Total Posts:88|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Gospel Fraud

Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 5:24:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Many Christians persist in the belief that the manuscript later called "The Gospel of Mark" was actually written by Mark. They tend to persist in the same misconception regarding the gospels assigned to Matthew, Luke and John.

However, none of these manuscripts were signed or originally attributed to any particular author. They were all anonymous writings. The text assigned to Mark was originally written between 60 - 80 CE (and mentions events from around 70CE), is first found to be associated with Mark as the author around 150CE. The other three began being associated with Matthew, Luke and John in the latter half of the second century.

Church fathers simply decided to go along with these traditions, despite the fact that the texts themselves show that these authorships are incorrect, and based on nothing but hollow assertion. The writing assigned to Luke even tells us in the first four verses, that it is not an eye-witness account, and is taken on faith to be correct, as copied from other unknown sources.

The text assigned to Mark demonstrates within the text itself, that it wasn't written by anyone familiar with Jewish beliefs and practices. It misquotes the 10 Commandments, and attributes to Moses, statements which religious Jews were always careful to attribute to God. It was originally written in Greek, while it would be logical to expect that Mark would have written in Hebrew (or Aramaic), and did not contain the final 12-verses which actually claim that Jesus resurrected. Those were added years later, and by different authors.

The manuscript later assigned to Matthew, demonstrates a greater understanding of Jewish beliefs, in that the author took the time to correct the blunders found in "Mark", while paraphrasing 606 verses from a copy of "Mark". (The current popular version of "Mark" contains only 678-verses. The original had only 666). Such an amazingly high degree of parallel verses makes it impossible for any rational person to even attempt to claim that "Matthew" wasn't copied from "Mark". And given that Matthew would have been a witness to the events in the gospels, the fact that this gospel was copied, tells us that it isn't an eye-witness account. It was written around 90-110 CE and also contains multiple verses believed to have been taken from a common source, which is now lost, but mostly (possibly, completely), reconstructed from multiple other sources where the same verses are found. This lost document is commonly called the "Q".

While we've already disqualified "Luke" as having been written by Luke, by it's own admission (Luke 1:1-4), it also contains verses taken from the "Q", as well as presenting parallel verses for about 300 of the verses in "Mark". In addition to this, it contains a single verse at 9:18, which is the result of merging two of the verses in "Mark". It appears that the author was working from a damaged copy of "Mark". At Mark 6:46, there were either some missing pages, or illegible text. The text became legible again at Mark 8:27. And if one paraphrases the first half of Mark 6:46 and merges it with the latter half of Mark 8:27, they end up with Luke 9:18. And this is notable because Luke 9:18 contradicts itself. It first tells us that Jesus was alone praying, and then says he is with his disciples, and asking them a specific question. And nothing contained in the 74.5 verses of Mark between 6:46 and 8:27 (including some miracles), is found anywhere in "Luke". So not only was the author of "Luke" not Luke, and not writing an eye-witness account, but he was working from a damaged copy of "Mark". In addition, Luke/Acts presents information found only in three other ancient documents; "John", "Jewish War", and "Antiquity of the Jews". The latter two were written by Flavius Josephus and completed in 93CE. And the work of Josephus provides more detail, and greater accuracy, showing that the gospels copied from him, rather than him copying from them.

As for John, it is the only non-synoptic gospel, (meaning it doesn't sync with the other three). It also contains the aforementioned information taken from writings of Flavius Josephus, as well as parallel verses taken from a copy of "Mark".

So it is now clear (and has been for some time), that none of the gospels were written by the names assigned to them, and that none of them are contemporaneous accounts (to Jesus), or eye-witness information. None of them, therefore, can be relied upon to contain even a single word that Jesus actually spoke, and none of them serve as evidence that Jesus actually existed.

And while many staunch, inflexible, and desperately delusional Christians refuse to accept this, it is widely recognized by theologians and scholars. Even some churches are providing this information, either in part or in its entirety, as are some Study Bibles. For example; this preface to "Matthew" taken from an NIV Study Bible.

The Holy Bible (NIV)
Preface to Book of Matthew


"Although the first gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the 12 apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies, in particular, those that stress Matthews alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his gospel have caused some biblical scholars to abandon Matthian authorship. "Why," they ask, "would Matthew, a witness to the events of the Lord's life depend so heavily on Mark's account?"

Church fathers found that it was best to "go with the flow" and not make waves when it came to claims which simply could not be supported. They were expected to hold an opinion common to tradition, and to support that opinion. And opinion, is all that it was. This also applies to the opinion that Jesus was God, that Jesus existed on Earth, and that the books selected by the council - despite rather large minority rejection on many counts - were "the word of God". Majority opinion, does not form the basis for reality. All too often, reality doesn't form the basis for majority opinion either.

The Bible is wrong about the Earth being a flat circle.
The Bible is wrong about plants thriving on Earth before the sun existed.
The Bible is wrong about the authors for the gospels.
The Bible is wrong about the order and time required for "creation" in Genesis.

The Bible is wrong on hundreds of demonstrable counts, and it held to be "the word of God", on little more than a majority opinion among councils of men in the 4th century.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 5:55:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oh look, another Jesus Myth conspiracy based on 'expert' analysis of cherry picked minutia. This claim originates with Wells BTW, and author who has had to retract his 'works'. Again, please note the failure to cite the reference where this standard claim has been examined and refuted numerous times.

If you'd like a fuller picture of Mark, with relevant citations to peer reviewed material, you will quickly find that the cherry picked minutia above does absolutely nothing to invalidate the reality that this the gospel of Mark clearly and clarionally refers to a historical Jesus - for a disciple of an Apostle who is apparently not in doubt whatsoever.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com...

The continual references by Christ Mythers to 'anonymous' scholars, who are in fact discredited scholars should belie the reality of the Christ Myth Conspiracy.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 6:01:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 5:24:45 PM, Beastt wrote:
Many Christians persist in the belief that the manuscript later called "The Gospel of Mark" was actually written by Mark. They tend to persist in the same misconception regarding the gospels assigned to Matthew, Luke and John.

