aa5874

You don't seem to understand the difference between "Belief" and an "Argument".

Sheshbazzar

This from the guy that cannot even read and comprehend a simple sentence requesting a VERSE reference.

No more than you are

No one has said otherwise. You cannot pick out one among those texts and honestly say; 'this is the one that follows the original'.
And there is not a single one of these texts that you can point to a verse of and honestly state; 'this verse has been altered in this text'.
Because you do not have any original text to compare it to.
Any one of the thousands of surviving texts might be 100% in conformity with the original, but there exists no way to identify any such text.

And as I explained quite well in an earlier post, there never would have been any 'original' text that was slavishly transcribed.
The alternate textual streams and variations would have arisen and quickly propogated from the beginning.
There are no 'correct' NT texts, and there never have been. And they have never been needed. Only the doubtful, the rebellious, and the disputing have any need of a text engraved in rock.

There are 'variant textual streams', as there always have been. Each one is just as valid as any other, as long as the overall content brings those who hear The Word of faith into the household of God.
From the Christian perspective, it is not weak and faulty texts that they believe in, put their faith in, and worship, but their God. And in their personal experience in their own 'daily walk with Jesus'.
The Pastor of my old church had a dozen or more versions of the Bible on his shelves. And in his view they were ALL 'the word of God', some being easy to read, and some difficult. But all alike were intended for one purpose.

TedM

Arguments are supposed to be based on facts, not beliefs. You don't know for a fact that there never was any physical proof. You believe it. That's the belief I was referring to.

Your argument is basically: If it doesn't exist now, it never did exist.

That's not a very good argument.

TedM

This can't be proven by science. But, out of curiosity, how do you explain these accounts?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9xDY2M0Qwo

aa5874

Well, it is a FACT that there is NO recovered NT manuscript that has been dated to the 1st century.

That is EXACTLY what is expected when there was NEVER any 1st century NT manuscripts.

My argument is extremely SOLID and CANNOT be overturned based on the FACTS--The Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century.

Sheshbazzar

I have lived a long time. I have heard a lot of religious stories and witnessing....up close and personal.
I have had personal life long acquaintances with people who tell stories of these sorts of experiences.
(notably, the less educated they are, the more inclined they are to do so. It is quite endemic to the more dim-witted segments of any society. )
Some I know, have succeeded very well in convincing themselves of the veracity and the reality of their 'visions', and their experience with 'miracles'. I have even questioned many personally.
In all honesty, I do not believe them, nor that the things that they report, have ever happened exactly in the manner that they report.
Consciously or unconsciously the tale gets fudged and imagined details added.

People tend to see what their cultural indoctrinations and religious proclivities have encouraged them to 'see' and 'report'.
In the churches of my youth, telling 'ghost stories' at 'Bible Camp' was one of the most a common evening pastimes. Our adult youth group leaders instigated and encouraged the practice. Effectively it was a 'training camp' to practice and sharpen our BS skills for 'witnessing'.
The most effective way to become convincing is to indoctrinate and to convince yourself of your 'experience'.

I do not believe in ghosts. I do not believe in angels that fly about through the air, or that magically materialize to steer ones vehicle, or levitate drowning people out of rivers, or from burning cars.
If you wish to swallow such stories no one can prevent it. But no one else need accept it either.

Steve Weiss

Believing doesn't make it so. Not only do advocates of the supernatural have a burden of proof to satisfy they have to do it relying only upon reason and evidence which makes their job impossible. What, pray tell, is "spiritual truth." Anything you care to assert arbitrarily? What are spirits? Do you know what you are talking about, and if so, how?

Any honest historian must admit that recordkeeping and the recording of events are very tenuous at best the further one goes back into history, and is outright propaganda much of the time. And that applies even to recent history.

I'm reading a biography of Andrew Carnegie, and he manufactured events in his statements to suit his agenda, as almost everyone does, even when the facts clearly show to the contrary. So even firsthand observations of recent vintage cannot be taken at facevalue. How much more so when one looks into the ancient past when standards of objectvity and knowledge are far less stringent than they are today. There is just very little that one can comfortably rely upon when discussing ancient history.

I was also reading a history of the most important battles in history, and one of those was the battle at Poitiers in 732 at which the French repelled the Muslim advance into Europe. Apart from there being huge differences in the numbers of combatants and deaths which vary by account, the year and the place are also open to dispute. Some reports say that the battle was at Tours and in 733. If the date and place of this battle are open to question, and this is a world famous and hugely significant event that occurred only 1300 or so years ago, how much confidence can one have when one studies ancient souces? It is well understood that when troop sizes are given in ancient history that one such reduce them by about a factor of ten or more.

Don't believe everything that one finds in a book as the "Gospel Truth." In addition, there are copying errors that creep in over time, and it is well accepted that the victors write the history. So, let's not be naive.

On the face of it the bible is fiction, so the fruit of that tree is poisoned. When one gets outside the bible itself there is next to nothing that would pass any objective standards of veracity concerning "spiritual" claims. Of course, if one is predisposed to accept unsubstantiated claims as facts, then anything goes, and truth becomes irrelevant.

Steve Weiss

I wish that you would express your ideas more transparently because I usuallly have no idea what you are talking about, and the above is no exception.

aa5874

There is nothing to explain but your gullibility. Why are you still listening to Angel stories??

In any event, please start another thread.

This thread is not about Angels. What Angels???? Gabriel, Moroni, Michael???

Right now, we are exposing the Myth called Jesus the Son of a God that walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

What a Fable!!! 2000 years later, people are still duped into believing the monstrous tale is the truth.

Against the Galileans

Steve Weiss

But I've seen the British illusionist Dynamo walk on the Thames River, walk down the side of a building, defy gravity, bend glass in his hands, read minds, and do all kinds of entertaining things without having the slightest idea how he does them. He says that "nothing is impossible," but does he mean that, or is he just promoting his conjuring arts? Why doesn't he collect Randi's prize?

I've also seen Penn and Teller explain, in most cases, how competing illusionists do their tricks. Some people are gullible and believe that defiance of natural laws is a commonplace, but why then don't these conjurors bet on all of the right sports teams or buy only the stocks that increase in value by more than 100% per year? That would seem simple compared to walking on water.