only in "The Gospel of John", "Jewish War" and Antiquity of the Jews (evidence of copying)"

No examples are given of this, and no connection is established among these works.

(7) "The gospels are KNOWN to have been anonymous"

The gospel of John is hardly anonymous, and the "disciple whom Jesus loved" is generally thought to have been John. The Gospel of Luke is likewise hardly anonymous when naturally connected to Acts.

(8) 'The authorships came - not as a result of intense textual criticism or comparative study, but as the result of a vote held over 200 years later"

Reply: ~~ Shaking My Head ~~ No comment on that one.

(9) "We know of historians (one in particular), who wrote specifically of this exact topic, yet never mentions Jesus"

Reply: Argument from silence. What is "this exact topic"?

(10) "This same historian offers no comment on any major event of the New Testament"

Reply: That's not exactly a compliment, for many of the "major events" of the NT are documented from other sources.

(11) "No historian from the time of Jesus, or any ancient historian ever claims any personal knowledge or even second-hand knowledge of Jesus, only rumor and tradition"

Reply: One will notice that the complaint alleges a certain source, "rumor and tradition", in the writings of Tacitus and Josephus when no such source is stated. Did they get some information from Roman records? From Christians? From Jews? From "friends" of Christianity - or from enemies?

(12) "Archaeological evidence suggests that Nazareth was not populated when the Bible claims Jesus lived there."

Reply: To the best of my knowledge, this is untrue. Moreover, have you considered how ridiculous it would have been to claim a man was born in a place that did not even exist?

(13) "Paul wrote that Jesus was a "high priest" but also tells us if he had been on Earth, he would not have been a priest."

Reply: Dishonest to the core. Jesus could NOT be a High Priest while on the earth. He wasn't even of priestly lineage. Paul never said anything about "had been" as if "if He had ever been". He simply said, "If He were ... "

(14) "I haven't presented any evidence, Anna? I have an idea for you. Try for just a moment to align yourself with some kind of interest in the truth, and show me all of the evidence you have that they were eye-witness accounts, written by the names assigned for authorships."

Reply: You have presented very, very little reliable evidence. You presented a lot of your own assertions, along with a few blatant inaccuracies. I have not claimed that all four gospels were eyewitness accounts - nor would I make such a claim. I will make the claim that Matthew and John were.

The gospel is the voice of God, not written words in a book. God's chosen believers listen to the gospel spoken by His saints and believe the Truth they hear. Matthew, Mark and Luke did NOT exist during the time the saints were being used by God to speak for Him. They are fabricated writings by antichrists ( false prophets ) who had no idea who God was. They used some stolen ideas from the saints writings and mixed them with their religious beliefs ( Jewish and other religious traditions ).
annanicole
Posts: 19,792
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 3:32:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 3:21:34 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/2/2014 11:11:15 AM, annanicole wrote:
I decided to list off a few assertions that were rattled off as "evidences" relating to the authorship/date of composition of the gospel accounts. These may be found in the original form on Post #95 of the Jesus Didn't Exist thread.



The gospel is the voice of God, not written words in a book. God's chosen believers listen to the gospel spoken by His saints and believe the Truth they hear. Matthew, Mark and Luke did NOT exist during the time the saints were being used by God to speak for Him. They are fabricated writings by antichrists ( false prophets ) who had no idea who God was. They used some stolen ideas from the saints writings and mixed them with their religious beliefs.

