Again, I have been asked why The Gospels are not reliable historical documents regarding the life of Jesus.
Here are some thoughts. Please don't bother telling me about context, others have beat you to it. This is a comparison between the gospels and the context is each of the entire books mentioned.
Off we go...
The Matthew and Luke gospels were copied almost word for word in large chunks from Mark. If none of the gospels ever agreed with Mark word for word then this wouldn't matter. However, the fact that they were obviously copied but have verses inserted or deleted is indicative of an attempt to alter the words Mark wrote and even the words of Jesus that he relates. If Jesus was truly the son of a god would it not be reasonable to expect some respect for the earliest recording of his words by those that were copying them?
Can one reach any conclusion other than that Matthew and Luke were not above making changes to the text that they were copying (even innocently or naively) given such internal textual evidence? If they were not above making such changes once or twice, why not a hundred times? A case in point...
In Luke 22:41 we have Jesus and the disciples in the garden and Jesus moves away from them to pray. We then get some details about the praying and how he sweated blood in his 'agony' from v42 to v44. In v45 Jesus returns to the disciples and finds that they are all sleeping.
My question is; if they were all sleeping how did any of them know what Jesus said while praying and how did any of them know that he sweated blood?
In fact, in John, Jesus does not pray and no one falls asleep. In Mark we find the same (almost) as in Luke, that is, details about what Jesus said in his prayer related by (one of?) those that were sleeping at the time. In Matthew, we have a similar story with detail that no one was awake to witness.
This is a moment in Jesus' life that is of incredible importance and yet the writers of the gospels absolutely had to have invented it. If they were not above making up details about such an important moment how can you trust them to be relating anything else accurately?
The only response that I have ever had to this question was that these details were revealed by the Holy Spirit to the authors. This however means that these words were, indeed, 'dropped straight from the mouth of God'. If the writers of the gospels did not get these words directly from some god then they made them up for dramatic effect. If these words came from the mouth of the god then the god was careless in his consistency. If they didn't then why should anything else that these men wrote be believed?
The words of men can be assumed to be error-prone and subject to the biases of the men doing the writing (and therefore may be fairly subjected to analysis for trustworthiness) but if those words were the inspired words of a god then they can be fairly used to judge the power, intelligence, honesty and efficiency of the god that gives them.
Luke obviously had Mark to copy from or he wouldn't have managed to duplicate so much of it word for word. Why did he insert words into Jesus' mouth? Why did he delete words? How can you consider Luke to be honest? If Luke was not above altering even the very words of Jesus and inserting what (as above in 22:41ff) was obvious fiction how can you trust anything that he says beyond that which is not an exact duplicate of what Mark wrote? If all that remains acceptable is that which is duplicated in Mark then why keep Luke (or Matthew)?
As I have already said, huge chunks ARE identical and that, when combined with the fact there are obvious additions, deletions and alterations, makes Luke and Matthew highly suspect. John does not mimic Mark and as such can only be analyzed separately. Likewise Mark has to be analyzed separately. Luke and Matthew MUST be dismissed as completely untrustworthy. I realize that there are agreements between Luke and Matthew that are not to be found in Mark which give a strong indication of other sources such as Q. In fact a number of biblical scholars have reconstructed a 'Gospel of Q' but since we are discussing the NT as it exists and do not have a copy of Q there is too much that is mere speculation to be able to allow for it in a discussion of the veracity of the gospels. The same applies to the sources M and L.
In fact, incorporating Q, M or L into this sort of discussion may make things even worse. It might indicate that even Mark may have been copied from a previous source and as such may have been altered before Matthew and Luke got a crack at doing their own renovations.
If one dismisses Luke and Matthew one is left with John and Mark and then some comparisons can be made between the two of them. The most telling analysis, however, comes when one exegetes Mark in isolation and John in isolation. Even after such an attempt at fairness we still find inconsistencies within each single book in isolation.
Given all of this I must admit that is completely beyond me how anyone can still claim certain knowledge that they are reading non-fiction at any given point in the NT.
There are no gods so I am hardly likely to assume that the origins of the bible have anything to do with any gods. It is, more than anything else a history book. Not a history of a chronological/geographical nature (such as one would study in high school or college) but, rather, a history of ancient man's beliefs and attempts to understand his position in the universe (the OT is probably first and foremost no more than a history of ancient Jewish religious belief). It was a good try and it worked extremely well for those who lived thousands of years ago but it no longer stands up to any close scrutiny or analysis. In fact it is of no practical use except in attempting to understand the mind-set of man a few thousand years ago. I do not deny that those who wrote it may have had some things to say that are of value. I do not deny that there is some great poetry to be found. I do not deny that within it there are some profoundly ethical guidelines to be found. I do not deny that it actually contains some scattered historical veracity.
However, I do deny that it can be seen as reliable evidence of the existence of gods, or virgin births, or people rising from the dead, or global floods, or towers built to reach up to heaven, or living humans ascending to the heavens in a fiery chariot, or the sun standing still, or the Red Sea parting, or a man called Jesus being the son of a god and physically rising up into heaven after being executed (as Carl Sagan has pointed out, even if he rose at the speed of light he would not yet have left our galaxy).
My point is not that the bible should not be allowed a few trivial or minor inconsistencies but rather that the fact that there are literally thousands of inconsistencies indicates that it cannot be trusted.
Should not the four gospel writers have remembered major events in Jesus life, like his death with some consistency? If they get the odd bit of wording wrong I could understand it but getting things like whether or not Jesus baptized anyone wrong (John compared to John) is pushing it a bit, isn't it?
Getting Jesus' answer to the Sanhedrin's question of whether or not he was the messiah wrong is pushing a bit, isn't it? After all the whole point of the NT is that he was the messiah and yet, given the perfect circumstances to dramatically make that case from the very mouth of Jesus there is no agreement. One has him saying that he is (interestingly that is in Mark) and the other two (synoptics) have him being vague or cagey in his reply. Why?
Getting his paternal grandfather's name wrong is pushing it a bit, isn't it? The argument that Luke listed Mary's genealogy is just stupid. For one thing at least three non-canonical gospels (one of which is called the 'Gospel of the Birth of Mary') state that Mary's father's name was Joachim. This is in direct conflict with claims that Luke, in listing Heli as being Mary's father's name, was recounting Mary's genealogy. Even so, why should such a straightforward thing such as Jesus' lineage be so muddled? People at that time were absolutely obsessed with lineage as evidenced by the many examples of detailed lineages of even the most lowly born of people from that time. Is it too much to expect that the lineage of such an important person (at least important to the author) would be consistent at least for a single generation? I could see it getting muddled after ten or more, or even three or four, but after only one? In fact, if Jesus was the son of a god why list his genealogy at all? The only way that Jesus could be the son of a god and also descended from the house of David would be if the god was also somehow genealogically connected to David.
Getting confused as to when Jesus overturned the tables in the temple at the start or the end of his ministry (John compared to Mark) is also a bit much, isn't it? This was a major event in Jesus' life. Can one not expect that to be clearly recorded chronologically?
Why are Jesus' parents confused by his brilliance (in Luke 2:48-50)? If you had a child that was the result of a divine impregnation would you be amazed that he was bright? Why do Mary and Joseph not know what he means when he refers to his "Father's" business in Lk.2:51?
Why would Matthew and Luke disagree about the names of the twelve disciples? Surely that must be non-trivial? (see Mt.10:2-6, Mk.3:16-19 and Lk.6:14-16)
On the way to the culmination of his ministry there is not even agreement as to whether or not he carried his own cross! This is part of the main thread of the story. He was supposed to be sent here to die for mankind's sins and yet no one paid attention to how he and the cross got to the execution site?
These are not trivial instances. They are all central points in Jesus' life. Some of them even have
We know this when Jesus was preaching the gospel ...he was under great
pressure and very little was recorded when he was alive--It was told of
Jesus before hand and recorded their was a Messiah coming and he would be
the Savior and the son of God--when Jesus walked upon this earth in his
short life..there was not much recorded but by stories of the gentiles that
by word and very little written down..the chruches at that time did not
except his words and therefore did not uplift it and give it
reconition---what was recorded more so after his death...in pin and
paper...but alot of this was lost also..the disciples and others recorded
it--why so that it might spread and still be preached and a chruch was
founded on the gospels-
I think it is very important of what Bible you read and to choose to read
out of---but most Bible's have same context--I have found the collins
Bible--had the word tamploine in it and other things that did not match with
the true gospel--There are Bible's that are hidden under a christain
context--and myself I feel is decieving--I have look at a Bible called
Shooter's Bible--as thick as probably everything in the Jewish
temples---word associated (like a dictionary) totally not of God) I have
read Bibles that is missing two or three of the Books --I find for myself
the King James is the closest--to what I feel like has not been taken away
much-or added too...the reason King James version has books to
translate--cause it is hard for people to understand--The King James version
goes way back---and of coarse the New Testement was add to in time---
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Again, I have been asked why The Gospels are not reliable historical
> documents regarding the life of Jesus.
> Here are some thoughts. Please don't bother telling me about context,
> others have beat you to it. This is a comparison between the gospels and the
> context is each of the entire books mentioned.
> Off we go...
> The Matthew and Luke gospels were copied almost word for word in large
> chunks from Mark. If none of the gospels ever agreed with Mark word for word
> then this wouldn't matter. However, the fact that they were obviously copied
> but have verses inserted or deleted is indicative of an attempt to alter the
> words Mark wrote and even the words of Jesus that he relates. If Jesus was
> truly the son of a god would it not be reasonable to expect some respect for
> the earliest recording of his words by those that were copying them?
> Can one reach any conclusion other than that Matthew and Luke were not
> above making changes to the text that they were copying (even innocently or
> naively) given such internal textual evidence? If they were not above making
> such changes once or twice, why not a hundred times? A case in point...
> In Luke 22:41 we have Jesus and the disciples in the garden and Jesus moves
> away from them to pray. We then get some details about the praying and how
> he sweated blood in his 'agony' from v42 to v44. In v45 Jesus returns to the
> disciples and finds that they are all sleeping.
> My question is; if they were all sleeping how did any of them know what
> Jesus said while praying and how did any of them know that he sweated blood?
> In fact, in John, Jesus does not pray and no one falls asleep. In Mark we
> find the same (almost) as in Luke, that is, details about what Jesus said in
> his prayer related by (one of?) those that were sleeping at the time. In
> Matthew, we have a similar story with detail that no one was awake to
> witness.
> This is a moment in Jesus' life that is of incredible importance and yet
> the writers of the gospels absolutely had to have invented it. If they were
> not above making up details about such an important moment how can you trust
> them to be relating anything else accurately?
> The only response that I have ever had to this question was that these
> details were revealed by the Holy Spirit to the authors. This however means
> that these words were, indeed, 'dropped straight from the mouth of God'. If
> the writers of the gospels did not get these words directly from some god
> then they made them up for dramatic effect. If these words came from the
> mouth of the god then the god was careless in his consistency. If they
> didn't then why should anything else that these men wrote be believed?
> The words of men can be assumed to be error-prone and subject to the biases
> of the men doing the writing (and therefore may be fairly subjected to
> analysis for trustworthiness) but if those words were the inspired words of
> a god then they can be fairly used to judge the power, intelligence, honesty
> and efficiency of the god that gives them.
> Luke obviously had Mark to copy from or he wouldn't have managed to
> duplicate so much of it word for word. Why did he insert words into Jesus'
> mouth? Why did he delete words? How can you consider Luke to be honest? If
> Luke was not above altering even the very words of Jesus and inserting what
> (as above in 22:41ff) was obvious fiction how can you trust anything that he
> says beyond that which is not an exact duplicate of what Mark wrote? If all
> that remains acceptable is that which is duplicated in Mark then why keep
> Luke (or Matthew)?
> As I have already said, huge chunks ARE identical and that, when combined
> with the fact there are obvious additions, deletions and alterations, makes
> Luke and Matthew highly suspect. John does not mimic Mark and as such can
> only be analyzed separately. Likewise Mark has to be analyzed separately.
> Luke and Matthew MUST be dismissed as completely untrustworthy. I realize
> that there are agreements between Luke and Matthew that are not to be found
> in Mark which give a strong indication of other sources such as Q. In fact a
> number of biblical scholars have reconstructed a 'Gospel of Q' but since we
> are discussing the NT as it exists and do not have a copy of Q there is too
> much that is mere speculation to be able to allow for it in a discussion of
> the veracity of the gospels. The same applies to the sources M and L.
> In fact, incorporating Q, M or L into this sort of discussion may make
> things even worse. It might indicate that even Mark may have been copied
> from a previous source and as such may have been altered before Matthew and
> Luke got a crack at doing their own renovations.
> If one dismisses Luke and Matthew one is left with John and Mark and then
> some comparisons can be made between the two of them. The most telling
> analysis, however, comes when one exegetes Mark in isolation and John in
> isolation. Even after such an attempt at fairness we still find
> inconsistencies within each single book in isolation.
> Given all of this I must admit that is completely beyond me how anyone can
> still claim certain knowledge that they are reading non-fiction at any given
> point in the NT.
> There are no gods so I am hardly likely to assume that the origins of the
> bible have anything to do with any gods. It is, more than anything else a
> history book. Not a history of a chronological/geographical nature (such as
> one would study in high school or college) but, rather, a history of ancient
> man's beliefs and attempts to understand his position in the universe (the
> OT is probably first and foremost no more than a history of ancient Jewish
> religious belief). It was a good try and it worked extremely well for those
> who lived thousands of years ago but it no longer stands up to any close
> scrutiny or analysis. In fact it is of no practical use except in attempting
> to understand the mind-set of man a few thousand years ago. I do not deny
> that those who wrote it may have had some things to say that are of value. I
> do not deny that there is some great poetry to be found. I do not deny that
> within it there are some profoundly ethical guidelines to be found. I do not
> deny that it actually contains some scattered historical veracity.
> However, I do deny that it can be seen as reliable evidence of the
> existence of gods, or virgin births, or people rising from the dead, or
> global floods, or towers built to reach up to heaven, or living humans
> ascending to the heavens in a fiery chariot, or the sun standing still, or
> the Red Sea parting, or a man called Jesus being the son of a god and
> physically rising up into heaven after being executed (as Carl Sagan has
> pointed out, even if he rose at the speed of light he would not yet have
> left our galaxy).
> My point is not that the bible should not be allowed a few trivial or minor
> inconsistencies but rather that the fact that there are literally thousands
> of inconsistencies indicates that it cannot be trusted.
> Should not the four gospel writers have remembered major events in Jesus
> life, like his death with some consistency? If they get the odd bit of
> wording wrong I could understand it but getting things like whether or not
> Jesus baptized anyone wrong (John compared to John) is pushing it a bit,
> isn't it?
> Getting Jesus' answer to the Sanhedrin's question of whether or not he was
> the messiah wrong is pushing a bit, isn't it? After all the whole point of
> the NT is that he was the messiah and yet, given the perfect circumstances
> to dramatically make that case from the very mouth of Jesus there is no
> agreement. One has him saying that he is (interestingly that is in Mark) and
> the other two (synoptics) have him being vague or cagey in his reply. Why?
> Getting his paternal grandfather's name wrong is pushing it a bit, isn't
> it? The argument that Luke listed Mary's genealogy is just stupid. For one
> thing at least three non-canonical gospels
Consider the gospels as eye witness accounts. They are going to have
different perspectives on individual cases because they are coming
from different traditions. Matthew and John are commonly believed to
be from the disciples or their close associates. Mark is associated
with Peter and Luke is associated with Paul. These different early
accounts are based upon four major Christian movements early after the
death of Christ. In any eye witness account there will be small
differences in details. Rather than discredit them, it actually
demonstrates their genuine desire to communicate what happened. I
would recommend that you read The Case for Christ by Strobel if you
are sincerely interested in these issues.
On Nov 6, 7:30 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Again, I have been asked why The Gospels are not reliable historical documents regarding the life of Jesus.
> Here are some thoughts. Please don't bother telling me about context, others have beat you to it. This is a comparison between the gospels and the context is each of the entire books mentioned.
> Off we go...
> The Matthew and Luke gospels were copied almost word for word in large chunks from Mark. If none of the gospels ever agreed with Mark word for word then this wouldn't matter. However, the fact that they were obviously copied but have verses inserted or deleted is indicative of an attempt to alter the words Mark wrote and even the words of Jesus that he relates. If Jesus was truly the son of a god would it not be reasonable to expect some respect for the earliest recording of his words by those that were copying them?
> Can one reach any conclusion other than that Matthew and Luke were not above making changes to the text that they were copying (even innocently or naively) given such internal textual evidence? If they were not above making such changes once or twice, why not a hundred times? A case in point...
> In Luke 22:41 we have Jesus and the disciples in the garden and Jesus moves away from them to pray. We then get some details about the praying and how he sweated blood in his 'agony' from v42 to v44. In v45 Jesus returns to the disciples and finds that they are all sleeping.
> My question is; if they were all sleeping how did any of them know what Jesus said while praying and how did any of them know that he sweated blood?
> In fact, in John, Jesus does not pray and no one falls asleep. In Mark we find the same (almost) as in Luke, that is, details about what Jesus said in his prayer related by (one of?) those that were sleeping at the time. In Matthew, we have a similar story with detail that no one was awake to witness.
> This is a moment in Jesus' life that is of incredible importance and yet the writers of the gospels absolutely had to have invented it. If they were not above making up details about such an important moment how can you trust them to be relating anything else accurately?
> The only response that I have ever had to this question was that these details were revealed by the Holy Spirit to the authors. This however means that these words were, indeed, 'dropped straight from the mouth of God'. If the writers of the gospels did not get these words directly from some god then they made them up for dramatic effect. If these words came from the mouth of the god then the god was careless in his consistency. If they didn't then why should anything else that these men wrote be believed?
> The words of men can be assumed to be error-prone and subject to the biases of the men doing the writing (and therefore may be fairly subjected to analysis for trustworthiness) but if those words were the inspired words of a god then they can be fairly used to judge the power, intelligence, honesty and efficiency of the god that gives them.
> Luke obviously had Mark to copy from or he wouldn't have managed to duplicate so much of it word for word. Why did he insert words into Jesus' mouth? Why did he delete words? How can you consider Luke to be honest? If Luke was not above altering even the very words of Jesus and inserting what (as above in 22:41ff) was obvious fiction how can you trust anything that he says beyond that which is not an exact duplicate of what Mark wrote? If all that remains acceptable is that which is duplicated in Mark then why keep Luke (or Matthew)?
> As I have already said, huge chunks ARE identical and that, when combined with the fact there are obvious additions, deletions and alterations, makes Luke and Matthew highly suspect. John does not mimic Mark and as such can only be analyzed separately. Likewise Mark has to be analyzed separately. Luke and Matthew MUST be dismissed as completely untrustworthy. I realize that there are agreements between Luke and Matthew that are not to be found in Mark which give a strong indication of other sources such as Q. In fact a number of biblical scholars have reconstructed a 'Gospel of Q' but since we are discussing the NT as it exists and do not have a copy of Q there is too much that is mere speculation to be able to allow for it in a discussion of the veracity of the gospels. The same applies to the sources M and L.
> In fact, incorporating Q, M or L into this sort of discussion may make things even worse. It might indicate that even Mark may have been copied from a previous source and as such may have been altered before Matthew and Luke got a crack at doing their own renovations.
> If one dismisses Luke and Matthew one is left with John and Mark and then some comparisons can be made between the two of them. The most telling analysis, however, comes when one exegetes Mark in isolation and John in isolation. Even after such an attempt at fairness we still find inconsistencies within each single book in isolation.
> Given all of this I must admit that is completely beyond me how anyone can still claim certain knowledge that they are reading non-fiction at any given point in the NT.
