Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 12-01-2012, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Anyone who has examined the Pauline writings will easily observe that the Pauline teachings of his revealed Gospel from the Resurrected Jesus are highly sophisticated and far more complex than those of the short gMark Jesus.

And of course we KNOW without a shadow of a doubt, that the Blessed Pauline writings are absolutely pristine, and are perfectly preserved, word for word, by miraculous Divine protection, exactly as they came from the pen held in the Blessed Apostle Paul's hand.

Certainly no latter editor or writer could have ever added a even so much as a single word to these Pauline Holy writings, because Almighty God himself has always protected and preserved the Blessed Apostle Paul's Holy Epistles from any tampering or from any further additions by The Holy and Catholic Church.

Shame on anyone who would even dare think that it were it possible the Pauline Epistles might have ever been edited and added to, so as to make them more highly sophisticated and more complex.

:Cheeky:

You seem to have a very short memory. Did I not show you that the Pauline writings contain Textual Variants-Alterations-- that MATCH the Later Epistles??

The percentage of alteration free verses in the Pauline writings MATCH the later Epistles.

1 Timothy---81.4% Mark ---45.1%

2 Timothy---79.5 %

Romans-- 75.5%

1 Corinthians--75.7%

2 Corinthians--78.1%

Galatians--76.5%

Ephesians ---76.1%

It is clear that gMark show the most alterations [textual variants] and the epistles the very least.

This is completely compatible with the Recovered Dated manuscripts and compatible Apologetic sources.

Apologetic sources knew of stories about Jesus and did NOT acknowledge the Pauline writings at all.

Sheshbazzar · 12-01-2012, 11:24 PM

Pick a text aa, any actual surviving early NT text you wish, and show us exactly where, and in what manner that verse was altered.

Steve Weiss · 12-02-2012, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Apologists will rely upon tradition, bogus sources, faulty premises, beliefs, authority, etc. to spin a web of stories and impossibilities to give invalid support for their mythology, and one will never get to the end of the debate. There is nothing of substance to debate.

Identifying mythology as fiction and irrational assertions quickly puts paid to discussion and leaves no comebacks from apologists. I'm all for the quick and effective means which does not rely upon investigating sources that are far from complete. No discussion is necessary. Fiction is fiction. Even if there were whole libraries full of books justifying miracles and the existence of mythological characters that would not establish them as being true. Involving one's self in debating nonsense is playing the wrong game.

You seem not to understand the HJ/MJ argument. The people who claim Jesus of Nazareth existed, HJers, are NOT arguing that Jesus was Supernatural and did miracles.

They are arguing that Jesus of of Nazareth was a preacherman who was a complete human being with a human father, was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate but they do so without a shred of evidence.

My argument is that the Jesus story and cult are 2nd century Myth Fables like those of the Greeks and Romans and that Jesus the disciples and Paul had NO real existence based on the Preponderance of evidence.

The Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century as the ACTUAL RECOVERED DATED manuscripts show.

My argument is extremely solid and cannot be overturned based on the present evidence.

I think that it's you who doesn't get it. Many, if not most, people believe the impossible because it is impossible. If you want to edit out everything that is fantastic that is related in the OT and NT and just deal with the hard evidence, of which there is very little, be my guest. Would it make any difference to believers? Not a bit. If the evidence doesn't support the existence of the biblical Jesus as edited by you, and I agree with you that it does not, will the light suddenly flash on for the vast majority of believers? If the Jesus that you are investigating was just another preacher 2000 years ago, why would anyone bother establishing his existence or non-existence?