Why don't you start up a thread and quit annoyin' the crap out of everyone?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 3:34:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 3:21:34 PM, bornofgod wrote:


The gospel is the voice of God, not written words in a book. God's chosen believers listen to the gospel spoken by His saints and believe the Truth they hear. Matthew, Mark and Luke did NOT exist during the time the saints were being used by God to speak for Him. They are fabricated writings by antichrists ( false prophets ) who had no idea who God was. They used some stolen ideas from the saints writings and mixed them with their religious beliefs

Nothing - either in the Bible or external to the Bible - demonstrates any connection whatsoever, with God. If theists would allow themselves to connect with that reality, they'd probably cease to be theists fairly quickly. You have NO REASON to believe. That's why you call it "faith". Faith means you have no reason to hold the beliefs you hold.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 4:08:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 3:32:53 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/2/2014 3:21:34 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/2/2014 11:11:15 AM, annanicole wrote:
I decided to list off a few assertions that were rattled off as "evidences" relating to the authorship/date of composition of the gospel accounts. These may be found in the original form on Post #95 of the Jesus Didn't Exist thread.



The gospel is the voice of God, not written words in a book. God's chosen believers listen to the gospel spoken by His saints and believe the Truth they hear. Matthew, Mark and Luke did NOT exist during the time the saints were being used by God to speak for Him. They are fabricated writings by antichrists ( false prophets ) who had no idea who God was. They used some stolen ideas from the saints writings and mixed them with their religious beliefs.

Why don't you start up a thread and quit annoyin' the crap out of everyone?

And you don't annoy anyone when you go into other forum members posts and add your lies to them? You are ridiculous, Anna.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 4:09:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 3:34:32 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/2/2014 3:21:34 PM, bornofgod wrote:


The gospel is the voice of God, not written words in a book. God's chosen believers listen to the gospel spoken by His saints and believe the Truth they hear. Matthew, Mark and Luke did NOT exist during the time the saints were being used by God to speak for Him. They are fabricated writings by antichrists ( false prophets ) who had no idea who God was. They used some stolen ideas from the saints writings and mixed them with their religious beliefs

Nothing - either in the Bible or external to the Bible - demonstrates any connection whatsoever, with God. If theists would allow themselves to connect with that reality, they'd probably cease to be theists fairly quickly. You have NO REASON to believe. That's why you call it "faith". Faith means you have no reason to hold the beliefs you hold.

I speak for our Creator. Christians speak for a book with words in it that they don't understand.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 4:32:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 3:32:53 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/2/2014 3:21:34 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/2/2014 11:11:15 AM, annanicole wrote:
I decided to list off a few assertions that were rattled off as "evidences" relating to the authorship/date of composition of the gospel accounts. These may be found in the original form on Post #95 of the Jesus Didn't Exist thread.



The gospel is the voice of God, not written words in a book. God's chosen believers listen to the gospel spoken by His saints and believe the Truth they hear. Matthew, Mark and Luke did NOT exist during the time the saints were being used by God to speak for Him. They are fabricated writings by antichrists ( false prophets ) who had no idea who God was. They used some stolen ideas from the saints writings and mixed them with their religious beliefs.

Why don't you start up a thread and quit annoyin' the crap out of everyone?

He's just spewing a bunch of mindless garbage for which he lacks the slightest hint of credible evidence... pretty much the same thing you, and every other Christian are doing.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 5:31:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 3:34:32 PM, Beastt wrote:


Nothing - either in the Bible or external to the Bible - demonstrates any connection whatsoever, with God.

Well, thanks for you unscientific BS claim without proof. Perhaps if you connected yourself to simple common sense you would not offer your deliberately offensive nihilism up as if it were science rather than deliberately offensive.

Nothing in you craven atheism is connected to anything but abuse and narcissism. Like it?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 5:33:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 4:32:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/2/2014 3:32:53 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/2/2014 3:21:34 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/2/2014 11:11:15 AM, annanicole wrote:
I decided to list off a few assertions that were rattled off as "evidences" relating to the authorship/date of composition of the gospel accounts. These may be found in the original form on Post #95 of the Jesus Didn't Exist thread.



The gospel is the voice of God, not written words in a book. God's chosen believers listen to the gospel spoken by His saints and believe the Truth they hear. Matthew, Mark and Luke did NOT exist during the time the saints were being used by God to speak for Him. They are fabricated writings by antichrists ( false prophets ) who had no idea who God was. They used some stolen ideas from the saints writings and mixed them with their religious beliefs.

