Any Evidence For A Historical Jesus?

[FallentoReason]

Here's what we know. The order of publications of the NT were:

1. Revelation
2. The Epistles (about half of which are considered "authentic")
3. Mark
4. Matthew and Luke
5. John
6. Acts

Second, we know that there was not just one brand of Christianity but many. The distinctions between these early Christianities would make the difference between Islam and Trinitarian Christianity look like petty hairsplitting.

I see here a clear contradiction in your thinking, FTR. First you tacitly admit these are the earliest manuscripts, (which is why they were chosen for the Bible BTW)

Then you say there are all these variant interpretations of Jesus' life and purposes. Granted, some things in the NT are not easy to understand, but if these manuscripts are the earliest, and they do not disagree with each other, you have contradicted your point. You have a case only if there are disagreements and contradictions within these manuscripts. Can we fairly assume you can't really find any, so you have to talk about disagreements among sects?

This appears to be a "guilt by association" argument and fallacy, i.e, "people disagreed on what the ms says, so therefore the ms must be faulty."

To make an honest and convincing case, should you not point out the contradictions in and among these manuscripts? Instead you make rather gratuitous assertions, like "The distinctions between these early Christianities would make the difference between Islam and Trinitarian Christianity look like petty hairsplitting."

Even if that were true, which it is not, it is simply an assertion that misleads people into thinking there must be contradictions in the manuscripts because sects disagreed. And why would you simply take the word of Christians who disagree about the Bible, unless you can use those disagreements to cast doubt indirectly? Could I not quote Christians who agree and say that means the manuscripts all agree? There is no difference, logically Those who say the manuscripts agree, atheists write them off as dolts, while quoting those who disagree. You can't have your cake and eat it too friend.

And by the way, (speaking to others besides FTR), the "mystical Jesus" believers who claim there is no reference to the physical Jesus are just wrong. Paul mentions "James the Lord's brother" and his death on the cross in several places, so The Jesus Puzzle argument is just ignorant at best and deceitful at worst.

Woah, words have been put into my mouth. I feel like Jesus .

You labelled the quote wrong but anyways.. my two cents:

And by the way, (speaking to others besides FTR), the "mystical Jesus" believers who claim there is no reference to the physical Jesus are just wrong. Paul mentions "James the Lord's brother" and his death on the cross in several places, so The Jesus Puzzle argument is just ignorant at best and deceitful at worst.

Does this come from one of the 7 letters believed to be written by the same author? There might be a possibility that some of the letters believed to not be written by this author were written after Mark (at least) was written.

[DeistPaladin]

I see here a clear contradiction in your thinking, FTR. First you tacitly admit these are the earliest manuscripts, (which is why they were chosen for the Bible BTW)

Bart Ehrman is better trained than I am to comment on which were the earliest manuscripts and why they were chosen. There was a hoard of different gospels, epistles and apocalypses, and while I can comment on the order in which the books of the NT were written, I can't on the others that were rejected. And he doesn't seem to think, based on Lost Christianities, that the books are as unchanged as fundies today like to think. The Ebionites, according to Ehrman, had their version of Matthew which dropped the part about his virgin birth. The Marcionites had a their version of Luke.

I can only assume with Paul, the poster-boy for the Marcionite faith, that his epistles read much differently than the ones we have today. Or else Marion would have been promoting him as his primary prophet hoping no one would actually read what he wrote!

Then you say there are all these variant interpretations of Jesus' life and purposes. Granted, some things in the NT are not easy to understand, but if these manuscripts are the earliest, and they do not disagree with each other, you have contradicted your point.

OK, first of all, are you under the delusion that there was a published NT for the early Christians to reference to know that the Marionites were wrong, that Jesus was born of a woman or that the Ebionites were wrong, that Jesus did claim to be god? If this had been the case, the wouldn't have been such a big problem.

Second of all, the books of the NT are not as unchanged as you might like to believe. Ehrman has commented on how the story of Jesus and "cast the first stone" wasn't added to the story until hundreds of years later. The change to Mark 16, with the inclusion of the resurrection, was a later addition (a point not in dispute by Christian scholars).

You have a case only if there are disagreements and contradictions within these manuscripts. Can we fairly assume you can't really find any, so you have to talk about disagreements among sects?

There are vast disagreements with the modern books of the NT. Search the synoptic gospels in vain for any reference to Jesus calling himself God. The closest you can come is Matthews mangled misquote of Isaiah 7:14. These books clearly depict a Jesus separate from and completely subordinate to Yahweh. Echoes of the Ebionite belief of salvation through keeping the Law is found in Matthew, a stark contrast to the Pauline epistles. Echoes of the struggle with the Docetic Christians is found in the epistles of John, which argue for Christians to have faith that Jesus came in the flesh (the Docetics believed that Jesus was a purely spiritual being).

Instead you make rather gratuitous assertions, like "The distinctions between these early Christianities would make the difference between Islam and Trinitarian Christianity look like petty hairsplitting."

Even if that were true, which it is not, ...

Actually, it is. Modern Christians and Muslims would agree that:

1. Jesus was a physical being (Docetics would disagree)
2. Jesus was born and had a childhood (Marcionites would disagree)
3. Jesus' mother was a virgin (Ebionites would disagree)
4. Jesus preached about the faith of the Abrahamic god (Marionites would disagree)
5. Jesus preached that there was one god (Marcionites would disagree).

Was there one god, two, several, hundreds? Was Jesus a physical being? If he was, was he a god, an angel, or a mortal man? How do we gain salvation? Did Jesus preach to keep the Law or discard it? These are serious theological differences and yet they are all part of "Christianity" in the first few centuries.