If the only book that one can use as a source for the existence of the Jesus person is the bible and the bible is classified as fiction, then there is almost nothing that would serve as evidence for the Jesus cult. Why not research
the origins of the Norse legends, the Egyptian god/kings, or any other cult that strikes your fancy? They are all irrelevant and cannot be taken seriously because they are a figment of the imagination of primitive man who made cave paintings about success in the hunt believing that their mythology would protect them.

aa5874 · 12-02-2012, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

I think that it's you who doesn't get it. Many, if not most, people believe the impossible because it is impossible. If you want to edit out everything that is fantastic that is related in the OT and NT and just deal with the hard evidence, of which there is very little, be my guest. Would it make any difference to believers? Not a bit. If the evidence doesn't support the existence of the biblical Jesus as edited by you, and I agree with you that it does not, will the light suddenly flash on for the vast majority of believers? If the Jesus that you are investigating was just another preacher 2000 years ago, why would anyone bother establishing his existence or non-existence?

You seem to imply that Believers are incapable of deconverting. You seem not to realize that most people are reasonable and will accept that Jesus, the disciples and Paul are the product of Myth Fables once presented with the evidence.

Most people NO longer accept Zeus, Apollo and Jupiter as figures of History.

TedM · 12-02-2012, 07:24 AM

2 comments:

First, I think no-one can say that the supernatural is impossible as fact. Rather, it is a statement of belief.

Second, I think many people when presented with the evidence against historical Jesus, disciples, etc.. will reject belief in them, and many will not. People vary in their interpretations of evidence. aa is an extremist in his interpretations, and by definition most people are not extremists and therefore will not come to the same conclusions that aa has come to. Many will accept hearsay and tradition as having authority and some weight in the overall picture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

I think that it's you who doesn't get it. Many, if not most, people believe the impossible because it is impossible. If you want to edit out everything that is fantastic that is related in the OT and NT and just deal with the hard evidence, of which there is very little, be my guest. Would it make any difference to believers? Not a bit. If the evidence doesn't support the existence of the biblical Jesus as edited by you, and I agree with you that it does not, will the light suddenly flash on for the vast majority of believers? If the Jesus that you are investigating was just another preacher 2000 years ago, why would anyone bother establishing his existence or non-existence?

You seem to imply that Believers are incapable of deconverting. You seem not to realize that most people are reasonable and will accept that Jesus, the disciples and Paul are the product of Myth Fables once presented with the evidence.

Most people NO longer accept Zeus, Apollo and Jupiter as figures of History.

aa5874 · 12-02-2012, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Pick a text aa, any actual surviving early NT text you wish, and show us exactly where, and in what manner that verse was altered.

The short gMark and the Long gMark are the PERFECT examples of textual variants.

The 16th chapter of the short gMark found in the Codex Sinaiticus contains Only 8 verses.

However, 12 verses were added in the same chapter of the Long gMark found in the Codex Alexandrinus and other Codices.

The addition of those 12 verses COMPLETELY changed the gMark Jesus story.

In the short gMark, NO-one was told of the resurrection of Jesus by the visitors to the Empty Tomb but in the Long gMark there is a most blatant contradiction.

The very last verse of the short gMark stated that No-one was told of the resurrection and yet in the long gMark it is claimed No-one was told but immediately stated that Mary Magdalene did tell the disciples.

The short gMark ends at verse 8--not verse 20.

The Short gMark 16

Quote:

6 But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified; he has risen, he is not here: see the place where they laid him.

7 But go, tell his disciples, especially Peter, that he goes before you into Galilee: there you shall see him, as he said to you.

8 And going out they fled from the sepulcher; for trembling and astonishment had seized them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.

Verse 8 and verse 10 of the Long gMark 16 are wholly contradictory.

The Long gMark KJV

Quote:

8And 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 .

9Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept . 11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive , and had been seen of her, believed not .

The author of the short gMark completely contradicts the Pauline letters and Acts of the Apostles because at the time of composition he was NOT aware that any anyone preached that Jesus was resurrected and was NOT aware that anyone was commissioned to preach the Gospel.

It is extremely important to understand the Textual variants in the short and Long gMark.

The author of the short gMark wrote BEFORE Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were composed.

The authors of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings told people that Jesus was Resurrected and that people were commissioned to preach the Gospel.