Why don't you start up a thread and quit annoyin' the crap out of everyone?

He's just spewing a bunch of mindless garbage for which he lacks the slightest hint of credible evidence...

The irony of that statement. Ana is mopping the floor with you.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 5:37:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 4:32:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/2/2014 3:32:53 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/2/2014 3:21:34 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/2/2014 11:11:15 AM, annanicole wrote:
I decided to list off a few assertions that were rattled off as "evidences" relating to the authorship/date of composition of the gospel accounts. These may be found in the original form on Post #95 of the Jesus Didn't Exist thread.



The gospel is the voice of God, not written words in a book. God's chosen believers listen to the gospel spoken by His saints and believe the Truth they hear. Matthew, Mark and Luke did NOT exist during the time the saints were being used by God to speak for Him. They are fabricated writings by antichrists ( false prophets ) who had no idea who God was. They used some stolen ideas from the saints writings and mixed them with their religious beliefs.

Why don't you start up a thread and quit annoyin' the crap out of everyone?

He's just spewing a bunch of mindless garbage for which he lacks the slightest hint of credible evidence... pretty much the same thing you, and every other Christian are doing.

What kind of plagiarized lies are you bringing into this forum?
annanicole
Posts: 19,792
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 7:44:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 4:32:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/2/2014 3:32:53 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/2/2014 3:21:34 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/2/2014 11:11:15 AM, annanicole wrote:
I decided to list off a few assertions that were rattled off as "evidences" relating to the authorship/date of composition of the gospel accounts. These may be found in the original form on Post #95 of the Jesus Didn't Exist thread.



The gospel is the voice of God, not written words in a book. God's chosen believers listen to the gospel spoken by His saints and believe the Truth they hear. Matthew, Mark and Luke did NOT exist during the time the saints were being used by God to speak for Him. They are fabricated writings by antichrists ( false prophets ) who had no idea who God was. They used some stolen ideas from the saints writings and mixed them with their religious beliefs.

Why don't you start up a thread and quit annoyin' the crap out of everyone?

He's just spewing a bunch of mindless garbage for which he lacks the slightest hint of credible evidence... pretty much the same thing you, and every other Christian are doing.

Uh huh ... kinda like your made-up-out-of-thin air claim that some council convened, bickered around for 42 years, finally voted ... and "aye'd" their way into deciding that Matthew was the author of the Book of Matthew? Is that the type of "mindless garbage that lacks the slightest hint of evidence" to which you refer?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,792
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 10:07:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 1:42:14 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/2/2014 11:11:15 AM, annanicole wrote:

Notice how Anna not only picks a latter interpretation, but still manages to just blow past the point that Jesus was "praying apart" (off by himself... not with anyone), and at the same time, "the disciples were with him"? To a dyed-in-the-wool Christian, that's not a contradiction because they're not allowed to see any contradictions. If they did, God might pluck their eyes from their skulls.

Already answered. Even tonight, some husband could go into another room to pray, and yet his wife and kids would still be with him. He could still talk to them.

And of course, that's only part of the evidence. Anna wouldn't want to be overly honest in her attempts to discredit, or she might find herself giving credit where she's hoping to discredit the evidence.
If one performs a horizontal reading of Mark and Luke, they track in a general synchronicity. But this becomes lost at Mark 6:46 where mark goes on to mention multiple events, including some miracles, which aren't found anywhere in Luke.

The narrative in Luke does not mention Jesus going into a mountain to pray after sending the multitudes away.

But 74.5-verses later, at Mark 8:27, the two gospels fall back into synchronicity, as though the author had worked through the damaged portion of the copy of "Mark" from which he was working, and could again return to his copying.

Let's see what Mark 8: 11-13 says: "And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, trying him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation."

Of course, you've decided that's "damaged portion of the copy", so we won't find it in Luke anywhere.