However, none of these manuscripts were signed or originally attributed to any particular author. They were all anonymous writings. The text assigned to Mark was originally written between 60 - 80 CE (and mentions events from around 70CE),

It mentions them as yet-future.

is first found to be associated with Mark as the author around 150CE. The other three began being associated with Matthew, Luke and John in the latter half of the second century.

"First found"? What kind of language is that? Are you trying to look back at ancient writings, knowing full well that 95% of them are lost?


Church fathers simply decided to go along with these traditions, despite the fact that the texts themselves show that these authorships are incorrect, and based on nothing but hollow assertion. The writing assigned to Luke even tells us in the first four verses, that it is not an eye-witness account, and is taken on faith to be correct, as copied from other unknown sources.

The text assigned to Mark demonstrates within the text itself, that it wasn't written by anyone familiar with Jewish beliefs and practices. It misquotes the 10 Commandments, and attributes to Moses, statements which religious Jews were always careful to attribute to God.

Give examples.

It was originally written in Greek, while it would be logical to expect that Mark would have written in Hebrew (or Aramaic), and did not contain the final 12-verses which actually claim that Jesus resurrected. Those were added years later, and by different authors.

Prove it.

The manuscript later assigned to Matthew, demonstrates a greater understanding of Jewish beliefs, in that the author took the time to correct the blunders found in "Mark", while paraphrasing 606 verses from a copy of "Mark". (The current popular version of "Mark" contains only 678-verses. The original had only 666). Such an amazingly high degree of parallel verses makes it impossible for any rational person to even attempt to claim that "Matthew" wasn't copied from "Mark". And given that Matthew would have been a witness to the events in the gospels, the fact that this gospel was copied, tells us that it isn't an eye-witness account. It was written around 90-110 CE and also contains multiple verses believed to have been taken from a common source, which is now lost, but mostly (possibly, completely), reconstructed from multiple other sources where the same verses are found. This lost document is commonly called the "Q".

While we've already disqualified "Luke" as having been written by Luke, by it's own admission (Luke 1:1-4), it also contains verses taken from the "Q", as well as presenting parallel verses for about 300 of the verses in "Mark". In addition to this, it contains a single verse at 9:18, which is the result of merging two of the verses in "Mark". It appears that the author was working from a damaged copy of "Mark". At Mark 6:46, there were either some missing pages, or illegible text. The text became legible again at Mark 8:27. And if one paraphrases the first half of Mark 6:46 and merges it with the latter half of Mark 8:27, they end up with Luke 9:18. And this is notable because Luke 9:18 contradicts itself. It first tells us that Jesus was alone praying, and then says he is with his disciples, and asking them a specific question. And nothing contained in the 74.5 verses of Mark between 6:46 and 8:27 (including some miracles), is found anywhere in "Luke". So not only was the author of "Luke" not Luke, and not writing an eye-witness account, but he was working from a damaged copy of "Mark". In addition, Luke/Acts presents information found only in three other ancient documents; "John", "Jewish War", and "Antiquity of the Jews". The latter two were written by Flavius Josephus and completed in 93CE. And the work of Josephus provides more detail, and greater accuracy, showing that the gospels copied from him, rather than him copying from them.

As for John, it is the only non-synoptic gospel, (meaning it doesn't sync with the other three). It also contains the aforementioned information taken from writings of Flavius Josephus, as well as parallel verses taken from a copy of "Mark".

So it is now clear (and has been for some time), that none of the gospels were written by the names assigned to them, and that none of them are contemporaneous accounts (to Jesus), or eye-witness information. None of them, therefore, can be relied upon to contain even a single word that Jesus actually spoke, and none of them serve as evidence that Jesus actually existed.

And while many staunch, inflexible, and desperately delusional Christians refuse to accept this, it is widely recognized by theologians and scholars. Even some churches are providing this information, either in part or in its entirety, as are some Study Bibles. For example; this preface to "Matthew" taken from an NIV Study Bible.

The Holy Bible (NIV)
Preface to Book of Matthew


"Although the first gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the 12 apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies, in particular, those that stress Matthews alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his gospel have caused some biblical scholars to abandon Matthian authorship. "Why," they ask, "would Matthew, a witness to the events of the Lord's life depend so heavily on Mark's account?"

Church fathers found that it was best to "go with the flow" and not make waves when it came to claims which simply could not be supported. They were expected to hold an opinion common to tradition, and to support that opinion. And opinion, is all that it was. This also applies to the opinion that Jesus was God, that Jesus existed on Earth, and that the books selected by the council - despite rather large minority rejection on many counts - were "the word of God". Majority opinion, does not form the basis for reality. All too often, reality doesn't form the basis for majority opinion either.

The Bible is wrong about the Earth being a flat circle.
The Bible is wrong about plants thriving on Earth before the sun existed.
The Bible is wrong about the authors for the gospels.
The Bible is wrong about the order and time required for "creation" in Genesis.

The Bible is wrong on hundreds of demonstrable counts, and it held to be "the word of God", on little more than a majority opinion among councils of men in the 4th century.

More pure rhetoric, without even an attempt to give solid evidence of any of it.
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
9/12/2014 6:07:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
And once again, the first two to come running to defend the Christian myth are the conjoined twin sisters, Neutral and AnnaNicole.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 6:08:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 6:07:02 PM, Beastt wrote:
And once again, the first two to come running to defend the Christian myth are the conjoined twin sisters, Neutral and AnnaNicole.

Oh look, he's ALREADY started the personal attacks ... so much for scholarship.

Agh .. the report function.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 8:34:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 6:07:02 PM, Beastt wrote:
And once again, the first two to come running to defend the Christian myth are the conjoined twin sisters, Neutral and AnnaNicole.

Nice evidence. Do you care to offer any evidence of your little claim that the last twelve verses of Mark are not genuine/authentic? I doubt it. The best you can do is, "So-and-so told me."

