I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

The earliest gospel is purported to be that of Mark and it has been dated to approximately 60 to about 70 AD.about 35 to 40 years after the alleged death of Jesus Christ.The epistles are irrelevant in this discussion because they are not meant to be a biography of the earthly life of Jesus.In fact,the synoptic gospels namely;Matthew,Mark,Luke are the only three gospels that are supposed to be true representatives of the life of Jesus.John on the other hand focuses more on the spiritual aspects of Jesus and not so much on his earthly existence.

They are not irrelevant. Anything that attests to his existence, and even internally refers to other texts which do document his life is relevant. And what I said was between 15 and 30 years after his death, depending on how pessimistic or optimistic one wishes to be, per pathos, both things are claimable. In any case, what I basically said is not very controversial.

The Q document on the other hand is an hypothetical document which is believed to be the source document from which Mark and other gospel writers later obtained material to write their respective narratives.Another important point to bring up regarding the gospels is that there are no original copies that have survived to this day.Everything we have are from oral traditions and copies of copies of copies.Thus in my opinion this devalues the worth of those gospels.

It doesn't devalue it more than most other ancient texts but there is enough evidence that they existed by references from other texts. And of course Q is a hypothetical document, but it is a highly likely document. And even if it didn't exist, most scholars would agree that another or several earlier ones did (since there are many interrelations and references in the epistles and the gospels themselves both to each other and earlier writings we don't have).

Not to mention the difficulties facing the translators of the gospels in translating from Koine Greek to Latin,English etc. etc.Not only are the text themselves subject to being lost in translation but they are also subject to human errors and a particular scribes religious preconceptions and political motivations.

The problem mostly lies in the modern interpretations of it; exegesis and hermeneutics can give us a sufficiently clear picture. You are just taking a pessimistic view of everything, because your dislike of Christianity leads you to seek reasons not to be a Christian. And that's fine, but it's clear we will have different opinions then.

And I cannot get beyond your pathos either. The doctrine of actus purus..this is all theory and hyperbole. You have been asked and presented no evidence of a transcendent being. You are still assuming a grand diety that is dictating itself as actus purus and everything else (inpure? inactive?) existing impure, but not existing until actus purus comes along. Again a circular arguement that simply serves YOUR EGO's purpose.
I must conclude the same as so many have prior to me, you are not here for intellectual debate of any kind, but rather to sharpen your skills so that you feel good about yourself because you identify yourself as superior to all of us, a disciple of your mythological God's word.

I have presented arguments and evidence. You have given no arguments, done nothing to refute it. You have just expressed your disapproval. Well, what a surprise! Here I am, on an atheist forum, and I find someone who disagrees. What a surprise, indeed.

I think my fellow atheist has debunked all this nonsense quite sufficently in his reply.
Again you are deleting and distorting and changing all sorts of information here-to prop up your idea of the world and your place in it-you are all EGO which you hide behind your idea of a complex, transcendent God.
But here you go, I'll take the bait on this one thing; Is evil also "not actus purus" until your transcendent God waves his transcendent magic finger outside of time thus making evil actus purus?

He told me nothing I haven't heard before or didn't already know of, so no, it has not been "debunked". You give only a continuous attestation to the fact that you will support anyone who supports your viewpoint by attacking mine. You provide no arguments, no refutation, yet anyone who supports your view is right.