No such things were known by the author of the short gMark.

The Short gMark 16

Quote:

.... You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified; he has risen.............

go, tell his disciples, especially Peter.........

8 And going out they fled from the sepulcher.........and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.

The short gMark is the earliest composed book of the Entire Canon.

Steve Weiss · 12-02-2012, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

I think that it's you who doesn't get it. Many, if not most, people believe the impossible because it is impossible. If you want to edit out everything that is fantastic that is related in the OT and NT and just deal with the hard evidence, of which there is very little, be my guest. Would it make any difference to believers? Not a bit. If the evidence doesn't support the existence of the biblical Jesus as edited by you, and I agree with you that it does not, will the light suddenly flash on for the vast majority of believers? If the Jesus that you are investigating was just another preacher 2000 years ago, why would anyone bother establishing his existence or non-existence?

You seem to imply that Believers are incapable of deconverting. You seem not to realize that most people are reasonable and will accept that Jesus, the disciples and Paul are the product of Myth Fables once presented with the evidence.

Most people NO longer accept Zeus, Apollo and Jupiter as figures of History.

It seems 2000 years should be long enough to wait for believers to examine and understand the evidence. Perhaps 10% of people are critical thinkers and would be swayed by your evidence, but most are fearful of giving up their security blanket and promise of eternal life in exchange for unquestioning belief. I applaud what you are doing; don't get me wrong, but I don't see your approach to be as effective as examining the content of outlandish biblical claims rather than focusing on who wrote about them and when.

Steve Weiss · 12-02-2012, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

2 comments:

First, I think no-one can say that the supernatural is impossible as fact. Rather, it is a statement of belief.

Second, I think many people when presented with the evidence against historical Jesus, disciples, etc.. will reject belief in them, and many will not. People vary in their interpretations of evidence. aa is an extremist in his interpretations, and by definition most people are not extremists and therefore will not come to the same conclusions that aa has come to. Many will accept hearsay and tradition as having authority and some weight in the overall picture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You seem to imply that Believers are incapable of deconverting. You seem not to realize that most people are reasonable and will accept that Jesus, the disciples and Paul are the product of Myth Fables once presented with the evidence.

Most people NO longer accept Zeus, Apollo and Jupiter as figures of History.

Aa is extreme only in the sense that he is extremely correct. Placing the bible and all religious books into the fictional category obviates the need to spend so much time and effort on tracing very dubious ancient sources. Therefore, we reach the same conclusion, just by different means. Not everyone cares to be a scholar of ancient writings, and drawing a valid conclusion about the impossible does not depend upon being one.

TedM · 12-02-2012, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Aa is extreme only in the sense that he is extremely correct.

No, he is extreme in his unwillingness to make reasonable historical inferences based on evidence which falls under the category of 'soft'. That's not the 'normal' stance. It is extreme.

Quote:

Placing the bible and all religious books into the fictional category obviates the need to spend so much time and effort on tracing very dubious ancient sources.

Yes, a blanket dismissal of historical information alleged in questionable sources is a convenient way to save time. For those looking for historical truth, it may also be perceived as a very lazy approach. And for those who are no longer looking for spiritual truth because they have already dismissed the supernatural due to their own belief system, it only makes sense to dismiss the supernatural elements.

Chili · 12-02-2012, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Aa is extreme only in the sense that he is extremely correct. Placing the bible and all religious books into the fictional category obviates the need to spend so much time and effort on tracing very dubious ancient sources. Therefore, we reach the same conclusion, just by different means. Not everyone cares to be a scholar of ancient writings, and drawing a valid conclusion about the impossible does not depend upon being one.

Except that to deny the 'historic first' is deny the metaphysical event that is eternally true and so is to throw the baby out as well.

Bottom line: the value of the myth is not to be found in history but in its currency.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-01-2012, 11:24 PM	#882
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Pick a text aa, any actual surviving early NT text you wish, and show us exactly where, and in what manner that verse was altered.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.