> There are no gods so I am hardly likely to assume that the origins of the bible have anything to do with any gods. It is, more than anything else a history book. Not a history of a chronological/geographical nature (such as one would study in high school or college) but, rather, a history of ancient man's beliefs and attempts to understand his position in the universe (the OT is probably first and foremost no more than a history of ancient Jewish religious belief). It was a good try and it worked extremely well for those who lived thousands of years ago but it no longer stands up to any close scrutiny or analysis. In fact it is of no practical use except in attempting to understand the mind-set of man a few thousand years ago. I do not deny that those who wrote it may have had some things to say that are of value. I do not deny that there is some great poetry to be found. I do not deny that within it there are some profoundly ethical guidelines to be found. I do not deny that it actually contains some scattered historical veracity.
> However, I do deny that it can be seen as reliable evidence of the existence of gods, or virgin births, or people rising from the dead, or global floods, or towers built to reach up to heaven, or living humans ascending to the heavens in a fiery chariot, or the sun standing still, or the Red Sea parting, or a man called Jesus being the son of a god and physically rising up into heaven after being executed (as Carl Sagan has pointed out, even if he rose at the speed of light he would not yet have left our galaxy).
> My point is not that the bible should not be allowed a few trivial or minor inconsistencies but rather that the fact that there are literally thousands of inconsistencies indicates that it cannot be trusted.
> Should not the four gospel writers have remembered major events in Jesus life, like his death with some consistency? If they get the odd bit of wording wrong I could understand it but getting things like whether or not Jesus baptized anyone wrong (John compared to John) is pushing it a bit, isn't it?
> Getting Jesus' answer to the Sanhedrin's question of whether or not he was the messiah wrong is pushing a bit, isn't it? After all the whole point of the NT is that he was the messiah and yet, given the perfect circumstances to dramatically make that case from the very mouth of Jesus there is no agreement. One has him saying that he is (interestingly that is in Mark) and the other two (synoptics) have him being vague or cagey in his reply. Why?
> Getting his paternal grandfather's name wrong is pushing it a bit, isn't it? The argument that Luke listed Mary's genealogy is just stupid. For one thing at least three non-canonical gospels (one of which is called the 'Gospel of the Birth of Mary') state that Mary's father's name was Joachim. This is in direct conflict with claims that Luke, in listing Heli as being Mary's father's name, was recounting Mary's genealogy. Even so, why should such a straightforward thing such as Jesus' lineage be so muddled? People at that time were absolutely obsessed with lineage as evidenced by the many examples of detailed lineages of even the most lowly born of people from that time. Is it too much to expect that the lineage of such an important person (at least important to the author) would be consistent at least for a single generation? I could see it getting muddled after ten or more, or even three or four, but after only one? In fact, if Jesus was the son of a god why list his genealogy at all? The only way that Jesus could be the son of a god and also descended from the house of David would be if the god was also somehow genealogically connected to David.
> Getting confused as to when Jesus overturned the tables in the temple at the start or the end of his ministry (John compared to Mark) is also a bit much, isn't it? This was a major event in Jesus' life. Can one not expect that to be clearly recorded
it seems that a lot of atheists live to pick apart the literal
interpretation of ancient words written by 200 men and translated
mulitple times. without this, what do they have to talk about? atheism
is a disbelief in 'god', period. this isnt a lot of fodder for the
discussion table, so they simply repeat arguments against the
'inspired word of god', despite the fact that they know it was written
by men. think about it, if someone says something to you that you
disbelieve and they cannot prove, what can you say in rebuttal? you
can say, i dont believe you, show me proof. period. end of any
meaningful conversation.
On Nov 6, 11:24 pm, mdb <michaeldb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Consider the gospels as eye witness accounts. They are going to have
> different perspectives on individual cases because they are coming
> from different traditions. Matthew and John are commonly believed to
> be from the disciples or their close associates. Mark is associated
> with Peter and Luke is associated with Paul. These different early
> accounts are based upon four major Christian movements early after the
> death of Christ. In any eye witness account there will be small
> differences in details. Rather than discredit them, it actually
> demonstrates their genuine desire to communicate what happened. I
> would recommend that you read The Case for Christ by Strobel if you
> are sincerely interested in these issues.
> On Nov 6, 7:30 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Again, I have been asked why The Gospels are not reliable historical documents regarding the life of Jesus.
> > Here are some thoughts. Please don't bother telling me about context, others have beat you to it. This is a comparison between the gospels and the context is each of the entire books mentioned.
> > Off we go...
> > The Matthew and Luke gospels were copied almost word for word in large chunks from Mark. If none of the gospels ever agreed with Mark word for word then this wouldn't matter. However, the fact that they were obviously copied but have verses inserted or deleted is indicative of an attempt to alter the words Mark wrote and even the words of Jesus that he relates. If Jesus was truly the son of a god would it not be reasonable to expect some respect for the earliest recording of his words by those that were copying them?
> > Can one reach any conclusion other than that Matthew and Luke were not above making changes to the text that they were copying (even innocently or naively) given such internal textual evidence? If they were not above making such changes once or twice, why not a hundred times? A case in point...
> > In Luke 22:41 we have Jesus and the disciples in the garden and Jesus moves away from them to pray. We then get some details about the praying and how he sweated blood in his 'agony' from v42 to v44. In v45 Jesus returns to the disciples and finds that they are all sleeping.
> > My question is; if they were all sleeping how did any of them know what Jesus said while praying and how did any of them know that he sweated blood?
> > In fact, in John, Jesus does not pray and no one falls asleep. In Mark we find the same (almost) as in Luke, that is, details about what Jesus said in his prayer related by (one of?) those that were sleeping at the time. In Matthew, we have a similar story with detail that no one was awake to witness.
> > This is a moment in Jesus' life that is of incredible importance and yet the writers of the gospels absolutely had to have invented it. If they were not above making up details about such an important moment how can you trust them to be relating anything else accurately?
> > The only response that I have ever had to this question was that these details were revealed by the Holy Spirit to the authors. This however means that these words were, indeed, 'dropped straight from the mouth of God'. If the writers of the gospels did not get these words directly from some god then they made them up for dramatic effect. If these words came from the mouth of the god then the god was careless in his consistency. If they didn't then why should anything else that these men wrote be believed?
> > The words of men can be assumed to be error-prone and subject to the biases of the men doing the writing (and therefore may be fairly subjected to analysis for trustworthiness) but if those words were the inspired words of a god then they can be fairly used to judge the power, intelligence, honesty and efficiency of the god that gives them.
> > Luke obviously had Mark to copy from or he wouldn't have managed to duplicate so much of it word for word. Why did he insert words into Jesus' mouth? Why did he delete words? How can you consider Luke to be honest? If Luke was not above altering even the very words of Jesus and inserting what (as above in 22:41ff) was obvious fiction how can you trust anything that he says beyond that which is not an exact duplicate of what Mark wrote? If all that remains acceptable is that which is duplicated in Mark then why keep Luke (or Matthew)?
> > As I have already said, huge chunks ARE identical and that, when combined with the fact there are obvious additions, deletions and alterations, makes Luke and Matthew highly suspect. John does not mimic Mark and as such can only be analyzed separately. Likewise Mark has to be analyzed separately. Luke and Matthew MUST be dismissed as completely untrustworthy. I realize that there are agreements between Luke and Matthew that are not to be found in Mark which give a strong indication of other sources such as Q. In fact a number of biblical scholars have reconstructed a 'Gospel of Q' but since we are discussing the NT as it exists and do not have a copy of Q there is too much that is mere speculation to be able to allow for it in a discussion of the veracity of the gospels. The same applies to the sources M and L.
> > In fact, incorporating Q, M or L into this sort of discussion may make things even worse. It might indicate that even Mark may have been copied from a previous source and as such may have been altered before Matthew and Luke got a crack at doing their own renovations.
> > If one dismisses Luke and Matthew one is left with John and Mark and then some comparisons can be made between the two of them. The most telling analysis, however, comes when one exegetes Mark in isolation and John in isolation. Even after such an attempt at fairness we still find inconsistencies within each single book in isolation.
> > Given all of this I must admit that is completely beyond me how anyone can still claim certain knowledge that they are reading non-fiction at any given point in the NT.
> > There are no gods so I am hardly likely to assume that the origins of the bible have anything to do with any gods. It is, more than anything else a history book. Not a history of a chronological/geographical nature (such as one would study in high school or college) but, rather, a history of ancient man's beliefs and attempts to understand his position in the universe (the OT is probably first and foremost no more than a history of ancient Jewish religious belief). It was a good try and it worked extremely well for those who lived thousands of years ago but it no longer stands up to any close scrutiny or analysis. In fact it is of no practical use except in attempting to understand the mind-set of man a few thousand years ago. I do not deny that those who wrote it may have had some things to say that are of value. I do not deny that there is some great poetry to be found. I do not deny that within it there are some profoundly ethical guidelines to be found. I do not deny that it actually contains some scattered historical veracity.
> > However, I do deny that it can be seen as reliable evidence of the existence of gods, or virgin births, or people rising from the dead, or global floods, or towers built to reach up to heaven, or living humans ascending to the heavens in a fiery chariot, or the sun standing still, or the Red Sea parting, or a man called Jesus being the son of a god and physically rising up into heaven after being executed (as Carl Sagan has pointed out, even if he rose at the speed of light he would not yet have left our galaxy).
> > My point is not that the bible should not be allowed a few trivial or minor inconsistencies but rather that the fact that there are literally thousands of inconsistencies indicates that it cannot be trusted.
> > Should not the four gospel writers have remembered major events in Jesus life, like his death with some consistency? If they get the odd bit of wording wrong I could understand it but getting things like whether or not Jesus baptized anyone wrong (John compared to John) is pushing it a bit, isn't it?
> > Getting Jesus' answer to the Sanhedrin's question of whether or not he was the messiah wrong is pushing a bit, isn't it? After all the whole point of the NT is that he was the messiah and yet, given the perfect circumstances to dramatically make that case from the very mouth of Jesus there is no agreement. One has him saying that he is (interestingly that is in Mark) and the other two (synoptics) have him being vague or cagey in his reply. Why?
> > Getting his paternal grandfather's name wrong is pushing it a bit, isn't it? The argument that Luke listed Mary's genealogy is just stupid. For one thing at least three non-canonical gospels (one of which is called the 'Gospel of the Birth of Mary') state that Mary's father's name was Joachim. This is in direct conflict with claims that Luke, in listing Heli as being Mary's father's name, was recounting Mary's genealogy. Even so, why should such a straightforward thing such as Jesus' lineage be so muddled? People at that time were absolutely obsessed with lineage as evidenced by the many examples of detailed lineages of even the most lowly
> Consider the gospels as eye witness accounts. They are going to have
> different perspectives on individual cases because they are coming
> from different traditions. Matthew and John are commonly believed to
> be from the disciples or their close associates. Mark is associated
> with Peter and Luke is associated with Paul. These different early
> accounts are based upon four major Christian movements early after the
> death of Christ. In any eye witness account there will be small
> differences in details. Rather than discredit them, it actually
> demonstrates their genuine desire to communicate what happened. I
> would recommend that you read The Case for Christ by Strobel if you
> are sincerely interested in these issues.
Right, so who saw Jesus sweat blood if they were all asleep?
> On Nov 6, 7:30 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Again, I have been asked why The Gospels are not reliable historical documents regarding the life of Jesus.
>> Here are some thoughts. Please don't bother telling me about context, others have beat you to it. This is a comparison between the gospels and the context is each of the entire books mentioned.
>> Off we go...
>> The Matthew and Luke gospels were copied almost word for word in large chunks from Mark. If none of the gospels ever agreed with Mark word for word then this wouldn't matter. However, the fact that they were obviously copied but have verses inserted or deleted is indicative of an attempt to alter the words Mark wrote and even the words of Jesus that he relates. If Jesus was truly the son of a god would it not be reasonable to expect some respect for the earliest recording of his words by those that were copying them?
>> Can one reach any conclusion other than that Matthew and Luke were not above making changes to the text that they were copying (even innocently or naively) given such internal textual evidence? If they were not above making such changes once or twice, why not a hundred times? A case in point...
>> In Luke 22:41 we have Jesus and the disciples in the garden and Jesus moves away from them to pray. We then get some details about the praying and how he sweated blood in his 'agony' from v42 to v44. In v45 Jesus returns to the disciples and finds that they are all sleeping.
>> My question is; if they were all sleeping how did any of them know what Jesus said while praying and how did any of them know that he sweated blood?
>> In fact, in John, Jesus does not pray and no one falls asleep. In Mark we find the same (almost) as in Luke, that is, details about what Jesus said in his prayer related by (one of?) those that were sleeping at the time. In Matthew, we have a similar story with detail that no one was awake to witness.
>> This is a moment in Jesus' life that is of incredible importance and yet the writers of the gospels absolutely had to have invented it. If they were not above making up details about such an important moment how can you trust them to be relating anything else accurately?
>> The only response that I have ever had to this question was that these details were revealed by the Holy Spirit to the authors. This however means that these words were, indeed, 'dropped straight from the mouth of God'. If the writers of the gospels did not get these words directly from some god then they made them up for dramatic effect. If these words came from the mouth of the god then the god was careless in his consistency. If they didn't then why should anything else that these men wrote be believed?
>> The words of men can be assumed to be error-prone and subject to the biases of the men doing the writing (and therefore may be fairly subjected to analysis for trustworthiness) but if those words were the inspired words of a god then they can be fairly used to judge the power, intelligence, honesty and efficiency of the god that gives them.
>> Luke obviously had Mark to copy from or he wouldn't have managed to duplicate so much of it word for word. Why did he insert words into Jesus' mouth? Why did he delete words? How can you consider Luke to be honest? If Luke was not above altering even the very words of Jesus and inserting what (as above in 22:41ff) was obvious fiction how can you trust anything that he says beyond that which is not an exact duplicate of what Mark wrote? If all that remains acceptable is that which is duplicated in Mark then why keep Luke (or Matthew)?
>> As I have already said, huge chunks ARE identical and that, when combined with the fact there are obvious additions, deletions and alterations, makes Luke and Matthew highly suspect. John does not mimic Mark and as such can only be analyzed separately. Likewise Mark has to be analyzed separately. Luke and Matthew MUST be dismissed as completely untrustworthy. I realize that there are agreements between Luke and Matthew that are not to be found in Mark which give a strong indication of other sources such as Q. In fact a number of biblical scholars have reconstructed a 'Gospel of Q' but since we are discussing the NT as it exists and do not have a copy of Q there is too much that is mere speculation to be able to allow for it in a discussion of the veracity of the gospels. The same applies to the sources M and L.
>> In fact, incorporating Q, M or L into this sort of discussion may make things even worse. It might indicate that even Mark may have been copied from a previous source and as such may have been altered before Matthew and Luke got a crack at doing their own renovations.
>> If one dismisses Luke and Matthew one is left with John and Mark and then some comparisons can be made between the two of them. The most telling analysis, however, comes when one exegetes Mark in isolation and John in isolation. Even after such an attempt at fairness we still find inconsistencies within each single book in isolation.
>> Given all of this I must admit that is completely beyond me how anyone can still claim certain knowledge that they are reading non-fiction at any given point in the NT.
>> There are no gods so I am hardly likely to assume that the origins of the bible have anything to do with any gods. It is, more than anything else a history book. Not a history of a chronological/geographical nature (such as one would study in high school or college) but, rather, a history of ancient man's beliefs and attempts to understand his position in the universe (the OT is probably first and foremost no more than a history of ancient Jewish religious belief). It was a good try and it worked extremely well for those who lived thousands of years ago but it no longer stands up to any close scrutiny or analysis. In fact it is of no practical use except in attempting to understand the mind-set of man a few thousand years ago. I do not deny that those who wrote it may have had some things to say that are of value. I do not deny that there is some great poetry to be found. I do not deny that within it there are some profoundly ethical guidelines to be found. I do not deny that it actually contains some scattered historical veracity.
>> However, I do deny that it can be seen as reliable evidence of the existence of gods, or virgin births, or people rising from the dead, or global floods, or towers built to reach up to heaven, or living humans ascending to the heavens in a fiery chariot, or the sun standing still, or the Red Sea parting, or a man called Jesus being the son of a god and physically rising up into heaven after being executed (as Carl Sagan has pointed out, even if he rose at the speed of light he would not yet have left our galaxy).
>> My point is not that the bible should not be allowed a few trivial or minor inconsistencies but rather that the fact that there are literally thousands of inconsistencies indicates that it cannot be trusted.
>> Should not the four gospel writers have remembered major events in Jesus life, like his death with some consistency? If they get the odd bit of wording wrong I could understand it but getting things like whether or not Jesus baptized anyone wrong (John compared to John) is pushing it a bit, isn't it?
>> Getting Jesus' answer to the Sanhedrin's question of whether or not he was the messiah wrong is pushing a bit, isn't it? After all the whole point of the NT is that he was the messiah and yet, given the perfect circumstances to dramatically make that case from the very mouth of Jesus there is no agreement. One has him saying that he is (interestingly that is in Mark) and the other two (synoptics) have him being vague or cagey in his reply. Why?
>> Getting his paternal grandfather's name wrong is pushing it a bit, isn't it? The argument that Luke listed Mary's genealogy is just stupid. For one thing at least three non-canonical gospels (one of which is called the 'Gospel of the Birth of Mary') state that Mary's father's name was Joachim. This is in direct conflict with claims that Luke, in listing Heli as being Mary's father's name, was recounting Mary's genealogy. Even so, why should such a straightforward thing such as Jesus' lineage be so muddled? People at that time were absolutely obsessed with lineage as evidenced by the many examples of detailed lineages of even the most lowly born of people from that time. Is it too much to expect that the lineage of such an important person (at least important to the author) would be consistent at least for a single generation? I could see it getting muddled after ten or more, or even three or four, but after only one? In fact, if Jesus was the son of a god why list his genealogy at all? The only way that Jesus could be the son of a god and also descended from the house of David would be if the god was also somehow genealogically connected to David.
>> Getting confused as to when Jesus overturned the tables in the temple at the start or the end of his ministry (John compared to Mark) is also a bit much,
You obviously missed the point of the piece. The point is the changes and alterations that have been made. The redaction that took place, which makes it an untrustworthy source. Written by men or God makes no difference.
> it seems that a lot of atheists live to pick apart the literal
> interpretation of ancient words written by 200 men and translated
> mulitple times. without this, what do they have to talk about? atheism
> is a disbelief in 'god', period. this isnt a lot of fodder for the
> discussion table, so they simply repeat arguments against the
> 'inspired word of god', despite the fact that they know it was written
> by men. think about it, if someone says something to you that you
> disbelieve and they cannot prove, what can you say in rebuttal? you
> can say, i dont believe you, show me proof. period. end of any
> meaningful conversation.
> On Nov 6, 11:24 pm, mdb <michaeldb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Consider the gospels as eye witness accounts. They are going to have
>> different perspectives on individual cases because they are coming
>> from different traditions. Matthew and John are commonly believed to
>> be from the disciples or their close associates. Mark is associated
>> with Peter and Luke is associated with Paul. These different early
>> accounts are based upon four major Christian movements early after the
>> death of Christ. In any eye witness account there will be small
>> differences in details. Rather than discredit them, it actually
>> demonstrates their genuine desire to communicate what happened. I
>> would recommend that you read The Case for Christ by Strobel if you
>> are sincerely interested in these issues.
>> On Nov 6, 7:30 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Again, I have been asked why The Gospels are not reliable historical documents regarding the life of Jesus.
>> > Here are some thoughts. Please don't bother telling me about context, others have beat you to it. This is a comparison between the gospels and the context is each of the entire books mentioned.
>> > Off we go...
