(September 13, 2017 at 12:47 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(September 13, 2017 at 12:20 pm)Minimalist Wrote: BTW, we don't have any original writings by this paul fucker, either.  It has been noted that no two manuscripts of any pauline horseshit agree with each other.   Something doesn't pass the smell test here.

We don't have original copies of most of the writings from this time.

Do you have an example of where two manuscripts disagree with each other in something significant?  From what I have been told the manuscript collection for the new testament is vast, consisting of earlier and more manuscripts than we have for most anything comparable for the time.  It is also my understanding, that the collection of manuscripts support the consistency in transmission of the text.  There are differences, but it is important to look at what those differences consist of.  They are mostly spelling errors,  transposing of words, or a missing jot or tilde (mundane errors, which are easily dismissed).  There may may be a different use of words, which don't change the meaning, but are technically different.  It is my understanding, that there are very very few variants, which have any doctrinal significance, and that we can weigh those, by looking at earlier or the majority of text (because we have so many).  

So what is it, that you are saying, by saying that no two manuscripts agree with each other?  Do you have evidence of something other, that is significant?

Read Misquoting Jesus.  You have much to learn.  I have an E-book somewhere if you don't want to go to your library or buy it.  I'd be glad to send it to you.

"Jesus Interrupted" is another good one.

(September 13, 2017 at 12:47 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(September 13, 2017 at 12:20 pm)Minimalist Wrote: BTW, we don't have any original writings by this paul fucker, either.  It has been noted that no two manuscripts of any pauline horseshit agree with each other.   Something doesn't pass the smell test here.

We don't have original copies of most of the writings from this time.

Do you have an example of where two manuscripts disagree with each other in something significant?  From what I have been told the manuscript collection for the new testament is vast, consisting of earlier and more manuscripts than we have for most anything comparable for the time.  It is also my understanding, that the collection of manuscripts support the consistency in transmission of the text.  There are differences, but it is important to look at what those differences consist of.  They are mostly spelling errors,  transposing of words, or a missing jot or tilde (mundane errors, which are easily dismissed).  There may may be a different use of words, which don't change the meaning, but are technically different.  It is my understanding, that there are very very few variants, which have any doctrinal significance, and that we can weigh those, by looking at earlier or the majority of text (because we have so many).  

So what is it, that you are saying, by saying that no two manuscripts agree with each other?  Do you have evidence of something other, that is significant?

And the relevant distinction here between the Bible and other historical writings that neither you or Steve ever want to talk about is that these particular writings make supernatural claims.

(September 13, 2017 at 12:53 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote:

(September 13, 2017 at 12:47 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: We don't have original copies of most of the writings from this time.

Do you have an example of where two manuscripts disagree with each other in something significant?  From what I have been told the manuscript collection for the new testament is vast, consisting of earlier and more manuscripts than we have for most anything comparable for the time.  It is also my understanding, that the collection of manuscripts support the consistency in transmission of the text.  There are differences, but it is important to look at what those differences consist of.  They are mostly spelling errors,  transposing of words, or a missing jot or tilde (mundane errors, which are easily dismissed).  There may may be a different use of words, which don't change the meaning, but are technically different.  It is my understanding, that there are very very few variants, which have any doctrinal significance, and that we can weigh those, by looking at earlier or the majority of text (because we have so many).  

So what is it, that you are saying, by saying that no two manuscripts agree with each other?  Do you have evidence of something other, that is significant?

Personally, the fact that no two "divinely-inspired" texts agree with one another is a great example of how human these texts are and how lacking they are in divining inspiration. You'd think a god would ensure that the method that they chose to communicate with humans with was at least more reliable than a game of "telephone."

So for you spelling error's during copying is a deal breaker?
Also, the evidence seems to show that it is not equivalent to the telephone game, so I am curious what you base this conclusion on?

---

(September 13, 2017 at 1:00 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(September 13, 2017 at 12:47 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: We don't have original copies of most of the writings from this time.

Do you have an example of where two manuscripts disagree with each other in something significant?  From what I have been told the manuscript collection for the new testament is vast, consisting of earlier and more manuscripts than we have for most anything comparable for the time.  It is also my understanding, that the collection of manuscripts support the consistency in transmission of the text.  There are differences, but it is important to look at what those differences consist of.  They are mostly spelling errors,  transposing of words, or a missing jot or tilde (mundane errors, which are easily dismissed).  There may may be a different use of words, which don't change the meaning, but are technically different.  It is my understanding, that there are very very few variants, which have any doctrinal significance, and that we can weigh those, by looking at earlier or the majority of text (because we have so many).  

So what is it, that you are saying, by saying that no two manuscripts agree with each other?  Do you have evidence of something other, that is significant?

Read Misquoting Jesus.  You have much to learn.  I have an E-book somewhere if you don't want to go to your library or buy it.  I'd be glad to send it to you.

"Jesus Interrupted" is another good one.

If there is a place to get the E-book for free legitimately then I will have a look.  Otherwise, what is it, that you think that I need to learn?   You seemed to avoid the questions I asked.  

Perhaps you could summarize some of the arguments, or share some of the evidence for the claims.  If you can give me a reason to, I'll buy the book.   However, you are going to need something more than spelling errors.

(September 11, 2017 at 3:13 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 3:08 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Here's the biggest problem with your gawd claims. You have no eyewitness testimony.

Well, except for John, Peter, and James...

If you use "gawd" again, you won't get a reply. Not because I am offended--I just don't like people who are obnoxious on purpose.