Anybody can get on here and spew. That's all you do.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 8:40:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 6:07:02 PM, Beastt wrote:
And once again, the first two to come running to defend the Christian myth are the conjoined twin sisters, Neutral and AnnaNicole.

Let me add to the reply:

Nice evidence. Do you care to offer any evidence of your little claim that the last twelve verses of Mark are not genuine/authentic? I doubt it. The best you can do is, "So-and-so told me."

Anybody can get on here and spew. That's all you do.

This should be very interesting, since I suspect that most of your info derives from Dr. Ehrman who never once goes into any detail concerning the defense of the authenicity/genuineness of the passages. He doesn't even try. Therefore, I doubt that you'll be able to answer much. Heck, you haven't studied the matter.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 4:16:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 8:40:33 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/12/2014 6:07:02 PM, Beastt wrote:
And once again, the first two to come running to defend the Christian myth are the conjoined twin sisters, Neutral and AnnaNicole.

Let me add to the reply:

Nice evidence. Do you care to offer any evidence of your little claim that the last twelve verses of Mark are not genuine/authentic? I doubt it. The best you can do is, "So-and-so told me."

Where have you been? This matter is now settled and many bibles now put special notes to highlight the "long" ending to Mark as unreliable:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Most scholars, following the approach of the textual critic Bruce Metzger, believe that verses 9-20 were not part of the original text.[1]
.....
The 1984 printing of the NIV translation notes: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9"20." However, the Committee on Bible Translation has since changed this to read "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9"20."


Anybody can get on here and spew. That's all you do.

Hm. Who's spewing again?
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 4:22:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also from the same Wikipedia article:

The longer ending was declared canonical scripture by the Council of Trent. Today, however, Roman Catholics are not required to believe that Mark wrote this ending.[12] The Catholic NAB translation includes the footnote: "[9"20] This passage has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. It is a general resume of the material concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus, reflecting, in particular, traditions found in Luke 24 and John 20."

More Christian interpolation and forgery on display.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 5:12:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 4:22:26 AM, dee-em wrote:
Also from the same Wikipedia article:

The longer ending was declared canonical scripture by the Council of Trent. Today, however, Roman Catholics are not required to believe that Mark wrote this ending.[12] The Catholic NAB translation includes the footnote: "[9"20] This passage has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. It is a general resume of the material concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus, reflecting, in particular, traditions found in Luke 24 and John 20."

More Christian interpolation and forgery on display.

And how does this disprove historical Jesus?

At worst, someone fem the period immediately following Jesus's death, added the last bit there. And as we see from some actual scholarship:

"For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words: "And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements." This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com...

So we appear to have an author taking great care to record events with the utmost accuracy. No doubt using the revision process as most writers do, and occasionally adding more detail - as we would expect.

But no, Christ Mythers see the revision process, and from that, rather than find a simple answer, will instead indicate a vast and sweeping conspiracy to fake the entirety of Christ ... based on a couple of sentences - from an author known to revise for accuracy - whose subsequent addition brings it into harmony with the other gospels.

And author who says, "Oh yes! That IS right, I remember now!"

vs.

Massive conspiracy in which EVERYTHING is false - because we cherry picked passages from Wikipedia ... which indicate serious scholarship behind the conspiracy theory?

And Wikipedia?

"Because of patristic evidence from the late 2nd century for the existence of copies of Mark with the "Longer Ending," it is contended by a majority of scholars that the "Longer Ending" must have been written and attached no later than the early 2nd century.[2] Scholars are divided on the question of whether the "Longer Ending" was created deliberately to finish the Gospel of Mark (as contended by James Kelhoffer) or if it began its existence as a freestanding text which was used to "patch" the otherwise abruptly ending text of Mark. Its failure to smoothly pick up the narrative from the scene at the end of 16:8 is a point in favor of the latter option. There is disagreement among scholars as to whether Mark originally stopped writing at 16:8"and if he did so, if it was deliberate or not"or if he continued writing an ending which is now lost. Allusions to a future meeting in Galilee between Jesus and the disciples (in Mark 14:28 and 16:7) seem to suggest that Mark intended to write beyond 16:8"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Again, its the same pattern. Some atheists, and they are ALWAYS atheists, with no scholarly credentials whatsoever, dive into the scholarship to pick up some points of minutia and them make fantastically unsupportable claims - from the most extreme interpretation possible - and even checking their sources indicates that they are clearly cherry picking data points and interpretation (where the conveniently leave of the source citation in a desperate bid to hide the cherry picking nature of the citation).

One has to be deliberately unobjective and somewhat dishonest to be a Christ Myther. We keep proving that time and time again - and the same posters keep doing back to repeated the same old pattern over and over.

That is the reality of the nutball conspiracy theory known as the Christ Myth.
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 6:21:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 5:55:52 PM, neutral wrote:
The continual references by Christ Mythers to 'anonymous' scholars, who are in fact discredited scholars should belie the reality of the Christ Myth Conspiracy.

This is an unadulterated LIE and you know it.

But as usual you consider any lie in support of your belief to be a valid response.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 6:26:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 6:21:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/12/2014 5:55:52 PM, neutral wrote:
The continual references by Christ Mythers to 'anonymous' scholars, who are in fact discredited scholars should belie the reality of the Christ Myth Conspiracy.

This is an unadulterated LIE and you know it.

But as usual you consider any lie in support of your belief to be a valid response.

Oh, Beasty has listed his citations has he?

Again, someone get control of the stalker please.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 6:29:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 4:16:46 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/12/2014 8:40:33 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/12/2014 6:07:02 PM, Beastt wrote:
And once again, the first two to come running to defend the Christian myth are the conjoined twin sisters, Neutral and AnnaNicole.

Let me add to the reply:

Nice evidence. Do you care to offer any evidence of your little claim that the last twelve verses of Mark are not genuine/authentic? I doubt it. The best you can do is, "So-and-so told me."