>> > The Matthew and Luke gospels were copied almost word for word in large chunks from Mark. If none of the gospels ever agreed with Mark word for word then this wouldn't matter. However, the fact that they were obviously copied but have verses inserted or deleted is indicative of an attempt to alter the words Mark wrote and even the words of Jesus that he relates. If Jesus was truly the son of a god would it not be reasonable to expect some respect for the earliest recording of his words by those that were copying them?
>> > Can one reach any conclusion other than that Matthew and Luke were not above making changes to the text that they were copying (even innocently or naively) given such internal textual evidence? If they were not above making such changes once or twice, why not a hundred times? A case in point...
>> > In Luke 22:41 we have Jesus and the disciples in the garden and Jesus moves away from them to pray. We then get some details about the praying and how he sweated blood in his 'agony' from v42 to v44. In v45 Jesus returns to the disciples and finds that they are all sleeping.
>> > My question is; if they were all sleeping how did any of them know what Jesus said while praying and how did any of them know that he sweated blood?
>> > In fact, in John, Jesus does not pray and no one falls asleep. In Mark we find the same (almost) as in Luke, that is, details about what Jesus said in his prayer related by (one of?) those that were sleeping at the time. In Matthew, we have a similar story with detail that no one was awake to witness.
>> > This is a moment in Jesus' life that is of incredible importance and yet the writers of the gospels absolutely had to have invented it. If they were not above making up details about such an important moment how can you trust them to be relating anything else accurately?
>> > The only response that I have ever had to this question was that these details were revealed by the Holy Spirit to the authors. This however means that these words were, indeed, 'dropped straight from the mouth of God'. If the writers of the gospels did not get these words directly from some god then they made them up for dramatic effect. If these words came from the mouth of the god then the god was careless in his consistency. If they didn't then why should anything else that these men wrote be believed?
>> > The words of men can be assumed to be error-prone and subject to the biases of the men doing the writing (and therefore may be fairly subjected to analysis for trustworthiness) but if those words were the inspired words of a god then they can be fairly used to judge the power, intelligence, honesty and efficiency of the god that gives them.
>> > Luke obviously had Mark to copy from or he wouldn't have managed to duplicate so much of it word for word. Why did he insert words into Jesus' mouth? Why did he delete words? How can you consider Luke to be honest? If Luke was not above altering even the very words of Jesus and inserting what (as above in 22:41ff) was obvious fiction how can you trust anything that he says beyond that which is not an exact duplicate of what Mark wrote? If all that remains acceptable is that which is duplicated in Mark then why keep Luke (or Matthew)?
>> > As I have already said, huge chunks ARE identical and that, when combined with the fact there are obvious additions, deletions and alterations, makes Luke and Matthew highly suspect. John does not mimic Mark and as such can only be analyzed separately. Likewise Mark has to be analyzed separately. Luke and Matthew MUST be dismissed as completely untrustworthy. I realize that there are agreements between Luke and Matthew that are not to be found in Mark which give a strong indication of other sources such as Q. In fact a number of biblical scholars have reconstructed a 'Gospel of Q' but since we are discussing the NT as it exists and do not have a copy of Q there is too much that is mere speculation to be able to allow for it in a discussion of the veracity of the gospels. The same applies to the sources M and L.
>> > In fact, incorporating Q, M or L into this sort of discussion may make things even worse. It might indicate that even Mark may have been copied from a previous source and as such may have been altered before Matthew and Luke got a crack at doing their own renovations.
>> > If one dismisses Luke and Matthew one is left with John and Mark and then some comparisons can be made between the two of them. The most telling analysis, however, comes when one exegetes Mark in isolation and John in isolation. Even after such an attempt at fairness we still find inconsistencies within each single book in isolation.
>> > Given all of this I must admit that is completely beyond me how anyone can still claim certain knowledge that they are reading non-fiction at any given point in the NT.
>> > There are no gods so I am hardly likely to assume that the origins of the bible have anything to do with any gods. It is, more than anything else a history book. Not a history of a chronological/geographical nature (such as one would study in high school or college) but, rather, a history of ancient man's beliefs and attempts to understand his position in the universe (the OT is probably first and foremost no more than a history of ancient Jewish religious belief). It was a good try and it worked extremely well for those who lived thousands of years ago but it no longer stands up to any close scrutiny or analysis. In fact it is of no practical use except in attempting to understand the mind-set of man a few thousand years ago. I do not deny that those who wrote it may have had some things to say that are of value. I do not deny that there is some great poetry to be found. I do not deny that within it there are some profoundly ethical guidelines to be found. I do not deny that it actually contains some scattered historical veracity.
>> > However, I do deny that it can be seen as reliable evidence of the existence of gods, or virgin births, or people rising from the dead, or global floods, or towers built to reach up to heaven, or living humans ascending to the heavens in a fiery chariot, or the sun standing still, or the Red Sea parting, or a man called Jesus being the son of a god and physically rising up into heaven after being executed (as Carl Sagan has pointed out, even if he rose at the speed of light he would not yet have left our galaxy).
>> > My point is not that the bible should not be allowed a few trivial or minor inconsistencies but rather that the fact that there are literally thousands of inconsistencies indicates that it cannot be trusted.
>> > Should not the four gospel writers have remembered major events in Jesus life, like his death with some consistency? If they get the odd bit of wording wrong I could understand it but getting things like whether or not Jesus baptized anyone wrong (John compared to John) is pushing it a bit, isn't it?
>> > Getting Jesus' answer to the Sanhedrin's question of whether or not he was the messiah wrong is pushing a bit, isn't it? After all the whole point of the NT is that he was the messiah and yet, given the perfect circumstances to dramatically make that case from the very mouth of Jesus there is no agreement. One has him saying that he is (interestingly that is in Mark) and the other two (synoptics) have him being vague or cagey in his reply. Why?
>> > Getting his paternal grandfather's name wrong is pushing it a bit, isn't it? The argument that Luke listed Mary's genealogy is just stupid. For one thing at least three non-canonical gospels (one of which is called the 'Gospel of the Birth of Mary') state that Mary's father's name was Joachim. This is in direct conflict with claims that Luke, in listing Heli as being Mary's
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 6:30 AM, showmethehoney
<alenasha...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> it seems that a lot of atheists live to pick apart the literal
> interpretation of ancient words written by 200 men and translated
> mulitple times. without this, what do they have to talk about? atheism
> is a disbelief in 'god', period. this isnt a lot of fodder for the
> discussion table, so they simply repeat arguments against the
> 'inspired word of god', despite the fact that they know it was written
> by men. think about it, if someone says something to you that you
> disbelieve and they cannot prove, what can you say in rebuttal? you
> can say, i dont believe you, show me proof. period. end of any
> meaningful conversation.
If this is what you believe, then why are you here?
Other than to troll, insult and convince new members this site is a waste
that is?
Most normal people who believe this and are incapable of actual debate
wouldn't join a site like this.
Why have you?
You insult, you engage in debate consisting of logical fallacies, and
everytime a new member joins this site, you whine about how horrible we are
and what a waste of time it is to debate us.
Instead of trying to undermine our site why don't you join a site where you
will be happy and engage in the type of discussion you enjoy.
Or do you enjoy trolling, insulting, and undermining/misrepresenting this
site to newcomers?
> On Nov 6, 11:24 pm, mdb <michaeldb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Consider the gospels as eye witness accounts. They are going to have
> > different perspectives on individual cases because they are coming
> > from different traditions. Matthew and John are commonly believed to
> > be from the disciples or their close associates. Mark is associated
> > with Peter and Luke is associated with Paul. These different early
> > accounts are based upon four major Christian movements early after the
> > death of Christ. In any eye witness account there will be small
> > differences in details. Rather than discredit them, it actually
> > demonstrates their genuine desire to communicate what happened. I
> > would recommend that you read The Case for Christ by Strobel if you
> > are sincerely interested in these issues.
> > On Nov 6, 7:30 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Again, I have been asked why The Gospels are not reliable historical
> documents regarding the life of Jesus.
> > > Here are some thoughts. Please don't bother telling me about context,
> others have beat you to it. This is a comparison between the gospels and the
> context is each of the entire books mentioned.
> > > Off we go...
> > > The Matthew and Luke gospels were copied almost word for word in large
> chunks from Mark. If none of the gospels ever agreed with Mark word for word
> then this wouldn't matter. However, the fact that they were obviously copied
> but have verses inserted or deleted is indicative of an attempt to alter the
> words Mark wrote and even the words of Jesus that he relates. If Jesus was
> truly the son of a god would it not be reasonable to expect some respect for
> the earliest recording of his words by those that were copying them?
> > > Can one reach any conclusion other than that Matthew and Luke were not
> above making changes to the text that they were copying (even innocently or
> naively) given such internal textual evidence? If they were not above making
> such changes once or twice, why not a hundred times? A case in point...
> > > In Luke 22:41 we have Jesus and the disciples in the garden and Jesus
> moves away from them to pray. We then get some details about the praying and
> how he sweated blood in his 'agony' from v42 to v44. In v45 Jesus returns to
> the disciples and finds that they are all sleeping.
> > > My question is; if they were all sleeping how did any of them know what
> Jesus said while praying and how did any of them know that he sweated blood?
> > > In fact, in John, Jesus does not pray and no one falls asleep. In Mark
> we find the same (almost) as in Luke, that is, details about what Jesus said
> in his prayer related by (one of?) those that were sleeping at the time. In
> Matthew, we have a similar story with detail that no one was awake to
> witness.
> > > This is a moment in Jesus' life that is of incredible importance and
> yet the writers of the gospels absolutely had to have invented it. If they
> were not above making up details about such an important moment how can you
> trust them to be relating anything else accurately?
> > > The only response that I have ever had to this question was that these
> details were revealed by the Holy Spirit to the authors. This however means
> that these words were, indeed, 'dropped straight from the mouth of God'. If
> the writers of the gospels did not get these words directly from some god
> then they made them up for dramatic effect. If these words came from the
> mouth of the god then the god was careless in his consistency. If they
> didn't then why should anything else that these men wrote be believed?
> > > The words of men can be assumed to be error-prone and subject to the
> biases of the men doing the writing (and therefore may be fairly subjected
> to analysis for trustworthiness) but if those words were the inspired words
> of a god then they can be fairly used to judge the power, intelligence,
> honesty and efficiency of the god that gives them.
> > > Luke obviously had Mark to copy from or he wouldn't have managed to
> duplicate so much of it word for word. Why did he insert words into Jesus'
> mouth? Why did he delete words? How can you consider Luke to be honest? If
> Luke was not above altering even the very words of Jesus and inserting what
> (as above in 22:41ff) was obvious fiction how can you trust anything that he
> says beyond that which is not an exact duplicate of what Mark wrote? If all
> that remains acceptable is that which is duplicated in Mark then why keep
> Luke (or Matthew)?
> > > As I have already said, huge chunks ARE identical and that, when
> combined with the fact there are obvious additions, deletions and
> alterations, makes Luke and Matthew highly suspect. John does not mimic Mark
> and as such can only be analyzed separately. Likewise Mark has to be
> analyzed separately. Luke and Matthew MUST be dismissed as completely
> untrustworthy. I realize that there are agreements between Luke and Matthew
> that are not to be found in Mark which give a strong indication of other
> sources such as Q. In fact a number of biblical scholars have reconstructed
> a 'Gospel of Q' but since we are discussing the NT as it exists and do not
> have a copy of Q there is too much that is mere speculation to be able to
> allow for it in a discussion of the veracity of the gospels. The same
> applies to the sources M and L.
> > > In fact, incorporating Q, M or L into this sort of discussion may make
> things even worse. It might indicate that even Mark may have been copied
> from a previous source and as such may have been altered before Matthew and
> Luke got a crack at doing their own renovations.
> > > If one dismisses Luke and Matthew one is left with John and Mark and
> then some comparisons can be made between the two of them. The most telling
> analysis, however, comes when one exegetes Mark in isolation and John in
> isolation. Even after such an attempt at fairness we still find
> inconsistencies within each single book in isolation.
> > > Given all of this I must admit that is completely beyond me how anyone
> can still claim certain knowledge that they are reading non-fiction at any
> given point in the NT.
> > > There are no gods so I am hardly likely to assume that the origins of
> the bible have anything to do with any gods. It is, more than anything else
> a history book. Not a history of a chronological/geographical nature (such
> as one would study in high school or college) but, rather, a history of
> ancient man's beliefs and attempts to understand his position in the
> universe (the OT is probably first and foremost no more than a history of
> ancient Jewish religious belief). It was a good try and it worked extremely
> well for those who lived thousands of years ago but it no longer stands up
> to any close scrutiny or analysis. In fact it is of no practical use except
> in attempting to understand the mind-set of man a few thousand years ago. I
> do not deny that those who wrote it may have had some things to say that are
> of value. I do not deny that there is some great poetry to be found. I do
> not deny that within it there are some profoundly ethical guidelines to be
> found. I do not deny that it actually contains some scattered historical
> veracity.
> > > However, I do deny that it can be seen as reliable evidence of the
> existence of gods, or virgin births, or people rising from the dead, or
> global floods, or towers built to reach up to heaven, or living humans
> ascending to the heavens in a fiery chariot, or the sun standing still, or
> the Red Sea parting, or a man called Jesus being the son of a god and
> physically rising up into heaven after being executed (as Carl Sagan has
> pointed out, even if he rose at the speed of light he would not yet have
> left our galaxy).
> > > My point is not that the bible should not be allowed a few trivial or
> minor inconsistencies but rather that the fact that there are literally
> thousands of inconsistencies indicates that it cannot be trusted.
> > > Should not the four gospel writers have remembered major events in
> Jesus life, like his death with some consistency? If they get the odd bit of
> wording wrong I could understand it but getting things like whether or not
> Jesus baptized
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 6:30 AM, showmethehoney
> <alenasha...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > it seems that a lot of atheists live to pick apart the literal
> > interpretation of ancient words written by 200 men and translated
> > mulitple times. without this, what do they have to talk about? atheism
> > is a disbelief in 'god', period. this isnt a lot of fodder for the
> > discussion table, so they simply repeat arguments against the
> > 'inspired word of god', despite the fact that they know it was written
> > by men. think about it, if someone says something to you that you
> > disbelieve and they cannot prove, what can you say in rebuttal? you
> > can say, i dont believe you, show me proof. period. end of any
> > meaningful conversation.
> If this is what you believe, then why are you here?
> Other than to troll, insult and convince new members this site is a waste
> that is?
> Most normal people who believe this and are incapable of actual debate
> wouldn't join a site like this.
> Why have you?
> You insult, you engage in debate consisting of logical fallacies, and
> everytime a new member joins this site, you whine about how horrible we are
> and what a waste of time it is to debate us.
> Instead of trying to undermine our site why don't you join a site where you
> will be happy and engage in the type of discussion you enjoy.
> Or do you enjoy trolling, insulting, and undermining/misrepresenting this
> site to newcomers?
> > On Nov 6, 11:24 pm, mdb <michaeldb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Consider the gospels as eye witness accounts. They are going to have
> > > different perspectives on individual cases because they are coming
> > > from different traditions. Matthew and John are commonly believed to
> > > be from the disciples or their close associates. Mark is associated
> > > with Peter and Luke is associated with Paul. These different early
> > > accounts are based upon four major Christian movements early after the
> > > death of Christ. In any eye witness account there will be small
> > > differences in details. Rather than discredit them, it actually
> > > demonstrates their genuine desire to communicate what happened. I
> > > would recommend that you read The Case for Christ by Strobel if you
> > > are sincerely interested in these issues.
> > > On Nov 6, 7:30 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Again, I have been asked why The Gospels are not reliable historical
> > documents regarding the life of Jesus.
> > > > Here are some thoughts. Please don't bother telling me about context,
> > others have beat you to it. This is a comparison between the gospels and the
> > context is each of the entire books mentioned.
> > > > Off we go...
> > > > The Matthew and Luke gospels were copied almost word for word in large
> > chunks from Mark. If none of the gospels ever agreed with Mark word for word
> > then this wouldn't matter. However, the fact that they were obviously copied
> > but have verses inserted or deleted is indicative of an attempt to alter the
> > words Mark wrote and even the words of Jesus that he relates. If Jesus was
> > truly the son of a god would it not be reasonable to expect some respect for
> > the earliest recording of his words by those that were copying them?
> > > > Can one reach any conclusion other than that Matthew and Luke were not
> > above making changes to the text that they were copying (even innocently or
> > naively) given such internal textual evidence? If they were not above making
> > such changes once or twice, why not a hundred times? A case in point...
> > > > In Luke 22:41 we have Jesus and the disciples in the garden and Jesus
> > moves away from them to pray. We then get some details about the praying and
> > how he sweated blood in his 'agony' from v42 to v44. In v45 Jesus returns to
> > the disciples and finds that they are all sleeping.
> > > > My question is; if they were all sleeping how did any of them know what
> > Jesus said while praying and how did any of them know that he sweated blood?
> > > > In fact, in John, Jesus does not pray and no one falls asleep. In Mark
> > we find the same (almost) as in Luke, that is, details about what Jesus said
> > in his prayer related by (one of?) those that were sleeping at the time. In
> > Matthew, we have a similar story with detail that no one was awake to
> > witness.
> > > > This is a moment in Jesus' life that is of incredible importance and
> > yet the writers of the gospels absolutely had to have invented it. If they
> > were not above making up details about such an important moment how can you
> > trust them to be relating anything else accurately?
> > > > The only response that I have ever had to this question was that these
> > details were revealed by the Holy Spirit to the authors. This however means
> > that these words were, indeed, 'dropped straight from the mouth of God'. If
> > the writers of the gospels did not get these words directly from some god
> > then they made them up for dramatic effect. If these words came from the
> > mouth of the god then the god was careless in his consistency. If they
> > didn't then why should anything else that these men wrote be believed?
> > > > The words of men can be assumed to be error-prone and subject to the
> > biases of the men doing the writing (and therefore may be fairly subjected
> > to analysis for trustworthiness) but if those words were the inspired words
> > of a god then they can be fairly used to judge the power, intelligence,
> > honesty and efficiency of the god that gives them.
> > > > Luke obviously had Mark to copy from or he wouldn't have managed to
> > duplicate so much of it word for word. Why did he insert words into Jesus'
> > mouth? Why did he delete words? How can you consider Luke to be honest? If
> > Luke was not above altering even the very words of Jesus and inserting what
> > (as above in 22:41ff) was obvious fiction how can you trust anything that he
> > says beyond that which is not an exact duplicate of what Mark wrote? If all
> > that remains acceptable is that which is duplicated in Mark then why keep
> > Luke (or Matthew)?
> > > > As I have already said, huge chunks ARE identical and that, when
> > combined with the fact there are obvious additions, deletions and
> > alterations, makes Luke and Matthew highly suspect. John does not mimic Mark
> > and as such can only be analyzed separately. Likewise Mark has to be
> > analyzed separately. Luke and Matthew MUST be dismissed as completely
> > untrustworthy. I realize that there are agreements between Luke and Matthew
> > that are not to be found in Mark which give a strong indication of other
> > sources such as Q. In fact a number of biblical scholars have reconstructed
> > a 'Gospel of Q' but since we are discussing the NT as it exists and do not
> > have a copy of Q there is too much that is mere speculation to be able to
> > allow for it in a discussion of the veracity of the gospels. The same
> > applies to the sources M and L.
> > > > In fact, incorporating Q, M or L into this sort of discussion may make
> > things even worse. It might indicate that even Mark may have been copied
> > from a previous source and as such may have been altered before Matthew and
> > Luke got a crack at doing their own renovations.
> > > > If one dismisses Luke and Matthew one is left with John and Mark and
> > then some comparisons can be made between the two of them. The most telling
> > analysis, however, comes when one exegetes Mark in isolation and John in
> > isolation. Even after such an attempt at fairness we still find
> > inconsistencies within each single book in isolation.