"But some of them said, By Beelzebub the prince of the demons casteth he out demons. And others, trying him , sought of him a sign from heaven. And when the multitudes were gathering together unto him, he began to say, This generation is an evil generation: it seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah." (Luke 11: 15)

Looks close enough to me - by your standards of parallelism.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 10:25:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 10:07:37 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/2/2014 1:42:14 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/2/2014 11:11:15 AM, annanicole wrote:

Notice how Anna not only picks a latter interpretation, but still manages to just blow past the point that Jesus was "praying apart" (off by himself... not with anyone), and at the same time, "the disciples were with him"? To a dyed-in-the-wool Christian, that's not a contradiction because they're not allowed to see any contradictions. If they did, God might pluck their eyes from their skulls.

Already answered. Even tonight, some husband could go into another room to pray, and yet his wife and kids would still be with him. He could still talk to them.

And of course, that's only part of the evidence. Anna wouldn't want to be overly honest in her attempts to discredit, or she might find herself giving credit where she's hoping to discredit the evidence.
If one performs a horizontal reading of Mark and Luke, they track in a general synchronicity. But this becomes lost at Mark 6:46 where mark goes on to mention multiple events, including some miracles, which aren't found anywhere in Luke.

The narrative in Luke does not mention Jesus going into a mountain to pray after sending the multitudes away.

But 74.5-verses later, at Mark 8:27, the two gospels fall back into synchronicity, as though the author had worked through the damaged portion of the copy of "Mark" from which he was working, and could again return to his copying.

Let's see what Mark 8: 11-13 says: "And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, trying him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation."

Of course, you've decided that's "damaged portion of the copy", so we won't find it in Luke anywhere.

"But some of them said, By Beelzebub the prince of the demons casteth he out demons. And others, trying him , sought of him a sign from heaven. And when the multitudes were gathering together unto him, he began to say, This generation is an evil generation: it seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah." (Luke 11: 15)

Looks close enough to me - by your standards of parallelism.

No matter how hard you try to convince atheists and me that antichrists didn't write and produce the false gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, I know how Christianity was formed by God's plan called the beast and why He did so.
annanicole
Posts: 19,792
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 10:29:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 10:25:21 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/2/2014 10:07:37 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/2/2014 1:42:14 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/2/2014 11:11:15 AM, annanicole wrote:

Notice how Anna not only picks a latter interpretation, but still manages to just blow past the point that Jesus was "praying apart" (off by himself... not with anyone), and at the same time, "the disciples were with him"? To a dyed-in-the-wool Christian, that's not a contradiction because they're not allowed to see any contradictions. If they did, God might pluck their eyes from their skulls.

Already answered. Even tonight, some husband could go into another room to pray, and yet his wife and kids would still be with him. He could still talk to them.

And of course, that's only part of the evidence. Anna wouldn't want to be overly honest in her attempts to discredit, or she might find herself giving credit where she's hoping to discredit the evidence.
If one performs a horizontal reading of Mark and Luke, they track in a general synchronicity. But this becomes lost at Mark 6:46 where mark goes on to mention multiple events, including some miracles, which aren't found anywhere in Luke.

The narrative in Luke does not mention Jesus going into a mountain to pray after sending the multitudes away.

But 74.5-verses later, at Mark 8:27, the two gospels fall back into synchronicity, as though the author had worked through the damaged portion of the copy of "Mark" from which he was working, and could again return to his copying.

Let's see what Mark 8: 11-13 says: "And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, trying him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation."

Of course, you've decided that's "damaged portion of the copy", so we won't find it in Luke anywhere.

"But some of them said, By Beelzebub the prince of the demons casteth he out demons. And others, trying him , sought of him a sign from heaven. And when the multitudes were gathering together unto him, he began to say, This generation is an evil generation: it seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah." (Luke 11: 15)

Looks close enough to me - by your standards of parallelism.

No matter how hard you try to convince atheists and me that antichrists didn't write and produce the false gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, I know how Christianity was formed by God's plan called the beast and why He did so.