Where have you been? This matter is now settled and many bibles now put special notes to highlight the "long" ending to Mark as unreliable:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Most scholars, following the approach of the textual critic Bruce Metzger, believe that verses 9-20 were not part of the original text.[1]
.....
The 1984 printing of the NIV translation notes: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9"20." However, the Committee on Bible Translation has since changed this to read "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9"20."


Anybody can get on here and spew. That's all you do.

Hm. Who's spewing again?

Looks as if you are. What did I just write up there?

"Do you care to offer any evidence of your little claim that the last twelve verses of Mark are not genuine/authentic? I doubt it. The best you can do is, "So-and-so told me."

And what did you do?

(1) Declared the issue settled
(2) Offered not a whit of evidence
(3) Said "so-and-so told me"

I may go sign up for a prophet's license.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 6:33:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 5:12:48 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:22:26 AM, dee-em wrote:
Also from the same Wikipedia article:

The longer ending was declared canonical scripture by the Council of Trent. Today, however, Roman Catholics are not required to believe that Mark wrote this ending.[12] The Catholic NAB translation includes the footnote: "[9"20] This passage has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. It is a general resume of the material concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus, reflecting, in particular, traditions found in Luke 24 and John 20."

More Christian interpolation and forgery on display.

And how does this disprove historical Jesus?

Firstly, the above was in response to an attack by Anna Nicole on Beastt. It wasn't addressed to anyone else.

Secondly, I am not trying here to lend weight to the Jesus myth, only to refute Anna's assertion. If you want to you can contribute something to the "Theophilus of Antioch" thread where the Jesus myth is being argued and the Christians are doing badly. See you there.

At worst, someone fem the period immediately following Jesus's death, added the last bit there. And as we see from some actual scholarship:

"For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words: "And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements." This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com...

So we appear to have an author taking great care to record events with the utmost accuracy. No doubt using the revision process as most writers do, and occasionally adding more detail - as we would expect.

Do you mean the same Papias who claimed that Judas became as wide as a chariot and exploded? That Papias is the one we should believe? Lol.

But no, Christ Mythers see the revision process, and from that, rather than find a simple answer, will instead indicate a vast and sweeping conspiracy to fake the entirety of Christ ... based on a couple of sentences - from an author known to revise for accuracy - whose subsequent addition brings it into harmony with the other gospels.

And author who says, "Oh yes! That IS right, I remember now!"

vs.

Massive conspiracy in which EVERYTHING is false - because we cherry picked passages from Wikipedia ... which indicate serious scholarship behind the conspiracy theory?

And Wikipedia?

"Because of patristic evidence from the late 2nd century for the existence of copies of Mark with the "Longer Ending," it is contended by a majority of scholars that the "Longer Ending" must have been written and attached no later than the early 2nd century.[2] Scholars are divided on the question of whether the "Longer Ending" was created deliberately to finish the Gospel of Mark (as contended by James Kelhoffer) or if it began its existence as a freestanding text which was used to "patch" the otherwise abruptly ending text of Mark. Its failure to smoothly pick up the narrative from the scene at the end of 16:8 is a point in favor of the latter option. There is disagreement among scholars as to whether Mark originally stopped writing at 16:8"and if he did so, if it was deliberate or not"or if he continued writing an ending which is now lost. Allusions to a future meeting in Galilee between Jesus and the disciples (in Mark 14:28 and 16:7) seem to suggest that Mark intended to write beyond 16:8"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

What Mark may or may not have intended is irrelevant. The consensus is that the ending is a later "patch", ie. forgery. The rest of your post is just pointless ranting.

Again, its the same pattern. Some atheists, and they are ALWAYS atheists, with no scholarly credentials whatsoever, dive into the scholarship to pick up some points of minutia and them make fantastically unsupportable claims - from the most extreme interpretation possible - and even checking their sources indicates that they are clearly cherry picking data points and interpretation (where the conveniently leave of the source citation in a desperate bid to hide the cherry picking nature of the citation).

One has to be deliberately unobjective and somewhat dishonest to be a Christ Myther. We keep proving that time and time again - and the same posters keep doing back to repeated the same old pattern over and over.

That is the reality of the nutball conspiracy theory known as the Christ Myth.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 6:44:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 6:33:48 AM, dee-em wrote:

Firstly, the above was in response to an attack by Anna Nicole on Beastt. It wasn't addressed to anyone else.

This may come as a shock, but Ana and I hold the same opinion on the Christ Myth.

And it is demonstrative of the problem of cherry picking data points and ignoring the wider scholarship. Anyone noticing that SHOULD point it out - particularly when its part of an ingrained pattern of Christ Mythers doing it.


Secondly, I am not trying here to lend weight to the Jesus myth, only to refute Anna's assertion. If you want to you can contribute something to the "Theophilus of Antioch" thread where the Jesus myth is being argued and the Christians are doing badly. See you there.

They are not doing badly, there is simply a level of incredulity to the claims that someone would convert to 'Christianity' without knowing who Chris was.

Again, at some point, the refusal to do basic fact checking simply become arduous and pointless - Christian term came from:

http://www.patheos.com...

Please note that pathos is an atheism group. So why someone would follow the forum stalker in an inexpert, ripped off interpretation that ben basic fact checking imposed on quick examination?

Please se above.

This is a pattern, one that demonstrates the sheer irrationality of Christ Mything.

Here are the facts - let me cheery pick a couple and spin them into absurdity - claim you are an idiot and wrong - and ignore the wider facts and scholarly consensus - even claim that there are no NT scholars at some points (and you followed the guy making that claim into the that thread without compunction of second thought?)

Again - its not like I expect you to acknowledge you are wrong, you are simply not driven to to this conclusion by anything rational - I want OTHERS to note that.


Do you mean the same Papias who claimed that Judas became as wide as a chariot and exploded? That Papias is the one we should believe? Lol.

Am I asking you take everything literally? Or is this ANOTHER demonstration of deliberately mischaracterizing something. Documents far and wide mention Jesus ... yet any mention of him should be dismissed for ... pick a standard.