> > > > Given all of this I must admit that is completely beyond me how anyone
> > can still claim certain knowledge that they are reading non-fiction at any
> > given point in the NT.
> > > > There are no gods so I am hardly likely to assume that the origins of
> > the bible have anything to do with any gods. It is, more than anything else
> > a history book. Not a history of a chronological/geographical nature (such
> > as one would study in high school or college) but, rather, a history of
> > ancient man's beliefs and attempts to understand his position in the
> > universe (the OT is probably first and foremost no more than a history of
> > ancient Jewish religious belief). It was a good try and it worked extremely
> > well for those who lived thousands of years ago but it no longer stands up
> > to any close scrutiny or analysis. In fact it is of no practical use except
> > in attempting to understand the mind-set of man a few thousand years ago. I
> > do not deny that those who wrote it may have had some things to say that are
> > of value. I do not deny that there is some great poetry to be found. I do
> > not deny that within it there are some profoundly ethical guidelines to be
> > found. I do not deny that it actually contains some scattered historical
> > veracity.
> > > > However, I do deny that it can be seen as reliable evidence of the
> > existence of gods, or virgin births, or people rising from the dead, or
> > global floods, or towers built to reach up to heaven, or living humans
> > ascending to the heavens in a fiery chariot, or the sun standing still, or
> > the Red Sea parting, or a man called Jesus being the son of a god and
> > physically rising up into heaven after being executed (as Carl Sagan has
> > pointed out, even if he rose at the speed of light he would not yet have
> > left our galaxy).
> > > > My point is not that the bible should not be allowed a few trivial or
> > minor inconsistencies but rather that the fact
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 8:31 AM, showmethehoney
<alenasha...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> nice pop up trancy....move on dear
I think not.
I don't allow abuse trolls to harass new members whether they theist or
atheist and I will ensure that all new members know exactly what your
intentions are.
You have no business being on a debating site between atheists and
Christians when you have no intention of engaging in debate and you target
new members in order to discourage them from participating here.
As long as you do that I will be on you like white on rice.
Undermining our site and attempting to discourage new members from
participating here is the act of a very angry, destructive, hostile person,
irrespective of your typically Canadian passive-aggressiveness.
> On Nov 7, 8:03 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 6:30 AM, showmethehoney
> > <alenasha...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > > it seems that a lot of atheists live to pick apart the literal
> > > interpretation of ancient words written by 200 men and translated
> > > mulitple times. without this, what do they have to talk about? atheism
> > > is a disbelief in 'god', period. this isnt a lot of fodder for the
> > > discussion table, so they simply repeat arguments against the
> > > 'inspired word of god', despite the fact that they know it was written
> > > by men. think about it, if someone says something to you that you
> > > disbelieve and they cannot prove, what can you say in rebuttal? you
> > > can say, i dont believe you, show me proof. period. end of any
> > > meaningful conversation.
> > If this is what you believe, then why are you here?
> > Other than to troll, insult and convince new members this site is a waste
> > that is?
> > Most normal people who believe this and are incapable of actual debate
> > wouldn't join a site like this.
> > Why have you?
> > You insult, you engage in debate consisting of logical fallacies, and
> > everytime a new member joins this site, you whine about how horrible we
> are
> > and what a waste of time it is to debate us.
> > Instead of trying to undermine our site why don't you join a site where
> you
> > will be happy and engage in the type of discussion you enjoy.
> > Or do you enjoy trolling, insulting, and undermining/misrepresenting this
> > site to newcomers?
> > > On Nov 6, 11:24 pm, mdb <michaeldb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Consider the gospels as eye witness accounts. They are going to have
> > > > different perspectives on individual cases because they are coming
> > > > from different traditions. Matthew and John are commonly believed to
> > > > be from the disciples or their close associates. Mark is associated
> > > > with Peter and Luke is associated with Paul. These different early
> > > > accounts are based upon four major Christian movements early after
> the
> > > > death of Christ. In any eye witness account there will be small
> > > > differences in details. Rather than discredit them, it actually
> > > > demonstrates their genuine desire to communicate what happened. I
> > > > would recommend that you read The Case for Christ by Strobel if you
> > > > are sincerely interested in these issues.
> > > > On Nov 6, 7:30 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Again, I have been asked why The Gospels are not reliable
> historical
> > > documents regarding the life of Jesus.
> > > > > Here are some thoughts. Please don't bother telling me about
> context,
> > > others have beat you to it. This is a comparison between the gospels
> and the
> > > context is each of the entire books mentioned.
> > > > > Off we go...
> > > > > The Matthew and Luke gospels were copied almost word for word in
> large
> > > chunks from Mark. If none of the gospels ever agreed with Mark word for
> word
> > > then this wouldn't matter. However, the fact that they were obviously
> copied
> > > but have verses inserted or deleted is indicative of an attempt to
> alter the
> > > words Mark wrote and even the words of Jesus that he relates. If Jesus
> was
> > > truly the son of a god would it not be reasonable to expect some
> respect for
> > > the earliest recording of his words by those that were copying them?
> > > > > Can one reach any conclusion other than that Matthew and Luke were
> not
> > > above making changes to the text that they were copying (even
> innocently or
> > > naively) given such internal textual evidence? If they were not above
> making
> > > such changes once or twice, why not a hundred times? A case in point...
> > > > > In Luke 22:41 we have Jesus and the disciples in the garden and
> Jesus
> > > moves away from them to pray. We then get some details about the
> praying and
> > > how he sweated blood in his 'agony' from v42 to v44. In v45 Jesus
> returns to
> > > the disciples and finds that they are all sleeping.
> > > > > My question is; if they were all sleeping how did any of them know
> what
> > > Jesus said while praying and how did any of them know that he sweated
> blood?
> > > > > In fact, in John, Jesus does not pray and no one falls asleep. In
> Mark
> > > we find the same (almost) as in Luke, that is, details about what Jesus
> said
> > > in his prayer related by (one of?) those that were sleeping at the
> time. In
> > > Matthew, we have a similar story with detail that no one was awake to
> > > witness.
> > > > > This is a moment in Jesus' life that is of incredible importance
> and
> > > yet the writers of the gospels absolutely had to have invented it. If
> they
> > > were not above making up details about such an important moment how can
> you
> > > trust them to be relating anything else accurately?
> > > > > The only response that I have ever had to this question was that
> these
> > > details were revealed by the Holy Spirit to the authors. This however
> means
> > > that these words were, indeed, 'dropped straight from the mouth of
> God'. If
> > > the writers of the gospels did not get these words directly from some
> god
> > > then they made them up for dramatic effect. If these words came from
> the
> > > mouth of the god then the god was careless in his consistency. If they
> > > didn't then why should anything else that these men wrote be believed?
> > > > > The words of men can be assumed to be error-prone and subject to
> the
> > > biases of the men doing the writing (and therefore may be fairly
> subjected
> > > to analysis for trustworthiness) but if those words were the inspired
> words
> > > of a god then they can be fairly used to judge the power, intelligence,
> > > honesty and efficiency of the god that gives them.
> > > > > Luke obviously had Mark to copy from or he wouldn't have managed to
> > > duplicate so much of it word for word. Why did he insert words into
> Jesus'
> > > mouth? Why did he delete words? How can you consider Luke to be honest?
> If
> > > Luke was not above altering even the very words of Jesus and inserting
> what
> > > (as above in 22:41ff) was obvious fiction how can you trust anything
> that he
> > > says beyond that which is not an exact duplicate of what Mark wrote? If
> all
> > > that remains acceptable is that which is duplicated in Mark then why
> keep
> > > Luke (or Matthew)?
> > > > > As I have already said, huge chunks ARE identical and that, when
> > > combined with the fact there are obvious additions, deletions and
> > > alterations, makes Luke and Matthew highly suspect. John does not mimic
> Mark
> > > and as such can only be analyzed separately. Likewise Mark has to be
> > > analyzed separately. Luke and Matthew MUST be dismissed as completely
> > > untrustworthy. I realize that there are agreements between Luke and
> Matthew
> > > that are not to be found in Mark which give a strong indication of
> other
> > > sources such as Q. In fact a number of biblical scholars have
> reconstructed
> > > a 'Gospel of Q' but since we are discussing the NT as it exists and do
> not
> > > have a copy of Q there is too much that is mere speculation to be able
> to
> > > allow for it in a discussion of the veracity of the gospels. The same
> > > applies to the sources M and L.
> > > > > In fact, incorporating Q, M or L into this sort of discussion may
> make
> > > things even worse. It might indicate that even Mark may have been
> copied
> > > from a previous source and as such may have been altered before Matthew
> and
> > > Luke got a crack at doing their own renovations.
> > > > > If one dismisses Luke and Matthew one is left with John and Mark
> and
> > > then some comparisons can be made between the two of them. The most
> telling
> > > analysis, however, comes when one exegetes Mark in isolation and John
> in
> > > isolation. Even after such an attempt at fairness we still find
> > > inconsistencies within each single book in isolation.
> > > > > Given all of this I must admit that is completely beyond me how
> anyone
> > > can still claim certain knowledge that they are reading non-fiction at
> any
> > > given point in the NT.
> > > > > There are no gods so I am hardly likely to assume that the origins
> of
> > > the bible have anything to do with any gods. It is, more than anything
> else
> > > a history book. Not a history of a chronological/geographical nature
> (such
> > > as one would study in high school or college) but, rather, a history of
> > > ancient man's beliefs and attempts to understand his position in the
> > > universe (the OT is probably first and foremost no more than a history
> of
> > > ancient Jewish religious belief). It was a good try and it worked
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Again, I have been asked why The Gospels are not reliable historical
> documents regarding the life of Jesus.
> Here are some thoughts. Please don't bother telling me about context,
> others have beat you to it. This is a comparison between the gospels and the
> context is each of the entire books mentioned.
> Off we go...
> The Matthew and Luke gospels were copied almost word for word in large
> chunks from Mark. If none of the gospels ever agreed with Mark word for word
> then this wouldn't matter. However, the fact that they were obviously copied
> but have verses inserted or deleted is indicative of an attempt to alter the
> words Mark wrote and even the words of Jesus that he relates. If Jesus was
> truly the son of a god would it not be reasonable to expect some respect for
> the earliest recording of his words by those that were copying them?
Considering the fact that Luke was not a disciple and therefore his writing
of the Book of Luke was most likely taken from Matthew, Mark and John - and
we know the Acts was writing by Luke where he was a first hand hearer of
what he is recording.
Luke was a physician and fellow working with the Apostle Paul.
Luke gives us the gospel from a physicians point of view.
> Can one reach any conclusion other than that Matthew and Luke were not
> above making changes to the text that they were copying (even innocently or
> naively) given such internal textual evidence? If they were not above making
> such changes once or twice, why not a hundred times? A case in point...
Matthew was a disciple of Jesus and therefore an eye-witness to accounts.
The difference are really no different from what you have by eye-witnesses
in a court room today. One person is standing on one corner of the
intersection - the other witness is standing on the opposite corner. They
both see what happened - but because of their not being at the exact same
spot, at the exact same time, they see what happened differently.
This was being taught by the way by using the Sacco & Vanzetti trial in New
York as a text in Political Science 101 in the 1950's at the UofCA.
> In Luke 22:41 we have Jesus and the disciples in the garden and Jesus
> moves away from them to pray. We then get some details about the praying and
> how he sweated blood in his 'agony' from v42 to v44. In v45 Jesus returns to
> the disciples and finds that they are all sleeping.
> My question is; if they were all sleeping how did any of them know what
> Jesus said while praying and how did any of them know that he sweated blood?
Ever had a head wound that didn't get blood on your shirt?
> In fact, in John, Jesus does not pray and no one falls asleep. In Mark we
> find the same (almost) as in Luke, that is, details about what Jesus said in
> his prayer related by (one of?) those that were sleeping at the time. In
> Matthew, we have a similar story with detail that no one was awake to
> witness.
Asleep has two meanings in the Bible -- one of the meanings is that of
physical sleep - the other, means that they did not understand what was
really taking place in Jesus' life. The terms asleep means in this instance
- spiritually asleep.
I take it that they were asleep in the physical sense, and had no
comprehension of what was to take place. And, the gospels bear this out,
that the disciples thought the Kingdom of God was at hand, and they would
have a place of authority in it.
However, as we now see, God in His marvelous wisdom, made a way for us
Gentiles to be accepted by Him in this dispensation of the Grace of God.
> This is a moment in Jesus' life that is of incredible importance and yet
> the writers of the gospels absolutely had to have invented it. If they were
> not above making up details about such an important moment how can you trust
> them to be relating anything else accurately?
> The only response that I have ever had to this question was that these
> details were revealed by the Holy Spirit to the authors. This however means
> that these words were, indeed, 'dropped straight from the mouth of God'. If
> the writers of the gospels did not get these words directly from some god
> then they made them up for dramatic effect. If these words came from the
> mouth of the god then the god was careless in his consistency. If they
> didn't then why should anything else that these men wrote be believed?
> The words of men can be assumed to be error-prone and subject to the biases
> of the men doing the writing (and therefore may be fairly subjected to
> analysis for trustworthiness) but if those words were the inspired words of
> a god then they can be fairly used to judge the power, intelligence, honesty
> and efficiency of the god that gives them.
> Luke obviously had Mark to copy from or he wouldn't have managed to
> duplicate so much of it word for word. Why did he insert words into Jesus'
> mouth? Why did he delete words? How can you consider Luke to be honest? If
> Luke was not above altering even the very words of Jesus and inserting what
> (as above in 22:41ff) was obvious fiction how can you trust anything that he
> says beyond that which is not an exact duplicate of what Mark wrote? If all
> that remains acceptable is that which is duplicated in Mark then why keep
> Luke (or Matthew)?
> As I have already said, huge chunks ARE identical and that, when combined
> with the fact there are obvious additions, deletions and alterations, makes
> Luke and Matthew highly suspect. John does not mimic Mark and as such can
> only be analyzed separately. Likewise Mark has to be analyzed separately.
> Luke and Matthew MUST be dismissed as completely untrustworthy. I realize
> that there are agreements between Luke and Matthew that are not to be found
> in Mark which give a strong indication of other sources such as Q. In fact a
> number of biblical scholars have reconstructed a 'Gospel of Q' but since we
> are discussing the NT as it exists and do not have a copy of Q there is too
> much that is mere speculation to be able to allow for it in a discussion of
> the veracity of the gospels. The same applies to the sources M and L.
> In fact, incorporating Q, M or L into this sort of discussion may make
> things even worse. It might indicate that even Mark may have been copied
> from a previous source and as such may have been altered before Matthew and
> Luke got a crack at doing their own renovations.
> If one dismisses Luke and Matthew one is left with John and Mark and then
> some comparisons can be made between the two of them. The most telling
> analysis, however, comes when one exegetes Mark in isolation and John in
> isolation. Even after such an attempt at fairness we still find
> inconsistencies within each single book in isolation.
> Given all of this I must admit that is completely beyond me how anyone can
> still claim certain knowledge that they are reading non-fiction at any given
> point in the NT.
> There are no gods so I am hardly likely to assume that the origins of the
> bible have anything to do with any gods. It is, more than anything else a
> history book. Not a history of a chronological/geographical nature (such as
> one would study in high school or college) but, rather, a history of ancient
> man's beliefs and attempts to understand his position in the universe (the
> OT is probably first and foremost no more than a history of ancient Jewish
> religious belief). It was a good try and it worked extremely well for those
> who lived thousands of years ago but it no longer stands up to any close
> scrutiny or analysis. In fact it is of no practical use except in attempting
> to understand the mind-set of man a few thousand years ago. I do not deny
> that those who wrote it may have had some things to say that are of value. I
> do not deny that there is some great poetry to be found. I do not deny that
> within it there are some profoundly ethical guidelines to be found. I do not
> deny that it actually contains some scattered historical veracity.
> However, I do deny that it can be seen as reliable evidence of the
> existence of gods, or virgin births, or people rising from the dead, or
> global floods, or towers built to reach up to heaven, or living humans
> ascending to the heavens in a fiery chariot, or the sun standing still, or
> the Red Sea parting, or a man called Jesus being the son of a god and
> physically rising up into heaven after being executed (as Carl Sagan has
> pointed out, even if he rose at the speed of light he would not yet have
> left our galaxy).
> My point is not that the bible should not be allowed a few trivial or minor
> inconsistencies but rather that the fact that there are literally thousands
> of inconsistencies indicates that it cannot be trusted.
> Should not the four gospel writers have remembered major events in Jesus
> life, like his death with some consistency? If they get the odd bit of
> wording wrong I could understand it but getting things like whether or not
> Jesus baptized anyone wrong (John compared to John) is pushing it a bit,
> isn't it?
> Getting Jesus' answer to the Sanhedrin's question of whether or not he was
> the messiah wrong is pushing a bit, isn't it? After all the whole point of
> the NT is that he was the messiah and yet, given the perfect circumstances
> to dramatically make that case from the very mouth of Jesus there is no
> agreement. One has him saying that he is (interestingly that is in Mark) and
> the other two (synoptics) have him being vague or cagey in his reply. Why?
> Getting his paternal grandfather's name wrong is pushing it a bit, isn't
> it? The argument that Luke listed
The Matthew and Luke gospels were copied almost word for word in large chunks from Mark. If none of the gospels ever agreed with Mark word for word then this wouldn't matter. However, the fact that they were obviously copied but have verses inserted or deleted is indicative of an attempt to alter the words Mark wrote and even the words of Jesus that he relates. If Jesus was truly the son of a god would it not be reasonable to expect some respect for the earliest recording of his words by those that were copying them?
[thea]
Considering the fact that Luke was not a disciple and therefore his writing of the Book of Luke was most likely taken from Matthew, Mark and John - and we know the Acts was writing by Luke where he was a first hand hearer of what he is recording.
Luke was a physician and fellow working with the Apostle Paul.
Luke gives us the gospel from a physicians point of view.
Oh, you poor dear.
Luke was written by someone (unknown) about 80 years after the events.
Mark was written absolute earliest 40-60 years after the events. Possibly 70 CE after the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem. (Making Jesus supposed prediction as postdiction.)
Matthew was written 70 years after the events at earliest.
John was written at least 100 years after the events and perhaps as late as 120 years. Many scholars think it was written in stages.
So none of it was written by an 'eye-witness'.
[SE]
In Luke 22:41 we have Jesus and the disciples in the garden and Jesus moves away from them to pray. We then get some details about the praying and how he sweated blood in his 'agony' from v42 to v44. In v45 Jesus returns to the disciples and finds that they are all sleeping.
My question is; if they were all sleeping how did any of them know what Jesus said while praying and how did any of them know that he sweated blood?
[Thea]
Ever had a head wound that didn't get blood on your shirt?
And the words that were spoken were inscribed in this blood on Jesus' clothing?
Sheesh.
<snip rest of nonsensical rationalizations>
-- "In my life, I have prayed but one prayer: Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it."
[Voltaire]
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [SE]
> The Matthew and Luke gospels were copied almost word for word in large
> chunks from Mark. If none of the gospels ever agreed with Mark word for word
> then this wouldn't matter. However, the fact that they were obviously copied
> but have verses inserted or deleted is indicative of an attempt to alter the
> words Mark wrote and even the words of Jesus that he relates. If Jesus was
> truly the son of a god would it not be reasonable to expect some respect for
> the earliest recording of his words by those that were copying them?
> [thea]
> Considering the fact that Luke was not a disciple and therefore his
> writing of the Book of Luke was most likely taken from Matthew, Mark and
> John - and we know the Acts was writing by Luke where he was a first hand
> hearer of what he is recording.
> Luke was a physician and fellow working with the Apostle Paul.