The first James wasn't born until the 12th Century so I doubt if he was an eyewitness to First Century events.

(September 13, 2017 at 1:02 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(September 13, 2017 at 12:47 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: We don't have original copies of most of the writings from this time.

Do you have an example of where two manuscripts disagree with each other in something significant?  From what I have been told the manuscript collection for the new testament is vast, consisting of earlier and more manuscripts than we have for most anything comparable for the time.  It is also my understanding, that the collection of manuscripts support the consistency in transmission of the text.  There are differences, but it is important to look at what those differences consist of.  They are mostly spelling errors,  transposing of words, or a missing jot or tilde (mundane errors, which are easily dismissed).  There may may be a different use of words, which don't change the meaning, but are technically different.  It is my understanding, that there are very very few variants, which have any doctrinal significance, and that we can weigh those, by looking at earlier or the majority of text (because we have so many).  

So what is it, that you are saying, by saying that no two manuscripts agree with each other?  Do you have evidence of something other, that is significant?

And the relevant distinction here between the Bible and other historical writings that neither you or Steve ever want to talk about is that these particular writings make supernatural claims.

I don't understand what this has to do with what I said.   What is the principle you are trying to make about supernatural claims?

(September 13, 2017 at 12:25 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(September 13, 2017 at 10:19 am)SteveII Wrote: The quote you were referring to was about Paul. Even Bart Ehrman firmly believes Paul was real and wrote most of the epistles ascribed to him. He also believes the the NT is 99% today what it was when it was written.

Thank you for your response regarding that particular quote, though I'm still waiting for you to answer these questions I asked based on your statements: "I believe Paul was who he said he was", and, "I believe the epistles are what they appear to be."

My questions are: 

1. What evidence lead you to these two beliefs?

2. Why do you find this evidence persuasive?

1. It is a long established view that Paul wrote at least most of the epistles ascribed to him. We have early copies of those letters. We are as certain as you can be that he wrote them (there is no reason to doubt).  
2. If the skeptics are not skeptical, why should I be? I have no trouble believing the content--the letters make no extraordinary claims beyond what the gospels say--they are largely about Christian living.

Quote:You seemed to avoid the questions I asked.  

You want a Cliff Notes version of two entire books and 300 years of scholarship?  I can probably dig out a few examples - sometimes .pdfs don't copy so well into this format - later tonight and post them for you.

(September 13, 2017 at 12:56 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(September 13, 2017 at 12:02 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: Paul was writing to pre-existing "churches?" Is that so? So Paul has nothing to do with the foundation of Christianity? Without Paul, Christianity would still be around? [1]

Here, let's explore a second related piece. Which was more important to the Christian religion: Jesus or the Romans adopting Christianity?  [2]

1. Yes, that is what he was doing. No, Paul did not found Christianity. He came later on the scene. His conversion was not until Acts 9--four years of activity before he comes on the scene. His first missionary journey was not for another fourteen years.  He didn't start writing for at least another two after that. You really need to read Acts. It is actually the book written to answer these questions (Luke actually says that). 

2. What kind of question is that? Constantine did not come for over 275 years (11 generations) after the first Christians. We have hundreds of surviving Christian writings from before Roman got involved.

The Paul character was the first one to write about the Yeshua character (the book of Galatians, 49 A.D. https://carm.org/when-was-bible-written-...o-wrote-it).  So according to the fairy tale that means that Paul saw his vision of Yeshua 17 years earlier, around 32 A.D.

According to Acts people were first called Christians in the city of Antioch, as a result of Paul's preaching.

(September 11, 2017 at 1:56 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: We have original uncontested* documents, penned by Joseph Smith in his own hand, in support of Mormonism.  We have nothing like that in regards to Jesus.


*curiously, the Mormon hierarchy has an issue with the account of Joseph Smith's First Visitation he penned since it does not concur with the official church version of his First Visitation. I also note, failing to believe in the church's account is grounds for excommunication, raising the possibility, that if he were alive today, Joseph Smith would be excommunicated from the very church he established.

[snicker]

I remember the South Park Season 7 Episode 12 "All About Mormons." I thought it was great, nailed it on the head. I could not find a full free episode to link to, nor a clip that was not either deleted or screwed up with someone's lame music picks to overlay it. So if you want to pay to see it, or have subscriptions to them already, here are the You Tube and Hulu links:

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4bDgWOYvRA

Hulu: https://www.hulu.com/watch/250048

(September 13, 2017 at 12:59 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote:

(September 13, 2017 at 12:56 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. Yes, that is what he was doing. No, Paul did not found Christianity. He came later on the scene. His conversion was not until Acts 9--four years of activity before he comes on the scene. His first missionary journey was not for another fourteen years.  He didn't start writing for at least another two after that. You really need to read Acts. It is actually the book written to answer these questions (Luke actually says that). 

2. What kind of question is that? Constantine did not come for over 275 years (11 generations) after the first Christians. We have hundreds of surviving Christian writings from before Roman got involved.

lol

Okay. So let me get this straight. You believe that neither the Romans nor Paul are responsible for the Christian Church being around? [1] I think you might need to rethink what the important steps were for your religion to ever become anything more than a series of isolated cults wandering around the Middle East. [2]

1. You got it straight!!
2. Except that Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians are not in the Middle East. Thomas went to India and there have been Christians there ever since. It seems you are confusing the Catholic Church with the plain church that started on day 1--they are not the same thing. Granted the Catholic church affected history to a tremendous degree, but it is simply not true that the Catholic Church was necessary for Christianity.