Ignored? That the author of Mark was trying repeatedly to be as absolutely accurate as possible. THAT literalism is just avoided completely, as it MUST be for Christ Mythers.


What Mark may or may not have intended is irrelevant. The consensus is that the ending is a later "patch", ie. forgery. The rest of your post is just pointless ranting.

There is no conclusive proof of forgery is there? There are three other gospels that agree with it, and whom are NOT forgeries. And if you drop it ... then what? Right, it makes no change in the overall message of gospel.

Its a point of minutia where YOU, not scholars, have taken the most extreme interpretation, all without evidence - while avoiding any other reasonable interpretation - and then in a fallacious appeal to extreme - claimed the entire Bible is a forgery.

Again, you IGNORE evidence, to cherry pick data points and make extreme and unsupportable accusations from a HIGHLY BIASED and prejudiced point of view.

Its like asking Nazis to comment on the historicity of Jews. I'll bet that would be accurate and objective as well?
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 7:13:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 6:29:09 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:16:46 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/12/2014 8:40:33 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/12/2014 6:07:02 PM, Beastt wrote:
And once again, the first two to come running to defend the Christian myth are the conjoined twin sisters, Neutral and AnnaNicole.

Let me add to the reply:

Nice evidence. Do you care to offer any evidence of your little claim that the last twelve verses of Mark are not genuine/authentic? I doubt it. The best you can do is, "So-and-so told me."

Where have you been? This matter is now settled and many bibles now put special notes to highlight the "long" ending to Mark as unreliable:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Most scholars, following the approach of the textual critic Bruce Metzger, believe that verses 9-20 were not part of the original text.[1]
.....
The 1984 printing of the NIV translation notes: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9"20." However, the Committee on Bible Translation has since changed this to read "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9"20."


Anybody can get on here and spew. That's all you do.

Hm. Who's spewing again?

Looks as if you are. What did I just write up there?

"Do you care to offer any evidence of your little claim that the last twelve verses of Mark are not genuine/authentic? I doubt it. The best you can do is, "So-and-so told me."

And what did you do?

(1) Declared the issue settled
(2) Offered not a whit of evidence
(3) Said "so-and-so told me"

I may go sign up for a prophet's license.

Oh, I see, the old double standard is in play.

Firstly, you cut off your full comment. You were betting that that it would be Bart Ehrman. Deceit.

Secondly, you hypocritically use consensus (most scholars say ...) when it suits you but deny it for others. Typical.

Thirdly, you asked for evidence and you received it in spades. You need do no more than open a recent edition Bible and read the notes. Denial of reality.

Fourthly, the largest Christian denomination in the world agrees it is an interpolation. Still not enough evidence?

Fifthly, the Wikipedia article I linked you to cited both internal and external evidence for the long ending not being original. In fact both the short and long endings are considered inauthentic by the vast majority of scholars. All you have to do is follow the references. Still not satisfied?

So much for "not a whit of evidence". What a fraud you are. Go and sign up for a charlatan's license.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 7:25:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 7:13:08 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/13/2014 6:29:09 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:16:46 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/12/2014 8:40:33 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/12/2014 6:07:02 PM, Beastt wrote:
And once again, the first two to come running to defend the Christian myth are the conjoined twin sisters, Neutral and AnnaNicole.

Let me add to the reply:

Nice evidence. Do you care to offer any evidence of your little claim that the last twelve verses of Mark are not genuine/authentic? I doubt it. The best you can do is, "So-and-so told me."

Where have you been? This matter is now settled and many bibles now put special notes to highlight the "long" ending to Mark as unreliable:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Most scholars, following the approach of the textual critic Bruce Metzger, believe that verses 9-20 were not part of the original text.[1]
.....
The 1984 printing of the NIV translation notes: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9"20." However, the Committee on Bible Translation has since changed this to read "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9"20."


Anybody can get on here and spew. That's all you do.

Hm. Who's spewing again?

Looks as if you are. What did I just write up there?

"Do you care to offer any evidence of your little claim that the last twelve verses of Mark are not genuine/authentic? I doubt it. The best you can do is, "So-and-so told me."

And what did you do?

(1) Declared the issue settled
(2) Offered not a whit of evidence
(3) Said "so-and-so told me"

I may go sign up for a prophet's license.

Oh, I see, the old double standard is in play.

Firstly, you cut off your full comment. You were betting that that it would be Bart Ehrman. Deceit.

I still bet it is in the case of Beastt

Secondly, you hypocritically use consensus (most scholars say ...) when it suits you but deny it for others. Typical.

I doubt that I did that. It would take a slap-idiot to make a sweeping statement such as "most scholars say .... " I rarely - if ever - make such a statement.

Thirdly, you asked for evidence and you received it in spades. You need do no more than open a recent edition Bible and read the notes. Denial of reality.

I've read the evidence and studied it - and studied it - and studied it - many times.

Fourthly, the largest Christian denomination in the world agrees it is an interpolation. Still not enough evidence?

Certainly not.

Fifthly, the Wikipedia article I linked you to cited both internal and external evidence for the long ending not being original. In fact both the short and long endings are considered inauthentic by the vast majority of scholars. All you have to do is follow the references. Still not satisfied?

Of course not. I could write a better article. It doesn't even contain all of the evidence on either side!

So much for "not a whit of evidence". What a fraud you are. Go and sign up for a charlatan's license.

If you'd like to present the evidence, go right ahead. I'll refute it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 7:56:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 7:25:04 AM, annanicole wrote:

Of course not. I could write a better article. It doesn't even contain all of the evidence on either side!

I'll take you up on that. Write your article and post it here. We'll critique it for you and then you can replace the existing Wikipedia article (for the sake of historical accuracy). Sound fair?

So much for "not a whit of evidence". What a fraud you are. Go and sign up for a charlatan's license.

If you'd like to present the evidence, go right ahead. I'll refute it.