> Luke gives us the gospel from a physicians point of view.
> Oh, you poor dear.
> Luke was written by someone (unknown) about 80 years after the events.
Luke wrote both Luke and The Acts of The Apostles while being St. Pauls side
kick.
Luke was fluent in several languages as a Physician.
And we know that St. Paul was Roman, Greek and Hebrew.
And, since you were there -- and not quoting from what someone else said.
To believe what another human being is telling us -- in church -- is being
brainwashed. So, to have a clue - you have to get outside the church for
clues.
To quote from *The New Archeolocical Discoveries* by Camden M. Cobern on
page 526:
*This shows that these two gods (Jupiter and Hermes *Mercury*) were classed
together in the local cult, and again illustrates the accurate local
knowledge of St. Luke.*
> Mark was written absolute earliest 40-60 years after the events. Possibly
> 70 CE after the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem. (Making Jesus
> supposed prediction as postdiction.)
> Matthew was written 70 years after the events at earliest.
> John was written at least 100 years after the events and perhaps as late as
> 120 years. Many scholars think it was written in stages.
> So none of it was written by an 'eye-witness'.
> [SE]
> In Luke 22:41 we have Jesus and the disciples in the garden and Jesus
> moves away from them to pray. We then get some details about the praying and
> how he sweated blood in his 'agony' from v42 to v44. In v45 Jesus returns to
> the disciples and finds that they are all sleeping.
> My question is; if they were all sleeping how did any of them know what
> Jesus said while praying and how did any of them know that he sweated blood?
> [Thea]
> Ever had a head wound that didn't get blood on your shirt?
> And the words that were spoken were inscribed in this blood on Jesus'
> clothing?
> Sheesh.
> <snip rest of nonsensical rationalizations>
> --
> "In my life, I have prayed but one prayer: Oh Lord, make my enemies
> ridiculous. And God granted it."
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
On Nov 7, 7:26 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [mdb]
> > Consider the gospels as eye witness accounts. They are going to have
> > different perspectives on individual cases because they are coming
> > from different traditions. Matthew and John are commonly believed to
> > be from the disciples or their close associates. Mark is associated
> > with Peter and Luke is associated with Paul. These different early
> > accounts are based upon four major Christian movements early after the
> > death of Christ. In any eye witness account there will be small
> > differences in details. Rather than discredit them, it actually
> > demonstrates their genuine desire to communicate what happened. I
> > would recommend that you read The Case for Christ by Strobel if you
> > are sincerely interested in these issues.
> Right, so who saw Jesus sweat blood if they were all asleep?
Also, how come we know what happened to the three women at Jesus'
tomb, even though they apparently ran away in fear and never told
anyone what happened?
_________________________________________________
Science means simply the aggregate of all the recipes that are always
successful. All the rest is literature.
-- Paul Valéry
I see no disagreement here....The disciples did a good job ....If I get time
I will read it...I mainly read my Bible ...but it it matches of with the
Bible be glad too...If you read carefull
You will see we speak the same thing...This was a hard for the disciples to
carry on ..and it was how many also ended up in death....they gave their
lives...
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 8:24 PM, mdb <michaeldb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Consider the gospels as eye witness accounts. They are going to have
> different perspectives on individual cases because they are coming
> from different traditions. Matthew and John are commonly believed to
> be from the disciples or their close associates. Mark is associated
> with Peter and Luke is associated with Paul. These different early
> accounts are based upon four major Christian movements early after the
> death of Christ. In any eye witness account there will be small
> differences in details. Rather than discredit them, it actually
> demonstrates their genuine desire to communicate what happened. I
> would recommend that you read The Case for Christ by Strobel if you
> are sincerely interested in these issues.
> On Nov 6, 7:30 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Again, I have been asked why The Gospels are not reliable historical
> documents regarding the life of Jesus.
> > Here are some thoughts. Please don't bother telling me about context,
> others have beat you to it. This is a comparison between the gospels and the
> context is each of the entire books mentioned.
> > Off we go...
> > The Matthew and Luke gospels were copied almost word for word in large
> chunks from Mark. If none of the gospels ever agreed with Mark word for word
> then this wouldn't matter. However, the fact that they were obviously copied
> but have verses inserted or deleted is indicative of an attempt to alter the
> words Mark wrote and even the words of Jesus that he relates. If Jesus was
> truly the son of a god would it not be reasonable to expect some respect for
> the earliest recording of his words by those that were copying them?
> > Can one reach any conclusion other than that Matthew and Luke were not
> above making changes to the text that they were copying (even innocently or
> naively) given such internal textual evidence? If they were not above making
> such changes once or twice, why not a hundred times? A case in point...
> > In Luke 22:41 we have Jesus and the disciples in the garden and Jesus
> moves away from them to pray. We then get some details about the praying and
> how he sweated blood in his 'agony' from v42 to v44. In v45 Jesus returns to
> the disciples and finds that they are all sleeping.
> > My question is; if they were all sleeping how did any of them know what
> Jesus said while praying and how did any of them know that he sweated blood?
> > In fact, in John, Jesus does not pray and no one falls asleep. In Mark we
> find the same (almost) as in Luke, that is, details about what Jesus said in
> his prayer related by (one of?) those that were sleeping at the time. In
> Matthew, we have a similar story with detail that no one was awake to
> witness.
> > This is a moment in Jesus' life that is of incredible importance and yet
> the writers of the gospels absolutely had to have invented it. If they were
> not above making up details about such an important moment how can you trust
> them to be relating anything else accurately?
> > The only response that I have ever had to this question was that these
> details were revealed by the Holy Spirit to the authors. This however means
> that these words were, indeed, 'dropped straight from the mouth of God'. If
> the writers of the gospels did not get these words directly from some god
> then they made them up for dramatic effect. If these words came from the
> mouth of the god then the god was careless in his consistency. If they
> didn't then why should anything else that these men wrote be believed?
> > The words of men can be assumed to be error-prone and subject to the
> biases of the men doing the writing (and therefore may be fairly subjected
> to analysis for trustworthiness) but if those words were the inspired words
> of a god then they can be fairly used to judge the power, intelligence,
> honesty and efficiency of the god that gives them.
> > Luke obviously had Mark to copy from or he wouldn't have managed to
> duplicate so much of it word for word. Why did he insert words into Jesus'
> mouth? Why did he delete words? How can you consider Luke to be honest? If
> Luke was not above altering even the very words of Jesus and inserting what
> (as above in 22:41ff) was obvious fiction how can you trust anything that he
> says beyond that which is not an exact duplicate of what Mark wrote? If all
> that remains acceptable is that which is duplicated in Mark then why keep
> Luke (or Matthew)?
> > As I have already said, huge chunks ARE identical and that, when combined
> with the fact there are obvious additions, deletions and alterations, makes
> Luke and Matthew highly suspect. John does not mimic Mark and as such can
> only be analyzed separately. Likewise Mark has to be analyzed separately.
> Luke and Matthew MUST be dismissed as completely untrustworthy. I realize
> that there are agreements between Luke and Matthew that are not to be found
> in Mark which give a strong indication of other sources such as Q. In fact a
> number of biblical scholars have reconstructed a 'Gospel of Q' but since we
> are discussing the NT as it exists and do not have a copy of Q there is too
> much that is mere speculation to be able to allow for it in a discussion of
> the veracity of the gospels. The same applies to the sources M and L.
> > In fact, incorporating Q, M or L into this sort of discussion may make
> things even worse. It might indicate that even Mark may have been copied
> from a previous source and as such may have been altered before Matthew and
> Luke got a crack at doing their own renovations.
> > If one dismisses Luke and Matthew one is left with John and Mark and then
> some comparisons can be made between the two of them. The most telling
> analysis, however, comes when one exegetes Mark in isolation and John in
> isolation. Even after such an attempt at fairness we still find
> inconsistencies within each single book in isolation.
> > Given all of this I must admit that is completely beyond me how anyone
> can still claim certain knowledge that they are reading non-fiction at any
> given point in the NT.
> > There are no gods so I am hardly likely to assume that the origins of the
> bible have anything to do with any gods. It is, more than anything else a
> history book. Not a history of a chronological/geographical nature (such as
> one would study in high school or college) but, rather, a history of ancient
> man's beliefs and attempts to understand his position in the universe (the
> OT is probably first and foremost no more than a history of ancient Jewish
> religious belief). It was a good try and it worked extremely well for those
> who lived thousands of years ago but it no longer stands up to any close
> scrutiny or analysis. In fact it is of no practical use except in attempting
> to understand the mind-set of man a few thousand years ago. I do not deny
> that those who wrote it may have had some things to say that are of value. I
> do not deny that there is some great poetry to be found. I do not deny that
> within it there are some profoundly ethical guidelines to be found. I do not
> deny that it actually contains some scattered historical veracity.
> > However, I do deny that it can be seen as reliable evidence of the
> existence of gods, or virgin births, or people rising from the dead, or
> global floods, or towers built to reach up to heaven, or living humans
> ascending to the heavens in a fiery chariot, or the sun standing still, or
> the Red Sea parting, or a man called Jesus being the son of a god and
> physically rising up into heaven after being executed (as Carl Sagan has
> pointed out, even if he rose at the speed of light he would not yet have
> left our galaxy).
> > My point is not that the bible should not be allowed a few trivial or
> minor inconsistencies but rather that the fact that there are literally
> thousands of inconsistencies indicates that it cannot be trusted.
> > Should not the four gospel writers have remembered major events in Jesus
> life, like his death with some consistency? If they get the odd bit of
> wording wrong I could understand it but getting things like whether or not
> Jesus baptized anyone wrong (John compared to John) is pushing it a bit,
> isn't it?
> > Getting Jesus' answer to the Sanhedrin's question of whether or not he
> was the messiah wrong is pushing a bit, isn't it? After all the whole point
> of the NT is that he was the messiah and yet, given the perfect
> circumstances to dramatically make that case from the very mouth of Jesus
> there is no agreement. One has him saying that he is (interestingly that is
> in Mark) and the other two (synoptics) have him being vague or cagey in his
> reply. Why?
> > Getting his paternal grandfather's name wrong is pushing it a bit, isn't
> it? The argument that Luke listed Mary's genealogy is just stupid. For one
> thing at least three non-canonical gospels (one of which is called the
> 'Gospel of the Birth of Mary') state that Mary's father's name was Joachim.
> This is in direct conflict with claims that Luke, in listing Heli as being
> Mary's father's name, was recounting Mary's genealogy. Even so, why should
> such a straightforward thing such as Jesus' lineage be so muddled? People at
> that time were absolutely obsessed with lineage as evidenced by the
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 7:26 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [mdb]
> > > Consider the gospels as eye witness accounts. They are going to have
> > > different perspectives on individual cases because they are coming
> > > from different traditions. Matthew and John are commonly believed to
> > > be from the disciples or their close associates. Mark is associated
> > > with Peter and Luke is associated with Paul. These different early
> > > accounts are based upon four major Christian movements early after the
> > > death of Christ. In any eye witness account there will be small
> > > differences in details. Rather than discredit them, it actually
> > > demonstrates their genuine desire to communicate what happened. I
> > > would recommend that you read The Case for Christ by Strobel if you
> > > are sincerely interested in these issues.
> > Right, so who saw Jesus sweat blood if they were all asleep?
> Also, how come we know what happened to the three women at Jesus'
> tomb, even though they apparently ran away in fear and never told
> anyone what happened?
> _________________________________________________
> Science means simply the aggregate of all the recipes that are always
> successful. All the rest is literature.
> -- Paul Valéry
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
This is true..I am to a point of saying to them the spirit bears wittness
and gives you liberty--liberty of the truth that God is real and does
exist...I'mmm working on that...I still love them..for me it has been like
this five --six years getting wiser...
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 3:30 AM, showmethehoney
<alenasha...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> it seems that a lot of atheists live to pick apart the literal
> interpretation of ancient words written by 200 men and translated
> mulitple times. without this, what do they have to talk about? atheism
> is a disbelief in 'god', period. this isnt a lot of fodder for the
> discussion table, so they simply repeat arguments against the
> 'inspired word of god', despite the fact that they know it was written
> by men. think about it, if someone says something to you that you
> disbelieve and they cannot prove, what can you say in rebuttal? you
> can say, i dont believe you, show me proof. period. end of any
> meaningful conversation.
> On Nov 6, 11:24 pm, mdb <michaeldb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Consider the gospels as eye witness accounts. They are going to have
> > different perspectives on individual cases because they are coming
> > from different traditions. Matthew and John are commonly believed to
> > be from the disciples or their close associates. Mark is associated
> > with Peter and Luke is associated with Paul. These different early
> > accounts are based upon four major Christian movements early after the
> > death of Christ. In any eye witness account there will be small
> > differences in details. Rather than discredit them, it actually
> > demonstrates their genuine desire to communicate what happened. I
> > would recommend that you read The Case for Christ by Strobel if you
> > are sincerely interested in these issues.
> > On Nov 6, 7:30 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Again, I have been asked why The Gospels are not reliable historical
> documents regarding the life of Jesus.
> > > Here are some thoughts. Please don't bother telling me about context,
> others have beat you to it. This is a comparison between the gospels and the
> context is each of the entire books mentioned.
> > > Off we go...
> > > The Matthew and Luke gospels were copied almost word for word in large
> chunks from Mark. If none of the gospels ever agreed with Mark word for word
> then this wouldn't matter. However, the fact that they were obviously copied
> but have verses inserted or deleted is indicative of an attempt to alter the
> words Mark wrote and even the words of Jesus that he relates. If Jesus was
> truly the son of a god would it not be reasonable to expect some respect for
> the earliest recording of his words by those that were copying them?
> > > Can one reach any conclusion other than that Matthew and Luke were not
> above making changes to the text that they were copying (even innocently or
> naively) given such internal textual evidence? If they were not above making
> such changes once or twice, why not a hundred times? A case in point...
> > > In Luke 22:41 we have Jesus and the disciples in the garden and Jesus
> moves away from them to pray. We then get some details about the praying and
> how he sweated blood in his 'agony' from v42 to v44. In v45 Jesus returns to
> the disciples and finds that they are all sleeping.
> > > My question is; if they were all sleeping how did any of them know what
> Jesus said while praying and how did any of them know that he sweated blood?
> > > In fact, in John, Jesus does not pray and no one falls asleep. In Mark
> we find the same (almost) as in Luke, that is, details about what Jesus said
> in his prayer related by (one of?) those that were sleeping at the time. In
> Matthew, we have a similar story with detail that no one was awake to
> witness.
> > > This is a moment in Jesus' life that is of incredible importance and
> yet the writers of the gospels absolutely had to have invented it. If they
> were not above making up details about such an important moment how can you
> trust them to be relating anything else accurately?
> > > The only response that I have ever had to this question was that these
> details were revealed by the Holy Spirit to the authors. This however means
> that these words were, indeed, 'dropped straight from the mouth of God'. If
> the writers of the gospels did not get these words directly from some god
> then they made them up for dramatic effect. If these words came from the
> mouth of the god then the god was careless in his consistency. If they
> didn't then why should anything else that these men wrote be believed?
> > > The words of men can be assumed to be error-prone and subject to the
> biases of the men doing the writing (and therefore may be fairly subjected
> to analysis for trustworthiness) but if those words were the inspired words
> of a god then they can be fairly used to judge the power, intelligence,
> honesty and efficiency of the god that gives them.
> > > Luke obviously had Mark to copy from or he wouldn't have managed to
> duplicate so much of it word for word. Why did he insert words into Jesus'
> mouth? Why did he delete words? How can you consider Luke to be honest? If
> Luke was not above altering even the very words of Jesus and inserting what
> (as above in 22:41ff) was obvious fiction how can you trust anything that he
> says beyond that which is not an exact duplicate of what Mark wrote? If all
> that remains acceptable is that which is duplicated in Mark then why keep
> Luke (or Matthew)?
> > > As I have already said, huge chunks ARE identical and that, when
> combined with the fact there are obvious additions, deletions and
> alterations, makes Luke and Matthew highly suspect. John does not mimic Mark
> and as such can only be analyzed separately. Likewise Mark has to be
> analyzed separately. Luke and Matthew MUST be dismissed as completely
> untrustworthy. I realize that there are agreements between Luke and Matthew
> that are not to be found in Mark which give a strong indication of other
> sources such as Q. In fact a number of biblical scholars have reconstructed
> a 'Gospel of Q' but since we are discussing the NT as it exists and do not
> have a copy of Q there is too much that is mere speculation to be able to
> allow for it in a discussion of the veracity of the gospels. The same
> applies to the sources M and L.
> > > In fact, incorporating Q, M or L into this sort of discussion may make
> things even worse. It might indicate that even Mark may have been copied
> from a previous source and as such may have been altered before Matthew and
> Luke got a crack at doing their own renovations.
> > > If one dismisses Luke and Matthew one is left with John and Mark and
> then some comparisons can be made between the two of them. The most telling
> analysis, however, comes when one exegetes Mark in isolation and John in
> isolation. Even after such an attempt at fairness we still find
> inconsistencies within each single book in isolation.
> > > Given all of this I must admit that is completely beyond me how anyone
> can still claim certain knowledge that they are reading non-fiction at any
> given point in the NT.
> > > There are no gods so I am hardly likely to assume that the origins of
> the bible have anything to do with any gods. It is, more than anything else
> a history book. Not a history of a chronological/geographical nature (such
> as one would study in high school or college) but, rather, a history of
> ancient man's beliefs and attempts to understand his position in the
> universe (the OT is probably first and foremost no more than a history of
> ancient Jewish religious belief). It was a good try and it worked extremely
> well for those who lived thousands of years ago but it no longer stands up
> to any close scrutiny or analysis. In fact it is of no practical use except
> in attempting to understand the mind-set of man a few thousand years ago. I
> do not deny that those who wrote it may have had some things to say that are
> of value. I do not deny that there is some great poetry to be found. I do
> not deny that within it there are some profoundly ethical guidelines to be
> found. I do not deny that it actually contains some scattered historical
> veracity.
> > > However, I do deny that it can be seen as reliable evidence of the
> existence of gods, or virgin births, or people rising from the dead, or
> global floods, or towers built to reach up to heaven, or living humans
> ascending to the heavens in a fiery chariot, or the sun standing still, or
> the Red Sea parting, or a man called Jesus being the son of a god and
> physically rising up into heaven after being executed (as Carl Sagan has
> pointed out, even if he rose at the speed of light he would not yet have
> left our galaxy).
> > > My point is not that the bible should not be allowed a few trivial or
> minor inconsistencies but rather that the fact that there are literally
> thousands of inconsistencies indicates that it cannot be trusted.
> > > Should not the four gospel writers have remembered major events in
> Jesus life, like his death with some consistency? If they get the odd bit of
> wording wrong I could understand it but getting things like whether or not
> Jesus baptized anyone wrong (John compared to John) is pushing it a bit,
> isn't it?
> > > Getting Jesus' answer to the Sanhedrin's question of whether or not he
> was the messiah wrong is pushing a bit, isn't it? After all the whole point
> of the NT is that he was the messiah and yet, given the perfect
> circumstances to dramatically make that case from the very mouth of Jesus
> there is no agreement. One has him saying that he is (interestingly
i made a comment to mdb. does that bother you? i dont think it
bothered him/her. why dont you let them speak for themselves. they
dont need you to babysit them. and since when do you debate? ive
noticed you seem to be trying a bit harder lately, but you still have
a nasty habit of bashing xtianity every chance you get. even your
signature is full of contempt for xtianity isnt it? but you seem to
get all riled up if someone makes a comment against atheism. why is
that trance. try to come up with a reasonable answer this time will
you?
On Nov 7, 8:41 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 8:31 AM, showmethehoney
> <alenasha...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > nice pop up trancy....move on dear
> I think not.