God's plan is not the beast, ya fruitcake. Why on earth do you continually annoy people, knowing full well that everyone on here thinks you're a psychobabbling lunatic?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 10:35:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 10:29:16 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/2/2014 10:25:21 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/2/2014 10:07:37 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/2/2014 1:42:14 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/2/2014 11:11:15 AM, annanicole wrote:

Notice how Anna not only picks a latter interpretation, but still manages to just blow past the point that Jesus was "praying apart" (off by himself... not with anyone), and at the same time, "the disciples were with him"? To a dyed-in-the-wool Christian, that's not a contradiction because they're not allowed to see any contradictions. If they did, God might pluck their eyes from their skulls.

Already answered. Even tonight, some husband could go into another room to pray, and yet his wife and kids would still be with him. He could still talk to them.

And of course, that's only part of the evidence. Anna wouldn't want to be overly honest in her attempts to discredit, or she might find herself giving credit where she's hoping to discredit the evidence.
If one performs a horizontal reading of Mark and Luke, they track in a general synchronicity. But this becomes lost at Mark 6:46 where mark goes on to mention multiple events, including some miracles, which aren't found anywhere in Luke.

The narrative in Luke does not mention Jesus going into a mountain to pray after sending the multitudes away.

But 74.5-verses later, at Mark 8:27, the two gospels fall back into synchronicity, as though the author had worked through the damaged portion of the copy of "Mark" from which he was working, and could again return to his copying.

Let's see what Mark 8: 11-13 says: "And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, trying him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation."

Of course, you've decided that's "damaged portion of the copy", so we won't find it in Luke anywhere.

"But some of them said, By Beelzebub the prince of the demons casteth he out demons. And others, trying him , sought of him a sign from heaven. And when the multitudes were gathering together unto him, he began to say, This generation is an evil generation: it seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah." (Luke 11: 15)

Looks close enough to me - by your standards of parallelism.

No matter how hard you try to convince atheists and me that antichrists didn't write and produce the false gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, I know how Christianity was formed by God's plan called the beast and why He did so.

God's plan is not the beast, ya fruitcake. Why on earth do you continually annoy people, knowing full well that everyone on here thinks you're a psychobabbling lunatic?

God's plan called the beast was used to teach His people how to build illusions so that He could use them as analogies to explain to us saints how He created us. The computer technology today is the best analogy to date to teach us how He created us as information ( His thoughts ) and formed illusions ( flesh and other objects in this world ) to make us believe we're real.

Just because you don't believe the Truth, doesn't mean it isn't the Truth.
annanicole
Posts: 19,792
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 10:39:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 10:35:06 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/2/2014 10:29:16 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/2/2014 10:25:21 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/2/2014 10:07:37 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/2/2014 1:42:14 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/2/2014 11:11:15 AM, annanicole wrote:

Notice how Anna not only picks a latter interpretation, but still manages to just blow past the point that Jesus was "praying apart" (off by himself... not with anyone), and at the same time, "the disciples were with him"? To a dyed-in-the-wool Christian, that's not a contradiction because they're not allowed to see any contradictions. If they did, God might pluck their eyes from their skulls.

Already answered. Even tonight, some husband could go into another room to pray, and yet his wife and kids would still be with him. He could still talk to them.

And of course, that's only part of the evidence. Anna wouldn't want to be overly honest in her attempts to discredit, or she might find herself giving credit where she's hoping to discredit the evidence.
If one performs a horizontal reading of Mark and Luke, they track in a general synchronicity. But this becomes lost at Mark 6:46 where mark goes on to mention multiple events, including some miracles, which aren't found anywhere in Luke.

The narrative in Luke does not mention Jesus going into a mountain to pray after sending the multitudes away.

But 74.5-verses later, at Mark 8:27, the two gospels fall back into synchronicity, as though the author had worked through the damaged portion of the copy of "Mark" from which he was working, and could again return to his copying.