It's already been presented in the Wikipedia article which you dismiss (as you dismiss everything which doesn't dovetail with your beliefs). Go ahead and refute it.
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 7:59:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 6:44:42 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/13/2014 6:33:48 AM, dee-em wrote:

Firstly, the above was in response to an attack by Anna Nicole on Beastt. It wasn't addressed to anyone else.

This may come as a shock, but Ana and I hold the same opinion on the Christ Myth.
And that is a refusal to examine the evidence. We get it.
And it is demonstrative of the problem of cherry picking data points and ignoring the wider scholarship. Anyone noticing that SHOULD point it out - particularly when its part of an ingrained pattern of Christ Mythers doing it.
This is as meaningless as it reads. Say no more.


Secondly, I am not trying here to lend weight to the Jesus myth, only to refute Anna's assertion. If you want to you can contribute something to the "Theophilus of Antioch" thread where the Jesus myth is being argued and the Christians are doing badly. See you there.

They are not doing badly, there is simply a level of incredulity to the claims that someone would convert to 'Christianity' without knowing who Chris was.
Did Theophilus mention "christ" in his explanation of the word christianity or not? I know you won't answer.................because you can't.
Again, at some point, the refusal to do basic fact checking simply become arduous and pointless - Christian term came from:

http://www.patheos.com...
The word "christian" came from an atheist website? Oh dear.
Please note that pathos is an atheism group. So why someone would follow the forum stalker in an inexpert, ripped off interpretation that ben basic fact checking imposed on quick examination?
This doesn't even constitute a 3yr olds attempt at a sentence, much less coherence.
Please se above.

This is a pattern, one that demonstrates the sheer irrationality of Christ Mything.
It is your claim that there are NO biblical scholars who present a question of jesus' historicity and that is a LIE proved by me and others ad infinitem. It's you who continues to make that claim despite being completely refuted with evidence.
Here are the facts - let me cheery pick a couple and spin them into absurdity - claim you are an idiot and wrong - and ignore the wider facts and scholarly consensus - even claim that there are no NT scholars at some points (and you followed the guy making that claim into the that thread without compunction of second thought?)
Ahh, the newt method of argumentation and once again claiming a non existent consensus, what happened to the unanimity that has been your mantra for weeks?
Again - its not like I expect you to acknowledge you are wrong, you are simply not driven to to this conclusion by anything rational - I want OTHERS to note that.
Considering the way your specious arguments have been defeated repeatedly, it's certain that others will have no problem understanding that you are wrong in your unsupported assertions.


Do you mean the same Papias who claimed that Judas became as wide as a chariot and exploded? That Papias is the one we should believe? Lol.

Am I asking you take everything literally? Or is this ANOTHER demonstration of deliberately mischaracterizing something. Documents far and wide mention Jesus ... yet any mention of him should be dismissed for ... pick a standard.
What is it that determines whether or not you take something literally?
From experience it would appear that when the word of god is proved wrong by science then a more liberal interpretation is accepted, is your interpretation of scripture the same as the catholic church in those circumstances? Because that is precisely what they have done.
Ignored? That the author of Mark was trying repeatedly to be as absolutely accurate as possible. THAT literalism is just avoided completely, as it MUST be for Christ Mythers.
Ho can you possibly KNOW what the author of Mark was "trying repeatedly" to do?
It was you just earlier who derided literalism and now you wish to support it it. Well done.



What Mark may or may not have intended is irrelevant. The consensus is that the ending is a later "patch", ie. forgery. The rest of your post is just pointless ranting.

There is no conclusive proof of forgery is there? There are three other gospels that agree with it, and whom are NOT forgeries. And if you drop it ... then what? Right, it makes no change in the overall message of gospel.
The biblical scholars who you claim are unanimous in the existence of an historical Jesus are the very same biblical scholars who form the consensus (that you have reverted to) that Mark was not written by an eyewitness to the events much less the alleged Apostle Mark.
Its a point of minutia where YOU, not scholars, have taken the most extreme interpretation, all without evidence - while avoiding any other reasonable interpretation - and then in a fallacious appeal to extreme - claimed the entire Bible is a forgery.
No it's not. See my response above.
Again, you IGNORE evidence, to cherry pick data points and make extreme and unsupportable accusations from a HIGHLY BIASED and prejudiced point of view.
The accusations are supported by the very scholars you refer to (not quote) in support of the historical Jesus. Are they scholars of worth only when they support your position and charlatans when they disagree with you?
Its like asking Nazis to comment on the historicity of Jews. I'll bet that would be accurate and objective as well?
No it's not and this is as imbecilic a statement as I have ever read?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 8:06:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 7:25:04 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/13/2014 7:13:08 AM, dee-em wrote:

Secondly, you hypocritically use consensus (most scholars say ...) when it suits you but deny it for others. Typical.

I doubt that I did that. It would take a slap-idiot to make a sweeping statement such as "most scholars say .... " I rarely - if ever - make such a statement.

From the Theophilus thread:

"I know of plenty of scholars who state that the gospels were most likely written by the very men with whom they are historically connected. In fact, MOST say that."
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 8:08:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 8:06:31 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/13/2014 7:25:04 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/13/2014 7:13:08 AM, dee-em wrote:

Secondly, you hypocritically use consensus (most scholars say ...) when it suits you but deny it for others. Typical.

I doubt that I did that. It would take a slap-idiot to make a sweeping statement such as "most scholars say .... " I rarely - if ever - make such a statement.

From the Theophilus thread:

"I know of plenty of scholars who state that the gospels were most likely written by the very men with whom they are historically connected. In fact, MOST say that."

You are cruel dee. :)
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 8:28:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 8:08:56 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/13/2014 8:06:31 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/13/2014 7:25:04 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/13/2014 7:13:08 AM, dee-em wrote:

Secondly, you hypocritically use consensus (most scholars say ...) when it suits you but deny it for others. Typical.

I doubt that I did that. It would take a slap-idiot to make a sweeping statement such as "most scholars say .... " I rarely - if ever - make such a statement.