> I don't allow abuse trolls to harass new members whether they theist or
> atheist and I will ensure that all new members know exactly what your
> intentions are.
> You have no business being on a debating site between atheists and
> Christians when you have no intention of engaging in debate and you target
> new members in order to discourage them from participating here.
> As long as you do that I will be on you like white on rice.
> Undermining our site and attempting to discourage new members from
> participating here is the act of a very angry, destructive, hostile person,
> irrespective of your typically Canadian passive-aggressiveness.
> Now, leave MDB and our other new members alone.
> > On Nov 7, 8:03 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 6:30 AM, showmethehoney
> > > <alenasha...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > > > it seems that a lot of atheists live to pick apart the literal
> > > > interpretation of ancient words written by 200 men and translated
> > > > mulitple times. without this, what do they have to talk about? atheism
> > > > is a disbelief in 'god', period. this isnt a lot of fodder for the
> > > > discussion table, so they simply repeat arguments against the
> > > > 'inspired word of god', despite the fact that they know it was written
> > > > by men. think about it, if someone says something to you that you
> > > > disbelieve and they cannot prove, what can you say in rebuttal? you
> > > > can say, i dont believe you, show me proof. period. end of any
> > > > meaningful conversation.
> > > If this is what you believe, then why are you here?
> > > Other than to troll, insult and convince new members this site is a waste
> > > that is?
> > > Most normal people who believe this and are incapable of actual debate
> > > wouldn't join a site like this.
> > > Why have you?
> > > You insult, you engage in debate consisting of logical fallacies, and
> > > everytime a new member joins this site, you whine about how horrible we
> > are
> > > and what a waste of time it is to debate us.
> > > Instead of trying to undermine our site why don't you join a site where
> > you
> > > will be happy and engage in the type of discussion you enjoy.
> > > Or do you enjoy trolling, insulting, and undermining/misrepresenting this
> > > site to newcomers?
> > > > On Nov 6, 11:24 pm, mdb <michaeldb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Consider the gospels as eye witness accounts. They are going to have
> > > > > different perspectives on individual cases because they are coming
> > > > > from different traditions. Matthew and John are commonly believed to
> > > > > be from the disciples or their close associates. Mark is associated
> > > > > with Peter and Luke is associated with Paul. These different early
> > > > > accounts are based upon four major Christian movements early after
> > the
> > > > > death of Christ. In any eye witness account there will be small
> > > > > differences in details. Rather than discredit them, it actually
> > > > > demonstrates their genuine desire to communicate what happened. I
> > > > > would recommend that you read The Case for Christ by Strobel if you
> > > > > are sincerely interested in these issues.
> > > > > On Nov 6, 7:30 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Again, I have been asked why The Gospels are not reliable
> > historical
> > > > documents regarding the life of Jesus.
> > > > > > Here are some thoughts. Please don't bother telling me about
> > context,
> > > > others have beat you to it. This is a comparison between the gospels
> > and the
> > > > context is each of the entire books mentioned.
> > > > > > Off we go...
> > > > > > The Matthew and Luke gospels were copied almost word for word in
> > large
> > > > chunks from Mark. If none of the gospels ever agreed with Mark word for
> > word
> > > > then this wouldn't matter. However, the fact that they were obviously
> > copied
> > > > but have verses inserted or deleted is indicative of an attempt to
> > alter the
> > > > words Mark wrote and even the words of Jesus that he relates. If Jesus
> > was
> > > > truly the son of a god would it not be reasonable to expect some
> > respect for
> > > > the earliest recording of his words by those that were copying them?
> > > > > > Can one reach any conclusion other than that Matthew and Luke were
> > not
> > > > above making changes to the text that they were copying (even
> > innocently or
> > > > naively) given such internal textual evidence? If they were not above
> > making
> > > > such changes once or twice, why not a hundred times? A case in point...
> > > > > > In Luke 22:41 we have Jesus and the disciples in the garden and
> > Jesus
> > > > moves away from them to pray. We then get some details about the
> > praying and
> > > > how he sweated blood in his 'agony' from v42 to v44. In v45 Jesus
> > returns to
> > > > the disciples and finds that they are all sleeping.
> > > > > > My question is; if they were all sleeping how did any of them know
> > what
> > > > Jesus said while praying and how did any of them know that he sweated
> > blood?
> > > > > > In fact, in John, Jesus does not pray and no one falls asleep. In
> > Mark
> > > > we find the same (almost) as in Luke, that is, details about what Jesus
> > said
> > > > in his prayer related by (one of?) those that were sleeping at the
> > time. In
> > > > Matthew, we have a similar story with detail that no one was awake to
> > > > witness.
> > > > > > This is a moment in Jesus' life that is of incredible importance
> > and
> > > > yet the writers of the gospels absolutely had to have invented it. If
> > they
> > > > were not above making up details about such an important moment how can
> > you
> > > > trust them to be relating anything else accurately?
> > > > > > The only response that I have ever had to this question was that
> > these
> > > > details were revealed by the Holy Spirit to the authors. This however
> > means
> > > > that these words were, indeed, 'dropped straight from the mouth of
> > God'. If
> > > > the writers of the gospels did not get these words directly from some
> > god
> > > > then they made them up for dramatic effect. If these words came from
> > the
> > > > mouth of the god then the god was careless in his consistency. If they
> > > > didn't then why should anything else that these men wrote be believed?
> > > > > > The words of men can be assumed to be error-prone and subject to
> > the
> > > > biases of the men doing the writing (and therefore may be fairly
> > subjected
> > > > to analysis for trustworthiness) but if those words were the inspired
> > words
> > > > of a god then they can be fairly used to judge the power, intelligence,
> > > > honesty and efficiency of the god that gives them.
> > > > > > Luke obviously had Mark to copy from or he wouldn't have managed to
> > > > duplicate so much of it word for word. Why did he insert words into
> > Jesus'
> > > > mouth? Why did he delete words? How can you consider Luke to be honest?
> > If
> > > > Luke was not above altering even the very words of Jesus and inserting
> > what
> > > > (as above in 22:41ff) was obvious fiction how can you trust anything
> > that he
> > > > says beyond that which is not an exact duplicate of what Mark wrote? If
> > all
> > > > that remains acceptable is that which is duplicated in Mark then why
> > keep
> > > > Luke (or Matthew)?
> > > > > > As I have already said, huge chunks ARE identical and that, when
> > > > combined with the fact there are obvious additions, deletions and
> > > > alterations, makes Luke and Matthew highly suspect. John does not mimic
> > Mark
> > > > and as such can only be analyzed separately. Likewise Mark has to be
> > > > analyzed separately. Luke and Matthew MUST be dismissed as completely
> > > > untrustworthy. I realize that there are agreements between Luke and
> > Matthew
> > > > that are not to be found in Mark which give a strong indication of
> > other
> > > > sources such as Q. In fact a number of biblical scholars have
> > reconstructed
> > > > a 'Gospel of Q' but since we are discussing the NT as it exists and do
> > not
> > > > have a copy of Q there is too much that is mere speculation to be able
> > to
> > > > allow for it in a discussion of the veracity of the gospels. The same
> > > > applies to the sources M and L.
> > > > > > In fact, incorporating Q, M or L into this sort of discussion may
> > make
> > > > things even worse. It might indicate that even Mark may have been
> > copied
> > > > from a previous source and as such may have been altered before Matthew
> > and
> > > > Luke got a crack at doing their own renovations.
> > > > > > If one dismisses Luke and Matthew one is left with John and Mark
> > and
> > > > then some comparisons can be made between the two of them. The most
> > telling
> > > > analysis, however, comes when one exegetes Mark in isolation and John
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 4:12 PM, showmethehoney
<alenasha...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> i made a comment to mdb. does that bother you? i dont think it
> bothered him/her. why dont you let them speak for themselves. they
> dont need you to babysit them.
When new people come here and the first things they hear are remarks like
yours which are intended to discourage people from engaging here, it's a
problem.
The fact that you can't see that says a lot about you.
> and since when do you debate? ive
> noticed you seem to be trying a bit harder lately, but you still have
> a nasty habit of bashing xtianity every chance you get. even your
> signature is full of contempt for xtianity isnt it? but you seem to
> get all riled up if someone makes a comment against atheism. why is
> that trance. try to come up with a reasonable answer this time will
> you?
> On Nov 7, 8:41 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 8:31 AM, showmethehoney
> > <alenasha...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > > nice pop up trancy....move on dear
> > I think not.
> > I don't allow abuse trolls to harass new members whether they theist or
> > atheist and I will ensure that all new members know exactly what your
> > intentions are.
> > You have no business being on a debating site between atheists and
> > Christians when you have no intention of engaging in debate and you
> target
> > new members in order to discourage them from participating here.
> > As long as you do that I will be on you like white on rice.
> > Undermining our site and attempting to discourage new members from
> > participating here is the act of a very angry, destructive, hostile
> person,
> > irrespective of your typically Canadian passive-aggressiveness.
> > Now, leave MDB and our other new members alone.
> > > On Nov 7, 8:03 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 6:30 AM, showmethehoney
> > > > <alenasha...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > > > > it seems that a lot of atheists live to pick apart the literal
> > > > > interpretation of ancient words written by 200 men and translated
> > > > > mulitple times. without this, what do they have to talk about?
> atheism
> > > > > is a disbelief in 'god', period. this isnt a lot of fodder for the
> > > > > discussion table, so they simply repeat arguments against the
> > > > > 'inspired word of god', despite the fact that they know it was
> written
> > > > > by men. think about it, if someone says something to you that you
> > > > > disbelieve and they cannot prove, what can you say in rebuttal? you
> > > > > can say, i dont believe you, show me proof. period. end of any
> > > > > meaningful conversation.
> > > > If this is what you believe, then why are you here?
> > > > Other than to troll, insult and convince new members this site is a
> waste
> > > > that is?
> > > > Most normal people who believe this and are incapable of actual
> debate
> > > > wouldn't join a site like this.
> > > > Why have you?
> > > > You insult, you engage in debate consisting of logical fallacies, and
> > > > everytime a new member joins this site, you whine about how horrible
> we
> > > are
> > > > and what a waste of time it is to debate us.
> > > > Instead of trying to undermine our site why don't you join a site
> where
> > > you
> > > > will be happy and engage in the type of discussion you enjoy.
> > > > Or do you enjoy trolling, insulting, and undermining/misrepresenting
> this
> > > > site to newcomers?
> > > > > On Nov 6, 11:24 pm, mdb <michaeldb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Consider the gospels as eye witness accounts. They are going to
> have
> > > > > > different perspectives on individual cases because they are
> coming
> > > > > > from different traditions. Matthew and John are commonly
> believed to
> > > > > > be from the disciples or their close associates. Mark is
> associated
> > > > > > with Peter and Luke is associated with Paul. These different
> early
> > > > > > accounts are based upon four major Christian movements early
> after
> > > the
> > > > > > death of Christ. In any eye witness account there will be small
> > > > > > differences in details. Rather than discredit them, it actually
> > > > > > demonstrates their genuine desire to communicate what happened.
> I
> > > > > > would recommend that you read The Case for Christ by Strobel if
> you
> > > > > > are sincerely interested in these issues.
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 7:30 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Again, I have been asked why The Gospels are not reliable
> > > historical
> > > > > documents regarding the life of Jesus.
> > > > > > > Here are some thoughts. Please don't bother telling me about
> > > context,
> > > > > others have beat you to it. This is a comparison between the
> gospels
> > > and the
> > > > > context is each of the entire books mentioned.
> > > > > > > Off we go...
> > > > > > > The Matthew and Luke gospels were copied almost word for word
> in
> > > large
> > > > > chunks from Mark. If none of the gospels ever agreed with Mark word
> for
> > > word
> > > > > then this wouldn't matter. However, the fact that they were
> obviously
> > > copied
> > > > > but have verses inserted or deleted is indicative of an attempt to
> > > alter the
> > > > > words Mark wrote and even the words of Jesus that he relates. If
> Jesus
> > > was
> > > > > truly the son of a god would it not be reasonable to expect some
> > > respect for
> > > > > the earliest recording of his words by those that were copying
> them?
> > > > > > > Can one reach any conclusion other than that Matthew and Luke
> were
> > > not
> > > > > above making changes to the text that they were copying (even
> > > innocently or
> > > > > naively) given such internal textual evidence? If they were not
> above
> > > making
> > > > > such changes once or twice, why not a hundred times? A case in
> point...
> > > > > > > In Luke 22:41 we have Jesus and the disciples in the garden and
> > > Jesus
> > > > > moves away from them to pray. We then get some details about the
> > > praying and
> > > > > how he sweated blood in his 'agony' from v42 to v44. In v45 Jesus
> > > returns to
> > > > > the disciples and finds that they are all sleeping.
> > > > > > > My question is; if they were all sleeping how did any of them
> know
> > > what
> > > > > Jesus said while praying and how did any of them know that he
> sweated
> > > blood?
> > > > > > > In fact, in John, Jesus does not pray and no one falls asleep.
> In
> > > Mark
> > > > > we find the same (almost) as in Luke, that is, details about what
> Jesus
> > > said
> > > > > in his prayer related by (one of?) those that were sleeping at the
> > > time. In
> > > > > Matthew, we have a similar story with detail that no one was awake
> to
> > > > > witness.
> > > > > > > This is a moment in Jesus' life that is of incredible
> importance
> > > and
> > > > > yet the writers of the gospels absolutely had to have invented it.
> If
> > > they
> > > > > were not above making up details about such an important moment how
> can
> > > you
> > > > > trust them to be relating anything else accurately?
> > > > > > > The only response that I have ever had to this question was
> that
> > > these
> > > > > details were revealed by the Holy Spirit to the authors. This
> however
> > > means
> > > > > that these words were, indeed, 'dropped straight from the mouth of
> > > God'. If
> > > > > the writers of the gospels did not get these words directly from
> some
> > > god
> > > > > then they made them up for dramatic effect. If these words came
> from
> > > the
> > > > > mouth of the god then the god was careless in his consistency. If
> they
> > > > > didn't then why should anything else that these men wrote be
> believed?
> > > > > > > The words of men can be assumed to be error-prone and subject
> to
> > > the
> > > > > biases of the men doing the writing (and therefore may be fairly
> > > subjected
> > > > > to analysis for trustworthiness) but if those words were the
> inspired
> > > words
> > > > > of a god then they can be fairly used to judge the power,
> intelligence,
> > > > > honesty and efficiency of the god that gives them.
> > > > > > > Luke obviously had Mark to copy from or he wouldn't have
> managed to
> > > > > duplicate so much of it word for word. Why did he insert words into
> > > Jesus'
> > > > > mouth? Why did he delete words? How can you consider Luke to be
> honest?
> > > If
> > > > > Luke was not above altering even the very words of Jesus and
> inserting
> > > what
> > > > > (as above in 22:41ff) was obvious fiction how can you trust
> anything
> > > that he
> > > > > says beyond that which is not an exact duplicate of what Mark
> wrote? If
> > > all
> > > > > that remains acceptable is that which is duplicated in Mark then
> why
> > > keep
> > > > > Luke (or Matthew)?
> > > > > > > As I have already said, huge chunks ARE identical and that,
> when
> > > > > combined with the fact there are obvious additions, deletions and
> > > > > alterations, makes Luke and Matthew highly suspect. John does not
> mimic
> > > Mark
> > > > > and as such can only be analyzed separately. Likewise Mark has to
> be
> > > > > analyzed separately. Luke and Matthew MUST be dismissed as
> completely
> > > > > untrustworthy. I realize that there are agreements between Luke and
> > > Matthew
> > > > > that are not to be found in Mark which give a strong indication of
> > > other
> > > > > sources such as Q. In fact a number of biblical scholars have
> > > reconstructed
> > > > > a
On Nov 6, 7:50 pm, Doris Ragland <dr4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We know this when Jesus was preaching the gospel ...he was under great
> pressure
Observer
What in the F**k is the matter with your brain? How could it conceive
of a deity which is omnipresent , omniscient, and omnipotent as being
under pressure from any source?
Your idiosyncratic stupidity has conjured acceptance of a hypothetical
god emerged from the stuff of magic , crossbred with the fetishistic
nonsense of sadomasochism and this freak , Jesus , said to be half man
half god. You see nothing wrong with this picture?
and very little was recorded when he was alive-
Observer
There is no reason to believe that this poor naive itinerant preacher
ever lived save in the mind of primitive crazies.
-It was told of
> Jesus before hand and recorded their was a Messiah coming and he would be
> the Savior and the son of God-
Observer
The idiotic superstitious filth of the Jews is on no consequence to
any educated mind with an I.Q. capable of true human experience.
I have a news flash for you Jesus is no Christ . As a matter of fact
there exists not one iota of scientifically verifiable substantiating
data for the existence of or any act of any god.
-when Jesus walked upon this earth
Observer
There is no proof that the Jesus discussed in the buy bull ever walked
upon this earth was crucified or resurected.
Ugh!What stupidity!
in his
> short life..there was not much recorded but by stories of the gentiles that
> by word and very little written down..the chruches at that time did not
> except his words and therefore did not uplift it and give it
> reconition--
Observer
Nor is there any reason that *we* should do so.
-what was recorded more so after his death...in pin and
> paper...but alot of this was lost also..the disciples and others recorded
> it--why so that it might spread and still be preached and a chruch was
> founded on the gospels-
Observer
Which are at best the mind vomit of primitive , superstitious savages,
is pure disinformation and unsupportable ,and quite stupid, lies
which contradict each other . ( See Simon's Research)
All of the bullshit of a resurrection, a heaven , a hell, the
existence of angels, demons, the utterly stupid idea of original sin ,
the great universal flood ,and the balance contained in the bible
which is dis-proven by modern day science are criminally deleterious
to the human mind and repugnant to one any who has chosen the hard
earned but sure footed path to education in which contained
instruction in the, high art ,of critical thought, familiarization
with the data contained diverse fields of scientific disciplines and
the ability to apply scientific method thereto.. Such being is the
only reliable process by which we traverse from greater to lesser
ignorance.
This coupled with the intestinal fortitude to alter their personal
fictions so that they better represent the actualities of this
universe is the only hope for any real tenure of human kind . We are a
young specie and have not yet displayed the abilities necessary to
long term survival ( such as hundreds of millions or or even billions
of years. With out the intensive use and universal acceptance of
scientific method as our only source of usable and dependable
information we will fail the test and become extinct sooner rather
than latter.
> I think it is very important of what Bible you read and to choose to read
> out of---but most Bible's have same context--I have found the collins
> Bible--had the word tamploine in it and other things that did not match with
> the true gospel-
Observer
Gospel ? Are you daft ?
What good news is contained therein which can be relied upon to be
true? The so called gospels tell the most completely stupid story ever
made up by the uneducated , superstitious , undisciplined minds of
early savages.
There exists no scientifically verifiable substantiating proving that
these idiotic writings and their reference to the nonsense of things ,
places, and conditions, metaphysical , or even the existence of poor
Jesus or the resurrection thereof have any validity.
-There are Bible's that are hidden under a christain
> context--and myself I feel is decieving--I have look at a Bible called
> Shooter's Bible--as thick as probably everything in the Jewish
> temples---word associated (like a dictionary) totally not of God) I have
> read Bibles that is missing two or three of the Books --I find for myself
> the King James is the closest--to what I feel like has not been taken away
> much-or added too...the reason King James version has books to
> translate--cause it is hard for people to understand--The King James version
> goes way back---and of coarse the New Testement was add to in time---
Observer
The entirety of the psychotic filth contained in the bible is
superstitious filth.