Let's see what Mark 8: 11-13 says: "And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, trying him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation."

Of course, you've decided that's "damaged portion of the copy", so we won't find it in Luke anywhere.

"But some of them said, By Beelzebub the prince of the demons casteth he out demons. And others, trying him , sought of him a sign from heaven. And when the multitudes were gathering together unto him, he began to say, This generation is an evil generation: it seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah." (Luke 11: 15)

Looks close enough to me - by your standards of parallelism.

No matter how hard you try to convince atheists and me that antichrists didn't write and produce the false gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, I know how Christianity was formed by God's plan called the beast and why He did so.

God's plan is not the beast, ya fruitcake. Why on earth do you continually annoy people, knowing full well that everyone on here thinks you're a psychobabbling lunatic?

God's plan called the beast was used to teach His people how to build illusions so that He could use them as analogies to explain to us saints how He created us. The computer technology today is the best analogy to date to teach us how He created us as information ( His thoughts ) and formed illusions ( flesh and other objects in this world ) to make us believe we're real.

Just because you don't believe the Truth, doesn't mean it isn't the Truth.

OK, thanks, Brad. Now run along to a Christian food pantry.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 10:43:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 10:39:37 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/2/2014 10:35:06 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/2/2014 10:29:16 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/2/2014 10:25:21 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/2/2014 10:07:37 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/2/2014 1:42:14 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/2/2014 11:11:15 AM, annanicole wrote:

Notice how Anna not only picks a latter interpretation, but still manages to just blow past the point that Jesus was "praying apart" (off by himself... not with anyone), and at the same time, "the disciples were with him"? To a dyed-in-the-wool Christian, that's not a contradiction because they're not allowed to see any contradictions. If they did, God might pluck their eyes from their skulls.

Already answered. Even tonight, some husband could go into another room to pray, and yet his wife and kids would still be with him. He could still talk to them.

And of course, that's only part of the evidence. Anna wouldn't want to be overly honest in her attempts to discredit, or she might find herself giving credit where she's hoping to discredit the evidence.
If one performs a horizontal reading of Mark and Luke, they track in a general synchronicity. But this becomes lost at Mark 6:46 where mark goes on to mention multiple events, including some miracles, which aren't found anywhere in Luke.

The narrative in Luke does not mention Jesus going into a mountain to pray after sending the multitudes away.

But 74.5-verses later, at Mark 8:27, the two gospels fall back into synchronicity, as though the author had worked through the damaged portion of the copy of "Mark" from which he was working, and could again return to his copying.

Let's see what Mark 8: 11-13 says: "And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, trying him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation."

Of course, you've decided that's "damaged portion of the copy", so we won't find it in Luke anywhere.

"But some of them said, By Beelzebub the prince of the demons casteth he out demons. And others, trying him , sought of him a sign from heaven. And when the multitudes were gathering together unto him, he began to say, This generation is an evil generation: it seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah." (Luke 11: 15)

Looks close enough to me - by your standards of parallelism.

No matter how hard you try to convince atheists and me that antichrists didn't write and produce the false gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, I know how Christianity was formed by God's plan called the beast and why He did so.

God's plan is not the beast, ya fruitcake. Why on earth do you continually annoy people, knowing full well that everyone on here thinks you're a psychobabbling lunatic?

God's plan called the beast was used to teach His people how to build illusions so that He could use them as analogies to explain to us saints how He created us. The computer technology today is the best analogy to date to teach us how He created us as information ( His thoughts ) and formed illusions ( flesh and other objects in this world ) to make us believe we're real.

Just because you don't believe the Truth, doesn't mean it isn't the Truth.

OK, thanks, Brad. Now run along to a Christian food pantry.

Not ONE Christian knows what the beast is. Many of them believe it's a person who is coming in the future. Some of them believe it's a group of people who are going to take over the world. There are many different ideas of what the beast is but NONE of them know it's God's plan to teach His people how to build things with their human hands out of gold, silver, wood, stone, etc.