From the Theophilus thread:

"I know of plenty of scholars who state that the gospels were most likely written by the very men with whom they are historically connected. In fact, MOST say that."

You are cruel dee. :)

Not cruel. I just hate dishonesty and hypocrisy.

This slap-idiot has since amended "MOST" to "many" in a belated note of caution. She is fully aware but chose to lie anyway. It's like anything goes against an atheist. Lying for god is okay. It's either that or she really doesn't know what she wrote a few short hours ago.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 8:29:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 7:59:25 AM, bulproof wrote:
No it's not and this is as imbecilic a statement as I have ever read?

Oh, SIGN me up for more of this crap!

Again, if you are as tired of the dysfunction as I am, please hit the report button.
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 8:35:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 8:29:31 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/13/2014 7:59:25 AM, bulproof wrote:
No it's not and this is as imbecilic a statement as I have ever read?

Oh, SIGN me up for more of this crap!

Again, if you are as tired of the dysfunction as I am, please hit the report button.

And this is an alleged intelligent response to this.

At 9/13/2014 7:59:25 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/13/2014 6:44:42 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/13/2014 6:33:48 AM, dee-em wrote:

Firstly, the above was in response to an attack by Anna Nicole on Beastt. It wasn't addressed to anyone else.

This may come as a shock, but Ana and I hold the same opinion on the Christ Myth.
And that is a refusal to examine the evidence. We get it.
And it is demonstrative of the problem of cherry picking data points and ignoring the wider scholarship. Anyone noticing that SHOULD point it out - particularly when its part of an ingrained pattern of Christ Mythers doing it.
This is as meaningless as it reads. Say no more.


Secondly, I am not trying here to lend weight to the Jesus myth, only to refute Anna's assertion. If you want to you can contribute something to the "Theophilus of Antioch" thread where the Jesus myth is being argued and the Christians are doing badly. See you there.

They are not doing badly, there is simply a level of incredulity to the claims that someone would convert to 'Christianity' without knowing who Chris was.
Did Theophilus mention "christ" in his explanation of the word christianity or not? I know you won't answer.................because you can't.
Again, at some point, the refusal to do basic fact checking simply become arduous and pointless - Christian term came from:

http://www.patheos.com...
The word "christian" came from an atheist website? Oh dear.
Please note that pathos is an atheism group. So why someone would follow the forum stalker in an inexpert, ripped off interpretation that ben basic fact checking imposed on quick examination?
This doesn't even constitute a 3yr olds attempt at a sentence, much less coherence.
Please se above.

This is a pattern, one that demonstrates the sheer irrationality of Christ Mything.
It is your claim that there are NO biblical scholars who present a question of jesus' historicity and that is a LIE proved by me and others ad infinitem. It's you who continues to make that claim despite being completely refuted with evidence.
Here are the facts - let me cheery pick a couple and spin them into absurdity - claim you are an idiot and wrong - and ignore the wider facts and scholarly consensus - even claim that there are no NT scholars at some points (and you followed the guy making that claim into the that thread without compunction of second thought?)
Ahh, the newt method of argumentation and once again claiming a non existent consensus, what happened to the unanimity that has been your mantra for weeks?
Again - its not like I expect you to acknowledge you are wrong, you are simply not driven to to this conclusion by anything rational - I want OTHERS to note that.
Considering the way your specious arguments have been defeated repeatedly, it's certain that others will have no problem understanding that you are wrong in your unsupported assertions.


Do you mean the same Papias who claimed that Judas became as wide as a chariot and exploded? That Papias is the one we should believe? Lol.

Am I asking you take everything literally? Or is this ANOTHER demonstration of deliberately mischaracterizing something. Documents far and wide mention Jesus ... yet any mention of him should be dismissed for ... pick a standard.
What is it that determines whether or not you take something literally?
From experience it would appear that when the word of god is proved wrong by science then a more liberal interpretation is accepted, is your interpretation of scripture the same as the catholic church in those circumstances? Because that is precisely what they have done.
Ignored? That the author of Mark was trying repeatedly to be as absolutely accurate as possible. THAT literalism is just avoided completely, as it MUST be for Christ Mythers.
Ho can you possibly KNOW what the author of Mark was "trying repeatedly" to do?
It was you just earlier who derided literalism and now you wish to support it it. Well done.



What Mark may or may not have intended is irrelevant. The consensus is that the ending is a later "patch", ie. forgery. The rest of your post is just pointless ranting.

There is no conclusive proof of forgery is there? There are three other gospels that agree with it, and whom are NOT forgeries. And if you drop it ... then what? Right, it makes no change in the overall message of gospel.
The biblical scholars who you claim are unanimous in the existence of an historical Jesus are the very same biblical scholars who form the consensus (that you have reverted to) that Mark was not written by an eyewitness to the events much less the alleged Apostle Mark.
Its a point of minutia where YOU, not scholars, have taken the most extreme interpretation, all without evidence - while avoiding any other reasonable interpretation - and then in a fallacious appeal to extreme - claimed the entire Bible is a forgery.
No it's not. See my response above.
Again, you IGNORE evidence, to cherry pick data points and make extreme and unsupportable accusations from a HIGHLY BIASED and prejudiced point of view.
The accusations are supported by the very scholars you refer to (not quote) in support of the historical Jesus. Are they scholars of worth only when they support your position and charlatans when they disagree with you?
Its like asking Nazis to comment on the historicity of Jews. I'll bet that would be accurate and objective as well?
No it's not and this is as imbecilic a statement as I have ever read?
BTW I claimed your statement was imbecilic not that you were. I leave personal attacks to you.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 8:39:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 7:56:41 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/13/2014 7:25:04 AM, annanicole wrote:

Of course not. I could write a better article. It doesn't even contain all of the evidence on either side!

I'll take you up on that. Write your article and post it here. We'll critique it for you and then you can replace the existing Wikipedia article (for the sake of historical accuracy). Sound fair?