Quote
This web site is designed to spread the vicious truth about the
Bible. For far too long priests and preachers have completely ignored
the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes. The so called
“God” of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout. This
God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-
murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing,
not to mention the killing of unborn children. I have included
references to the Biblical passages, so grab your Bible and follow
along. You can also follow along with on-line Bibles such as
BibleStudyTools.net or SkepticsAnnotatedBible.com.
I only bother with your hideous belief system because I suspect there
is a glimmer of intelligence in your mind that might, if properly
cultivated , release you from the psychosis of christian domination/
slavery, boorishness, and the misanthropy produced of, belief in such
filth.
I suggest that for the sake of your very humanity , providing that
any such has escaped the atrophying effect of this psychotic meme,
that you learn to question and to avail your self of such education as
you are capable of enjoying.
Observer
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there
be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of
blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
End quote
I wish you well but do detest this psychotic/superstitious filth which
is taking away your mind.
I hope , most earnestly , that it is not too late for you.
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Again, I have been asked why The Gospels are not reliable historical
> > documents regarding the life of Jesus.
> > Here are some thoughts. Please don't bother telling me about context,
> > others have beat you to it. This is a comparison between the gospels and the
> > context is each of the entire books mentioned.
> > Off we go...
> > The Matthew and Luke gospels were copied almost word for word in large
> > chunks from Mark. If none of the gospels ever agreed with Mark word for word
> > then this wouldn't matter. However, the fact that they were obviously copied
> > but have verses inserted or deleted is indicative of an attempt to alter the
> > words Mark wrote and even the words of Jesus that he relates. If Jesus was
> > truly the son of a god would it not be reasonable to expect some respect for
> > the earliest recording of his words by those that were copying them?
> > Can one reach any conclusion other than that Matthew and Luke were not
> > above making changes to the text that they were copying (even innocently or
> > naively) given such internal textual evidence? If they were not above making
> > such changes once or twice, why not a hundred times? A case in point...
> > In Luke 22:41 we have Jesus and the disciples in the garden and Jesus moves
> > away from them to pray. We then get some details about the praying and how
> > he sweated blood in his 'agony' from v42 to v44. In v45 Jesus returns to the
> > disciples and finds that they are all sleeping.
> > My question is; if they were all sleeping how did any of them know what
> > Jesus said while praying and how did any of them know that he sweated blood?
> > In fact, in John, Jesus does not pray and no one falls asleep. In Mark we
> > find the same (almost) as in Luke, that is, details about what Jesus said in
> > his prayer related by (one of?) those that were sleeping at the time. In
> > Matthew, we have a similar story with detail that no one was awake to
> > witness.
> > This is a moment in Jesus' life that is of incredible importance and yet
> > the writers of the gospels absolutely had to have invented it. If they were
> > not above making up details about such an important moment how can you trust
> > them to be relating anything else accurately?
> > The only response that I have ever had to this question was that these
> > details were revealed by the Holy Spirit to the authors. This however means
> > that these words were, indeed, 'dropped straight from the mouth of God'. If
> > the writers of the gospels did not get these words directly from some god
> > then they made them up for dramatic effect. If these words came from the
> > mouth of the god then the god was careless in his consistency. If they
> > didn't then why should anything else that these men wrote be believed?
> > The words of men can be assumed to be error-prone and subject to the biases
> > of the men doing the writing (and therefore may be fairly subjected to
> > analysis for trustworthiness) but if those words were the inspired words of
> > a god then they can be fairly used to judge the power, intelligence, honesty
> > and efficiency of the god that gives them.
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 7:50 pm, Doris Ragland <dr4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We know this when Jesus was preaching the gospel ...he was under great
> > pressure
> Observer
> What in the F**k is the matter with your brain? How could it conceive
> of a deity which is omnipresent , omniscient, and omnipotent as being
> under pressure from any source?
> Your idiosyncratic stupidity has conjured acceptance of a hypothetical
> god emerged from the stuff of magic , crossbred with the fetishistic
> nonsense of sadomasochism and this freak , Jesus , said to be half man
> half god. You see nothing wrong with this picture?
> and very little was recorded when he was alive-
> Observer
> There is no reason to believe that this poor naive itinerant preacher
> ever lived save in the mind of primitive crazies.
> -It was told of
> > Jesus before hand and recorded their was a Messiah coming and he would be
> > the Savior and the son of God-
> Observer
> The idiotic superstitious filth of the Jews is on no consequence to
> any educated mind with an I.Q. capable of true human experience.
> I have a news flash for you Jesus is no Christ . As a matter of fact
> there exists not one iota of scientifically verifiable substantiating
> data for the existence of or any act of any god.
> -when Jesus walked upon this earth
> Observer
> There is no proof that the Jesus discussed in the buy bull ever walked
> upon this earth was crucified or resurected.
> Ugh!What stupidity!
> in his
> > short life..there was not much recorded but by stories of the gentiles
> that
> > by word and very little written down..the chruches at that time did not
> > except his words and therefore did not uplift it and give it
> > reconition--
> Observer
> Nor is there any reason that *we* should do so.
> -what was recorded more so after his death...in pin and
> > paper...but alot of this was lost also..the disciples and others recorded
> > it--why so that it might spread and still be preached and a chruch was
> > founded on the gospels-
> Observer
> Which are at best the mind vomit of primitive , superstitious savages,
> is pure disinformation and unsupportable ,and quite stupid, lies
> which contradict each other . ( See Simon's Research)
> All of the bullshit of a resurrection, a heaven , a hell, the
> existence of angels, demons, the utterly stupid idea of original sin ,
> the great universal flood ,and the balance contained in the bible
> which is dis-proven by modern day science are criminally deleterious
> to the human mind and repugnant to one any who has chosen the hard
> earned but sure footed path to education in which contained
> instruction in the, high art ,of critical thought, familiarization
> with the data contained diverse fields of scientific disciplines and
> the ability to apply scientific method thereto.. Such being is the
> only reliable process by which we traverse from greater to lesser
> ignorance.
> This coupled with the intestinal fortitude to alter their personal
> fictions so that they better represent the actualities of this
> universe is the only hope for any real tenure of human kind . We are a
> young specie and have not yet displayed the abilities necessary to
> long term survival ( such as hundreds of millions or or even billions
> of years. With out the intensive use and universal acceptance of
> scientific method as our only source of usable and dependable
> information we will fail the test and become extinct sooner rather
> than latter.
> > I think it is very important of what Bible you read and to choose to read
> > out of---but most Bible's have same context--I have found the collins
> > Bible--had the word tamploine in it and other things that did not match
> with
> > the true gospel-
> Observer
> Gospel ? Are you daft ?
> What good news is contained therein which can be relied upon to be
> true? The so called gospels tell the most completely stupid story ever
> made up by the uneducated , superstitious , undisciplined minds of
> early savages.
> There exists no scientifically verifiable substantiating proving that
> these idiotic writings and their reference to the nonsense of things ,
> places, and conditions, metaphysical , or even the existence of poor
> Jesus or the resurrection thereof have any validity.
> -There are Bible's that are hidden under a christain
> > context--and myself I feel is decieving--I have look at a Bible called
> > Shooter's Bible--as thick as probably everything in the Jewish
> > temples---word associated (like a dictionary) totally not of God) I have
> > read Bibles that is missing two or three of the Books --I find for myself
> > the King James is the closest--to what I feel like has not been taken
> away
> > much-or added too...the reason King James version has books to
> > translate--cause it is hard for people to understand--The King James
> version
> > goes way back---and of coarse the New Testement was add to in time---
> Observer
> The entirety of the psychotic filth contained in the bible is
> superstitious filth.
> Quote
> This web site is designed to spread the vicious truth about the
> Bible. For far too long priests and preachers have completely ignored
> the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes. The so called
> “God” of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout. This
> God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-
> murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing,
> not to mention the killing of unborn children. I have included
> references to the Biblical passages, so grab your Bible and follow
> along. You can also follow along with on-line Bibles such as
> BibleStudyTools.net or SkepticsAnnotatedBible.com.
> I only bother with your hideous belief system because I suspect there
> is a glimmer of intelligence in your mind that might, if properly
> cultivated , release you from the psychosis of christian domination/
> slavery, boorishness, and the misanthropy produced of, belief in such
> filth.
> I suggest that for the sake of your very humanity , providing that
> any such has escaped the atrophying effect of this psychotic meme,
> that you learn to question and to avail your self of such education as
> you are capable of enjoying.
> Observer
> Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there
> be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of
> blindfolded fear.
> -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
> End quote
> I wish you well but do detest this psychotic/superstitious filth which
> is taking away your mind.
> I hope , most earnestly , that it is not too late for you.
> Regards
> Psychonomist
> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Again, I have been asked why The Gospels are not reliable historical
> > > documents regarding the life of Jesus.
> > > Here are some thoughts. Please don't bother telling me about context,
> > > others have beat you to it. This is a comparison between the gospels
> and the
> > > context is each of the entire books mentioned.
> > > Off we go...
> > > The Matthew and Luke gospels were copied almost word for word in large
> > > chunks from Mark. If none of the gospels ever agreed with Mark word for
> word
> > > then this wouldn't matter. However, the fact that they were obviously
> copied
> > > but have verses inserted or deleted is indicative of an attempt to
> alter the
> > > words Mark wrote and even the words of Jesus that he relates. If Jesus
> was
> > > truly the son of a god would it not be reasonable to expect some
> respect for
> > > the earliest recording of his words by those that were copying them?
> > > Can one reach any conclusion other than that Matthew and Luke were not
> > > above making changes to the text that they were copying (even
> innocently or
> > > naively) given such internal textual evidence? If they were not above
> making
> > > such changes once or twice, why not a hundred times? A case in point...
> > > In Luke 22:41 we have Jesus and the disciples in the garden and Jesus
> moves
> > > away from them to pray. We then get some details about the praying and
> how
> > > he sweated blood in his 'agony' from v42 to v44. In v45 Jesus returns
> to the
> > > disciples and finds that they are all sleeping.
> > > My question is; if they were all sleeping how did any of them know what
> > > Jesus said while praying and how did any of them know that he sweated
> blood?
> > > In fact, in John, Jesus does not pray and no one falls asleep. In Mark
> we
> > > find the same (almost) as in Luke, that is, details about what Jesus
> said in
> > > his prayer related by (one of?) those that were sleeping at the time.
> In
> > > Matthew, we have a similar story with detail that no one was awake to
> > > witness.
> > > This is a moment in Jesus' life that is of incredible importance and
> yet
> > > the writers of the gospels absolutely had to have invented it. If they
> were
> > > not above making up details about such an important moment how can you
> trust
> > > them to be relating anything else accurately?
> > > The only response that I have ever had to this question was that these
> > > details were revealed by the Holy Spirit to the authors. This however
> means
> > > that these words were, indeed, 'dropped straight from the mouth of
> God'. If
> > > the writers of the gospels did not get these words
On Nov 7, 1:12 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> i made a comment to mdb. does that bother you? i dont think it
> bothered him/her. why dont you let them speak for themselves. they
> dont need you to babysit them.
That's hilarious coming from you, who monopolizes conversations
between atheists and theists on the pretense that the theists are
victims of "name calling." Theists seem to be able to dish it out and
take it just fine on the rare occassions when it isn't just a figment
of your narcissism.
> and since when do you debate? ive
> noticed you seem to be trying a bit harder lately, but you still have
> a nasty habit of bashing xtianity every chance you get. even your
> signature is full of contempt for xtianity isnt it? but you seem to
> get all riled up if someone makes a comment against atheism. why is
> that trance. try to come up with a reasonable answer this time will
> you?
> On Nov 7, 8:41 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 8:31 AM, showmethehoney
> > <alenasha...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > > nice pop up trancy....move on dear
> > I think not.
> > I don't allow abuse trolls to harass new members whether they theist or
> > atheist and I will ensure that all new members know exactly what your
> > intentions are.
> > You have no business being on a debating site between atheists and
> > Christians when you have no intention of engaging in debate and you target
> > new members in order to discourage them from participating here.
> > As long as you do that I will be on you like white on rice.
> > Undermining our site and attempting to discourage new members from
> > participating here is the act of a very angry, destructive, hostile person,
> > irrespective of your typically Canadian passive-aggressiveness.
> > Now, leave MDB and our other new members alone.
> > > On Nov 7, 8:03 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 6:30 AM, showmethehoney
> > > > <alenasha...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > > > > it seems that a lot of atheists live to pick apart the literal
> > > > > interpretation of ancient words written by 200 men and translated
> > > > > mulitple times. without this, what do they have to talk about? atheism
> > > > > is a disbelief in 'god', period. this isnt a lot of fodder for the
> > > > > discussion table, so they simply repeat arguments against the
> > > > > 'inspired word of god', despite the fact that they know it was written
> > > > > by men. think about it, if someone says something to you that you
> > > > > disbelieve and they cannot prove, what can you say in rebuttal? you
> > > > > can say, i dont believe you, show me proof. period. end of any
> > > > > meaningful conversation.
> > > > If this is what you believe, then why are you here?
> > > > Other than to troll, insult and convince new members this site is a waste
> > > > that is?
> > > > Most normal people who believe this and are incapable of actual debate
> > > > wouldn't join a site like this.
> > > > Why have you?
> > > > You insult, you engage in debate consisting of logical fallacies, and
> > > > everytime a new member joins this site, you whine about how horrible we
> > > are
> > > > and what a waste of time it is to debate us.
> > > > Instead of trying to undermine our site why don't you join a site where
> > > you
> > > > will be happy and engage in the type of discussion you enjoy.
> > > > Or do you enjoy trolling, insulting, and undermining/misrepresenting this
> > > > site to newcomers?
> > > > > On Nov 6, 11:24 pm, mdb <michaeldb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Consider the gospels as eye witness accounts. They are going to have
> > > > > > different perspectives on individual cases because they are coming
> > > > > > from different traditions. Matthew and John are commonly believed to
> > > > > > be from the disciples or their close associates. Mark is associated
> > > > > > with Peter and Luke is associated with Paul. These different early
> > > > > > accounts are based upon four major Christian movements early after
> > > the
> > > > > > death of Christ. In any eye witness account there will be small
> > > > > > differences in details. Rather than discredit them, it actually
> > > > > > demonstrates their genuine desire to communicate what happened. I
> > > > > > would recommend that you read The Case for Christ by Strobel if you
> > > > > > are sincerely interested in these issues.
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 7:30 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Again, I have been asked why The Gospels are not reliable
> > > historical
> > > > > documents regarding the life of Jesus.
> > > > > > > Here are some thoughts. Please don't bother telling me about
> > > context,
> > > > > others have beat you to it. This is a comparison between the gospels
> > > and the
> > > > > context is each of the entire books mentioned.
> > > > > > > Off we go...
> > > > > > > The Matthew and Luke gospels were copied almost word for word in
> > > large
> > > > > chunks from Mark. If none of the gospels ever agreed with Mark word for
> > > word
> > > > > then this wouldn't matter. However, the fact that they were obviously
> > > copied
> > > > > but have verses inserted or deleted is indicative of an attempt to
> > > alter the
> > > > > words Mark wrote and even the words of Jesus that he relates. If Jesus
> > > was
> > > > > truly the son of a god would it not be reasonable to expect some
> > > respect for
> > > > > the earliest recording of his words by those that were copying them?
> > > > > > > Can one reach any conclusion other than that Matthew and Luke were
> > > not
> > > > > above making changes to the text that they were copying (even
> > > innocently or
> > > > > naively) given such internal textual evidence? If they were not above
> > > making
> > > > > such changes once or twice, why not a hundred times? A case in point...
> > > > > > > In Luke 22:41 we have Jesus and the disciples in the garden and
> > > Jesus
> > > > > moves away from them to pray. We then get some details about the
> > > praying and
> > > > > how he sweated blood in his 'agony' from v42 to v44. In v45 Jesus
> > > returns to
> > > > > the disciples and finds that they are all sleeping.
> > > > > > > My question is; if they were all sleeping how did any of them know
> > > what
> > > > > Jesus said while praying and how did any of them know that he sweated
> > > blood?
> > > > > > > In fact, in John, Jesus does not pray and no one falls asleep. In
> > > Mark
> > > > > we find the same (almost) as in Luke, that is, details about what Jesus
> > > said
> > > > > in his prayer related by (one of?) those that were sleeping at the
> > > time. In
> > > > > Matthew, we have a similar story with detail that no one was awake to
> > > > > witness.
> > > > > > > This is a moment in Jesus' life that is of incredible importance
> > > and
> > > > > yet the writers of the gospels absolutely had to have invented it. If
> > > they
> > > > > were not above making up details about such an important moment how can
> > > you
> > > > > trust them to be relating anything else accurately?
> > > > > > > The only response that I have ever had to this question was that
> > > these
> > > > > details were revealed by the Holy Spirit to the authors. This however
> > > means
> > > > > that these words were, indeed, 'dropped straight from the mouth of
> > > God'. If
> > > > > the writers of the gospels did not get these words directly from some
> > > god
> > > > > then they made them up for dramatic effect. If these words came from
> > > the
> > > > > mouth of the god then the god was careless in his consistency. If they
> > > > > didn't then why should anything else that these men wrote be believed?
> > > > > > > The words of men can be assumed to be error-prone and subject to
> > > the
> > > > > biases of the men doing the writing (and therefore may be fairly
> > > subjected
> > > > > to analysis for trustworthiness) but if those words were the inspired
> > > words
> > > > > of a god then they can be fairly used to judge the power, intelligence,
> > > > > honesty and efficiency of the god that gives them.
> > > > > > > Luke obviously had Mark to copy from or he wouldn't have managed to
> > > > > duplicate so much of it word for word. Why did he insert words into
> > > Jesus'
> > > > > mouth? Why did he delete words? How can you consider Luke to be honest?
> > > If
> > > > > Luke was not above altering even the very words of Jesus and inserting
> > > what
> > > > > (as above in 22:41ff) was obvious fiction how can you trust anything
> > > that he
> > > > > says beyond that which is not an exact duplicate of what Mark wrote? If
> > > all
> > > > > that remains acceptable is that which is duplicated in Mark then why
> > > keep
> > > > > Luke (or Matthew)?
> > > > > > > As I have already said, huge chunks ARE identical and that, when
> > > > > combined with the fact there are obvious additions, deletions and
> > > > > alterations, makes Luke and Matthew highly suspect. John does not mimic
> > > Mark
> > > > > and as such can only be analyzed separately. Likewise Mark has to be
> > > > > analyzed separately. Luke and Matthew MUST be dismissed as completely
> > > > > untrustworthy. I realize that there are agreements between Luke and
> > > Matthew
> > > > > that are not to be found in Mark which give a strong indication of
> > > other
> > > > > sources such as Q. In fact a number of biblical scholars have
> > > reconstructed
> > > > > a 'Gospel of Q' but since we are discussing the NT as it exists and do
> > > not
> > > > > have a copy of Q there is too much that is mere speculation to
Do I really...I geuss I need to look at this(monopolizes) conversation's...I
really did not know I was doing this...I enjoy responding to the
threads....but they say an outsider can see more than you
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 1:12 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > i made a comment to mdb. does that bother you? i dont think it
> > bothered him/her. why dont you let them speak for themselves. they
> > dont need you to babysit them.
> That's hilarious coming from you, who monopolizes conversations
> between atheists and theists on the pretense that the theists are
> victims of "name calling." Theists seem to be able to dish it out and
> take it just fine on the rare occassions when it isn't just a figment
> of your narcissism.
> > and since when do you debate? ive
> > noticed you seem to be trying a bit harder lately, but you still have
> > a nasty habit of bashing xtianity every chance you get. even your
> > signature is full of contempt for xtianity isnt it? but you seem to
> > get all riled up if someone makes a comment against atheism. why is
> > that trance. try to come up with a reasonable answer this time will
> > you?