So much for "not a whit of evidence". What a fraud you are. Go and sign up for a charlatan's license.

If you'd like to present the evidence, go right ahead. I'll refute it.

It's already been presented in the Wikipedia article which you dismiss (as you dismiss everything which doesn't dovetail with your beliefs). Go ahead and refute it.

You want to link me to, of all things, a Wikipedia article, then say "Refute it"? LMAO.

In other words, you've never actually studied the matter. You personally know nothing about it. You've never seen the manuscripts or copies of them. You just know that somebody told you that Mark 16: 9-20 really shouldn't be there.

Why don't you set about to explain why Tatian includes the passage in his Diatesseron, which antedates the Sinaitic and Vaticanus manuscripts by about 200 years?

Why don't you set about to explain why Iranaeus quotes from Mark 16: 9-20, again about 200 years prior to the Sinaitic manuscript?

I can get the passage back to around 150-160 AD. That's about as early as anyone can get any passage.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 8:40:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 8:06:31 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/13/2014 7:25:04 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/13/2014 7:13:08 AM, dee-em wrote:

Secondly, you hypocritically use consensus (most scholars say ...) when it suits you but deny it for others. Typical.

I doubt that I did that. It would take a slap-idiot to make a sweeping statement such as "most scholars say .... " I rarely - if ever - make such a statement.

From the Theophilus thread:

"I know of plenty of scholars who state that the gospels were most likely written by the very men with whom they are historically connected. In fact, MOST say that."

Was that in response to someone else invoking "consensus of scholars" or something of that sort?
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
9/13/2014 9:06:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 8:35:43 AM, bulproof wrote:
BTW I claimed your statement was imbecilic not that you were. I leave personal attacks to you.

The only thing I a doing is reporting you - and the acerbic silliness that your constant attacks are caused by me avoiding you and that this avoidance is somehow a vicious insult to you? A vicious insult you keep coming back for? From multiple posters no less.
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 9:15:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 9:06:54 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/13/2014 8:35:43 AM, bulproof wrote:
BTW I claimed your statement was imbecilic not that you were. I leave personal attacks to you.

The only thing I a doing is reporting you - and the acerbic silliness that your constant attacks are caused by me avoiding you and that this avoidance is somehow a vicious insult to you? A vicious insult you keep coming back for? From multiple posters no less.

Can you explain the meaning of this post?

And why you are incapable of responding in a respectful and intelligent fashion to the rebuttals I provide to your unsupported claims.

You see, on a discussion forum, you need to actually involve yourself in discussion and not just abuse and insult every and all other posters involved in the forum. You have not understood that principle since you got here apparently.

Maybe you should try discussion rather than the false belief you seem to have that Catholicism is all about hatred?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 9:16:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 7:13:08 AM, dee-em wrote:


Oh, I see, the old double standard is in play.

Indeed we do.


Firstly, you cut off your full comment. You were betting that that it would be Bart Ehrman. Deceit.


Erhman is close, but this is actually GA Wells. The point of discussion is that most scholars debate whether or not he inclusion is authentic or tacked, no serious scholar however, makes the claim that a couple of sentences added (which are in the other gospels) means the entire document is forged that Christ is a conspiracy.

Partial quotes don;t seem to be a problem when atheists like bully boy use them, or straight up no quote but just bland accusation anyway.

Why that would look like a double standard correct?

Secondly, you hypocritically use consensus (most scholars say ...) when it suits you but deny it for others. Typical.

Most scholars d not support the additional passages of Mark as invalidating all of Christian evidence. No. That is a true statement by Ana.


Thirdly, you asked for evidence and you received it in spades. You need do no more than open a recent edition Bible and read the notes. Denial of reality.

Its quite clear that when we examine your sources that you cheery pick data points and ignore the wider evidence and consensus - indeed you have yet to comment on any of the evidence that you have been given.

Who ha set double standard again?

Fourthly, the largest Christian denomination in the world agrees it is an interpolation. Still not enough evidence?

No, actually it leaves it up to the individual rather than being dictated by the church. The same, or similar passage is present throughout the other gospels - its no big deal.

How this PROVES that it is DELIBERATE fraud and forgery? It doesn't. If it were a forgery, and proven as such, it would be stricken from the Canon. It isn't.

Again, who is applying extreme interpretations?


Fifthly, the Wikipedia article I linked you to cited both internal and external evidence for the long ending not being original. In fact both the short and long endings are considered inauthentic by the vast majority of scholars. All you have to do is follow the references. Still not satisfied?

It also has interpretations in which is it. Why would we not only claim it is thus OBVIOUSLY a forgery, but also that it makes Christ a conspiracy?

Its a point of minutia. And you are suddenly an expert on the subject rather than using google to find a piece of minutia to support the conspiracy? While attacking Ana?


So much for "not a whit of evidence". What a fraud you are. Go and sign up for a charlatan's license.

Agh yes, the ad hominem.

Its a sure sign of effectiveness when you have to tag team with the forum troll to attack someone, eh? Scholarship that is not.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 9:17:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 9:15:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/13/2014 9:06:54 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/13/2014 8:35:43 AM, bulproof wrote:
BTW I claimed your statement was imbecilic not that you were. I leave personal attacks to you.

The only thing I a doing is reporting you - and the acerbic silliness that your constant attacks are caused by me avoiding you and that this avoidance is somehow a vicious insult to you? A vicious insult you keep coming back for? From multiple posters no less.

Can you explain the meaning of this post?

And why you are incapable of responding in a respectful and intelligent fashion to the rebuttals I provide to your unsupported claims.

You see, on a discussion forum, you need to actually involve yourself in discussion and not just abuse and insult every and all other posters involved in the forum. You have not understood that principle since you got here apparently.

Maybe you should try discussion rather than the false belief you seem to have that Catholicism is all about hatred?

why do you keep thinking the forum rules require me to respond to deliberate flame bait and continuous character assassination? To being lecture by an ... you? About how to treat people? Seriously?

Reporting away ...