> > On Nov 7, 8:41 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 8:31 AM, showmethehoney
> > > <alenasha...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > > > nice pop up trancy....move on dear
> > > I think not.
> > > I don't allow abuse trolls to harass new members whether they theist or
> > > atheist and I will ensure that all new members know exactly what your
> > > intentions are.
> > > You have no business being on a debating site between atheists and
> > > Christians when you have no intention of engaging in debate and you
> target
> > > new members in order to discourage them from participating here.
> > > As long as you do that I will be on you like white on rice.
> > > Undermining our site and attempting to discourage new members from
> > > participating here is the act of a very angry, destructive, hostile
> person,
> > > irrespective of your typically Canadian passive-aggressiveness.
> > > Now, leave MDB and our other new members alone.
> > > > On Nov 7, 8:03 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 6:30 AM, showmethehoney
> > > > > <alenasha...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > it seems that a lot of atheists live to pick apart the literal
> > > > > > interpretation of ancient words written by 200 men and translated
> > > > > > mulitple times. without this, what do they have to talk about?
> atheism
> > > > > > is a disbelief in 'god', period. this isnt a lot of fodder for
> the
> > > > > > discussion table, so they simply repeat arguments against the
> > > > > > 'inspired word of god', despite the fact that they know it was
> written
> > > > > > by men. think about it, if someone says something to you that you
> > > > > > disbelieve and they cannot prove, what can you say in rebuttal?
> you
> > > > > > can say, i dont believe you, show me proof. period. end of any
> > > > > > meaningful conversation.
> > > > > If this is what you believe, then why are you here?
> > > > > Other than to troll, insult and convince new members this site is a
> waste
> > > > > that is?
> > > > > Most normal people who believe this and are incapable of actual
> debate
> > > > > wouldn't join a site like this.
> > > > > Why have you?
> > > > > You insult, you engage in debate consisting of logical fallacies,
> and
> > > > > everytime a new member joins this site, you whine about how
> horrible we
> > > > are
> > > > > and what a waste of time it is to debate us.
> > > > > Instead of trying to undermine our site why don't you join a site
> where
> > > > you
> > > > > will be happy and engage in the type of discussion you enjoy.
> > > > > Or do you enjoy trolling, insulting, and
> undermining/misrepresenting this
> > > > > site to newcomers?
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 11:24 pm, mdb <michaeldb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Consider the gospels as eye witness accounts. They are going
> to have
> > > > > > > different perspectives on individual cases because they are
> coming
> > > > > > > from different traditions. Matthew and John are commonly
> believed to
> > > > > > > be from the disciples or their close associates. Mark is
> associated
> > > > > > > with Peter and Luke is associated with Paul. These different
> early
> > > > > > > accounts are based upon four major Christian movements early
> after
> > > > the
> > > > > > > death of Christ. In any eye witness account there will be
> small
> > > > > > > differences in details. Rather than discredit them, it
> actually
> > > > > > > demonstrates their genuine desire to communicate what happened.
> I
> > > > > > > would recommend that you read The Case for Christ by Strobel if
> you
> > > > > > > are sincerely interested in these issues.
> > > > > > > On Nov 6, 7:30 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Again, I have been asked why The Gospels are not reliable
> > > > historical
> > > > > > documents regarding the life of Jesus.
> > > > > > > > Here are some thoughts. Please don't bother telling me about
> > > > context,
> > > > > > others have beat you to it. This is a comparison between the
> gospels
> > > > and the
> > > > > > context is each of the entire books mentioned.
> > > > > > > > Off we go...
> > > > > > > > The Matthew and Luke gospels were copied almost word for word
> in
> > > > large
> > > > > > chunks from Mark. If none of the gospels ever agreed with Mark
> word for
> > > > word
> > > > > > then this wouldn't matter. However, the fact that they were
> obviously
> > > > copied
> > > > > > but have verses inserted or deleted is indicative of an attempt
> to
> > > > alter the
> > > > > > words Mark wrote and even the words of Jesus that he relates. If
> Jesus
> > > > was
> > > > > > truly the son of a god would it not be reasonable to expect some
> > > > respect for
> > > > > > the earliest recording of his words by those that were copying
> them?
> > > > > > > > Can one reach any conclusion other than that Matthew and Luke
> were
> > > > not
> > > > > > above making changes to the text that they were copying (even
> > > > innocently or
> > > > > > naively) given such internal textual evidence? If they were not
> above
> > > > making
> > > > > > such changes once or twice, why not a hundred times? A case in
> point...
> > > > > > > > In Luke 22:41 we have Jesus and the disciples in the garden
> and
> > > > Jesus
> > > > > > moves away from them to pray. We then get some details about the
> > > > praying and
> > > > > > how he sweated blood in his 'agony' from v42 to v44. In v45 Jesus
> > > > returns to
> > > > > > the disciples and finds that they are all sleeping.
> > > > > > > > My question is; if they were all sleeping how did any of them
> know
> > > > what
> > > > > > Jesus said while praying and how did any of them know that he
> sweated
> > > > blood?
> > > > > > > > In fact, in John, Jesus does not pray and no one falls
> asleep. In
> > > > Mark
> > > > > > we find the same (almost) as in Luke, that is, details about what
> Jesus
> > > > said
> > > > > > in his prayer related by (one of?) those that were sleeping at
> the
> > > > time. In
> > > > > > Matthew, we have a similar story with detail that no one was
> awake to
> > > > > > witness.
> > > > > > > > This is a moment in Jesus' life that is of incredible
> importance
> > > > and
> > > > > > yet the writers of the gospels absolutely had to have invented
> it. If
> > > > they
> > > > > > were not above making up details about such an important moment
> how can
> > > > you
> > > > > > trust them to be relating anything else accurately?
> > > > > > > > The only response that I have ever had to this question was
> that
> > > > these
> > > > > > details were revealed by the Holy Spirit to the authors. This
> however
> > > > means
> > > > > > that these words were, indeed, 'dropped straight from the mouth
> of
> > > > God'. If
> > > > > > the writers of the gospels did not get these words directly from
> some
> > > > god
> > > > > > then they made them up for dramatic effect. If these words came
> from
> > > > the
> > > > > > mouth of the god then the god was careless in his consistency. If
> they
> > > > > > didn't then why should anything else that these men wrote be
> believed?
> > > > > > > > The words of men can be assumed to be error-prone and subject
> to
> > > > the
> > > > > > biases of the men doing the writing (and therefore may be fairly
> > > > subjected
> > > > > > to analysis for trustworthiness) but if those words were the
> inspired
> > > > words
> > > > > > of a god then they can be fairly used to judge the power,
> intelligence,
> > > > > > honesty and efficiency of the god that gives them.
> > > > > > > > Luke obviously had Mark to copy from or he wouldn't have
> managed to
> > > > > > duplicate so much of it word for word. Why did he insert words
> into
> > > > Jesus'
> > > > > > mouth? Why did he delete words? How can you consider Luke to be
> honest?
> > > > If
> > > > > > Luke was not above altering even the very words of Jesus and
> inserting
> > > > what
> > > > > > (as above in 22:41ff) was obvious fiction how can you trust
> anything
> > > > that he
> > > > > > says beyond that which is not an exact duplicate of what Mark
> wrote? If
> > > > all
> > > > > > that remains acceptable is that which is duplicated in Mark then
> why
> > > > keep
> > > > > > Luke (or Matthew)?
Ok Neil had to look the word up---ego have none---only what you would say
that I have and deceit have none---Neil this I can tell you and know you are
so very, very, very, wrong....how do I know this because I know myself....
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Doris Ragland <dr4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do I really...I geuss I need to look at this(monopolizes)
> conversation's...I really did not know I was doing this...I enjoy responding
> to the threads....but they say an outsider can see more than you
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 1:12 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > i made a comment to mdb. does that bother you? i dont think it
>> > bothered him/her. why dont you let them speak for themselves. they
>> > dont need you to babysit them.
>> That's hilarious coming from you, who monopolizes conversations
>> between atheists and theists on the pretense that the theists are
>> victims of "name calling." Theists seem to be able to dish it out and
>> take it just fine on the rare occassions when it isn't just a figment
>> of your narcissism.
>> > and since when do you debate? ive
>> > noticed you seem to be trying a bit harder lately, but you still have
>> > a nasty habit of bashing xtianity every chance you get. even your
>> > signature is full of contempt for xtianity isnt it? but you seem to
>> > get all riled up if someone makes a comment against atheism. why is
>> > that trance. try to come up with a reasonable answer this time will
>> > you?
>> > On Nov 7, 8:41 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 8:31 AM, showmethehoney
>> > > <alenasha...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>> > > > nice pop up trancy....move on dear
>> > > I think not.
>> > > I don't allow abuse trolls to harass new members whether they theist
>> or
>> > > atheist and I will ensure that all new members know exactly what your
>> > > intentions are.
>> > > You have no business being on a debating site between atheists and
>> > > Christians when you have no intention of engaging in debate and you
>> target
>> > > new members in order to discourage them from participating here.
>> > > As long as you do that I will be on you like white on rice.
>> > > Undermining our site and attempting to discourage new members from
>> > > participating here is the act of a very angry, destructive, hostile
>> person,
>> > > irrespective of your typically Canadian passive-aggressiveness.
>> > > Now, leave MDB and our other new members alone.
>> > > > On Nov 7, 8:03 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 6:30 AM, showmethehoney
>> > > > > <alenasha...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>> > > > > > it seems that a lot of atheists live to pick apart the literal
>> > > > > > interpretation of ancient words written by 200 men and
>> translated
>> > > > > > mulitple times. without this, what do they have to talk about?
>> atheism
>> > > > > > is a disbelief in 'god', period. this isnt a lot of fodder for
>> the
>> > > > > > discussion table, so they simply repeat arguments against the
>> > > > > > 'inspired word of god', despite the fact that they know it was
>> written
>> > > > > > by men. think about it, if someone says something to you that
>> you
>> > > > > > disbelieve and they cannot prove, what can you say in rebuttal?
>> you
>> > > > > > can say, i dont believe you, show me proof. period. end of any
>> > > > > > meaningful conversation.
>> > > > > If this is what you believe, then why are you here?
>> > > > > Other than to troll, insult and convince new members this site is
>> a waste
>> > > > > that is?
>> > > > > Most normal people who believe this and are incapable of actual
>> debate
>> > > > > wouldn't join a site like this.
>> > > > > Why have you?
>> > > > > You insult, you engage in debate consisting of logical fallacies,
>> and
>> > > > > everytime a new member joins this site, you whine about how
>> horrible we
>> > > > are
>> > > > > and what a waste of time it is to debate us.
>> > > > > Instead of trying to undermine our site why don't you join a site
>> where
>> > > > you
>> > > > > will be happy and engage in the type of discussion you enjoy.
>> > > > > Or do you enjoy trolling, insulting, and
>> undermining/misrepresenting this
>> > > > > site to newcomers?
>> > > > > > On Nov 6, 11:24 pm, mdb <michaeldb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > Consider the gospels as eye witness accounts. They are going
>> to have
>> > > > > > > different perspectives on individual cases because they are
>> coming
>> > > > > > > from different traditions. Matthew and John are commonly
>> believed to
>> > > > > > > be from the disciples or their close associates. Mark is
>> associated
>> > > > > > > with Peter and Luke is associated with Paul. These different
>> early
>> > > > > > > accounts are based upon four major Christian movements early
>> after
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > death of Christ. In any eye witness account there will be
>> small
>> > > > > > > differences in details. Rather than discredit them, it
>> actually
>> > > > > > > demonstrates their genuine desire to communicate what
>> happened. I
>> > > > > > > would recommend that you read The Case for Christ by Strobel
>> if you
>> > > > > > > are sincerely interested in these issues.
>> > > > > > > On Nov 6, 7:30 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > Again, I have been asked why The Gospels are not reliable
>> > > > historical
>> > > > > > documents regarding the life of Jesus.
>> > > > > > > > Here are some thoughts. Please don't bother telling me about
>> > > > context,
>> > > > > > others have beat you to it. This is a comparison between the
>> gospels
>> > > > and the
>> > > > > > context is each of the entire books mentioned.
>> > > > > > > > Off we go...
>> > > > > > > > The Matthew and Luke gospels were copied almost word for
>> word in
>> > > > large
>> > > > > > chunks from Mark. If none of the gospels ever agreed with Mark
>> word for
>> > > > word
>> > > > > > then this wouldn't matter. However, the fact that they were
>> obviously
>> > > > copied
>> > > > > > but have verses inserted or deleted is indicative of an attempt
>> to
>> > > > alter the
>> > > > > > words Mark wrote and even the words of Jesus that he relates. If
>> Jesus
>> > > > was
>> > > > > > truly the son of a god would it not be reasonable to expect some
>> > > > respect for
>> > > > > > the earliest recording of his words by those that were copying
>> them?
>> > > > > > > > Can one reach any conclusion other than that Matthew and
>> Luke were
>> > > > not
>> > > > > > above making changes to the text that they were copying (even
>> > > > innocently or
>> > > > > > naively) given such internal textual evidence? If they were not
>> above
>> > > > making
>> > > > > > such changes once or twice, why not a hundred times? A case in
>> point...
>> > > > > > > > In Luke 22:41 we have Jesus and the disciples in the garden
>> and
>> > > > Jesus
>> > > > > > moves away from them to pray. We then get some details about the
>> > > > praying and
>> > > > > > how he sweated blood in his 'agony' from v42 to v44. In v45
>> Jesus
>> > > > returns to
>> > > > > > the disciples and finds that they are all sleeping.
>> > > > > > > > My question is; if they were all sleeping how did any of
>> them know
>> > > > what
>> > > > > > Jesus said while praying and how did any of them know that he
>> sweated
>> > > > blood?
>> > > > > > > > In fact, in John, Jesus does not pray and no one falls
>> asleep. In
>> > > > Mark
>> > > > > > we find the same (almost) as in Luke, that is, details about
>> what Jesus
>> > > > said
>> > > > > > in his prayer related by (one of?) those that were sleeping at
>> the
>> > > > time. In
>> > > > > > Matthew, we have a similar story with detail that no one was
>> awake to
>> > > > > > witness.
>> > > > > > > > This is a moment in Jesus' life that is of incredible
>> importance
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > yet the writers of the gospels absolutely had to have invented
>> it. If
>> > > > they
>> > > > > > were not above making up details about such an important moment
>> how can
>> > > > you
>> > > > > > trust them to be relating anything else accurately?
>> > > > > > > > The only response that I have ever had to this question was
>> that
>> > > > these
>> > > > > > details were revealed by the Holy Spirit to the authors. This
>> however
>> > > > means
>> > > > > > that these words were, indeed, 'dropped straight from the mouth
>> of
>> > > > God'. If
>> > > > > > the writers of the gospels did not get these words directly from
>> some
>> > > > god
>> > > > > > then they made them up for dramatic effect. If these words came
>> from
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > mouth of the god then the god was careless in his consistency.
>> If they
>> > > > > > didn't then why should anything else that these men wrote be
>> believed?
>> > > > > > > > The words of men can be assumed to be error-prone and
>> subject to
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > biases of the men doing the writing (and therefore may be fairly
>> > > > subjected
>> > > > > > to analysis for trustworthiness) but if those words were the
>> inspired
>> > > > words
>> > > > > > of a god then they can be fairly used to judge the power,
>> intelligence,
>> > > > > > honesty and efficiency of the god that gives them.
>> > > > > > > > Luke obviously had Mark to copy from or he wouldn't have
>> managed to
>> > > > > > duplicate so much of it word for word. Why did he insert
On Nov 7, 6:43 pm, Doris Ragland <dr4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well let's see here the teaching that I have learned keeps me in well
> temperment OR Pepermint....how is your tummy....
Observer
I my stupid christian an in the process of dying from heart disease.
But the fact there of causes me no temptation to drift in the the
stupidity of your filthy superstition.
Now the reason I referred to you as stupid is that you fail at every
request to respond with any cogency to the posts direct at you and
your superstition.
Shall we review them?
1) How could it conceive of a deity which is omnipresent , omniscient,
and omnipotent as being under pressure from any source?
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 7:50 pm, Doris Ragland <dr4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > We know this when Jesus was preaching the gospel ...he was under great
> > > pressure
> > Observer
> > What in the F**k is the matter with your brain? How could you conceive of a deity which is omnipresent , omniscient, and omnipotent as being under pressure from any source?
Answer the damn question if you are not too stupid
2)There is no reason to believe that this poor naive itinerant
preacher
ever lived save in the mind of primitive crazies.
Respond or we will all know that you have no response.
3) Your idiosyncratic stupidity has conjured acceptance of a
hypothetical god emerged from the stuff of magic , crossbred with
the fetishistic nonsense of sadomasochism and this freak , Jesus ,
said to be half man half god.
You see nothing wrong with this picture?
Answer the damn question if you are not too stupid
4)There is no reason to believe that this poor naive itinerant
preacher
ever lived save in the mind of primitive crazies.
Answer the challenge unless you are just top stupid!
5)The idiotic superstitious filth of the Jews is on no consequence to
any educated mind with an I.Q. capable of true human experience
Come on respond show off your ignorance.
6)
> > Observer
> > The gospels are at best the mind vomit of primitive , superstitious savages,
is pure disinformation and unsupportable ,and quite stupid, lies
which contradict each other . ( See Simon's Research)
All of the bullshit of a resurrection, a heaven , a hell, the
existence of angels, demons, the utterly stupid idea of original sin ,
the great universal flood ,and the balance contained in the bible
which is dis-proven by modern day science are criminally deleterious
to the human mind and repugnant to one any who has chosen the hard to
earn, earned but sure footed path of education in which is
contained , instruction in the, high art ,of critical thought,
familiarization
with the data contained diverse fields of scientific disciplines and
the ability to apply scientific method thereto..
Such being the only reliable process by which we traverse from
greater to lesser ignorance.
This coupled with the intestinal fortitude to alter their personal
fictions so that they better represent the actualities of this
universe is the only hope for any real tenure of human kind .
We are a young specie and have not yet displayed the abilities
necessary to long term survival ( such as hundreds of millions or or
even billions of years.
With out the intensive use and universal acceptance of
scientific method as our only source of usable and dependable
information we will fail the test and become extinct sooner rather
than latter.
Your idiosyncratic stupidity has conjured acceptance of a
hypothetical
god emerged from the stuff of magic , crossbred with the fetishistic
nonsense of sadomasochism and this freak , Jesus , said to be half man
half god. You see nothing wrong with this picture?
If you are to uneducated pr just to stupid to understand the post and
how to respond to it get then get some help from some one who can both
read ant think. ( I promise you such is very hard to find among
Christians)
I know you are in way over your head but will really look stupid if
you can't even try to respond.
7) There exists no scientifically verifiable substantiating proving
that
> > these idiotic writings and their reference to the nonsense of things ,
> > places, and conditions, metaphysical , or even the existence of poor
> > Jesus or the resurrection thereof have any validity.
And finally 8) provide scientifically verifiable substantiating data
for the existence of or any act of any god so that we can move on the
the mind vomit of superstitious filth which arose around this fictive
sadomasochistic monster that you and other misanthropes worship as a
god.
Come on respond to the challenges and questions with answers that
explain the your defense of each. Otherwise you will have openly
concurred with me that Christianity is utter stupidity and nothing
better than cultural filth.
On Nov 7, 3:24 pm, Doris Ragland <dr4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Was it Martha or Mary one of them ran back to the house
Biblical evidence, please.
> and told them that
> Jesus was not in the tomb and that she saw Jesus outside the tomb..
Mark 16:8
And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they
trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for
they were afraid.
The simple believeth every word.
Pr. 14:15
__________________________________________
Science means simply the aggregate of all the recipes that are always
successful. All the rest is literature.
-- Paul Valéry
|