[Phil]

And by the way, (speaking to others besides FTR), the "mystical Jesus" believers who claim there is no reference to the physical Jesus are just wrong. Paul mentions "James the Lord's brother" and his death on the cross in several places, so The Jesus Puzzle argument is just ignorant at best and deceitful at worst.

Does it really need to be said that this is the biggest crock of shit from the apologist side? Let me ask, do you know what word was substituted throughout the Old Testament whenever Yahweh appeared? The word was Adonai which just so happens to be translated as LORD. What was written was James the brother of Yahweh. Where is your historical idiocy now?

[radorth]

Bart Ehrman is better trained than I am to comment on which were the earliest manuscripts and why they were chosen. There was a hoard of different gospels, epistles and apocalypses, and while I can comment on the order in which the books of the NT were written, I can't on the others that were rejected.

Well then you are only further confusing the issue, which is that because people disagree or other "gospels" came later, what does that tell us about whether the actual ms listed contradict each other? The answer to that is nothing, and the logical fallacy problem remains

And he doesn't seem to think, based on Lost Christianities, that the books are as unchanged as fundies today like to think. The Ebionites, according to Ehrman, had their version of Matthew which dropped the part about his virgin birth. The Marcionites had a their version of Luke.

It doesn't matter what scholars on either side think. That is an argument by authority fallacy. Does Ehrman ever point out that you can reconstruct 90 % the NT from the writings of second century Christians? I doubt it because that simple truth blows big holes in the"oh gosh, too many versions to know anythng" theory. The missing or changed items are carefully documented in serious study Bibles, and are based on the earliest manuscripts known back to he second century, which in the world of ancient ms, is a small miracle. We buy off on all kinds of ms which only go back to the 5th and 6th centuries. You imply something is being hidden which is simply false.

I can only assume with Paul, the poster-boy for the Marcionite faith, that his epistles read much differently than the ones we have today. Or else Marion would have been promoting him as his primary prophet hoping no one would actually read what he wrote!

Presumed facts don't impress me- maybe some of the readers looking for the contradictions the non-Christian Durant called "minutae" for a reason. But as Jesus said, we all find what we are looking for.

OK, first of all, are you under the delusion that there was a published NT for the early Christians to reference to know that the Marionites were wrong, that Jesus was born of a woman or that the Ebionites were wrong, that Jesus did claim to be god? If this had been the case, the wouldn't have been such a big problem.

My turn to roll on the floor laughing perhaps. Are you suggesting that this second presumed fact (they had nothing written) means they did not hear the Gospel? BTW doesn't your statement contradict the "Q" Gospel theory, you know the one Gospel writers copied? When was that written? I imagine as well that some people who had seen Jesus work a miracle took a lot of notes. We would. But of course that is an argument from silence, like your own. "We have no proof anything was written early on, so it must not have been, and so the Christians didn't know the Gospel" Your faith in what the lack of something means, is inspiring.

Second of all, the books of the NT are not as unchanged as you might like to believe. Ehrman has commented on how the story of Jesus and "cast the first stone" wasn't added to the story until hundreds of years later.

Yes, but not hundreds, and this fact is duely noted in all serious study Bibles. You did know that "false in one part therefore false in all" is a logical fallacy, no?

The change to Mark 16, with the inclusion of the resurrection, was a later addition (a point not in dispute by Christian scholars).

No the majority says he wrote to verse 16:8, but you no doubt have a preferred list of "Christian" scholars.

You still have a case only if there are disagreements and contradictions within these manuscripts. Can we fairly assume you can't really find any, so you have to talk about disagreements among sects?

There are vast disagreements with the modern books of the NT. Search the synoptic gospels in vain for any reference to Jesus calling himself God.

That's just not true. The Pharisees had no doubt whatsoever he had made that claim.

The closest you can come is Matthews mangled misquote of Isaiah 7:14.

I don't know what you mean Are you saying Immanuel does not mean "God with us"? The verses match BTW and Matthew is clearly commenting that Immanuel means God with us, not translating Isaiah.

These books clearly depict a Jesus separate from and completely subordinate to Yahweh.

"I and the father are one," and "he who has seen me has seen the Father," makes it entirely unclear I'm afraid. I'm surprised he said that much, give how it enraged religious quite people willing to knock him off early.

Echoes of the Ebionite belief of salvation through keeping the Law is found in Matthew, a stark contrast to the Pauline epistles.

There is nothing in Matthew that says you have to keep the law to be saved. As a matter of fact, the Sermon on the Mount makes it entirely impossible for anyone to obey it. James says "we all make many mistakes" currently, so was he not saved then? Can you be a Christian and not show some fruit? No you can't and Jesus says so. But he saved a thief who never kept the law, and only called him "Lord" so obviously there are holes in your logic. Why should he bother going to the cross if we had to obey "every jot and tittle" of the law? That makes no sense, and it is not Christians who are creating the confusion here except fundy legalists which you ironically seem to agree with.

To say Jesus was telling us we are only saved by keeping the law is an ultra-simplistic interpretation. You can call it a contradiction. I call it a clear warning nobody can fudge. Either you become a believer at some point or you obey every single jot and tittle. (And by the way, the thief story proves what I am saying and gives me hope for well meaning but spiritually ignorant folks like yourself.

Echoes of the struggle with the Docetic Christians is found in the epistles of John, which argue for Christians to have faith that Jesus came in the flesh (the Docetics believed that Jesus was a purely spiritual being).

Echoes, assumptions, vague "guilt by association" arguments are no help here. Actually, it is. Modern Christians and Muslims would agree that:

1. Jesus was a physical being (Docetics would disagree)

But not the savior, which means they disagree entirely with just that problem

2. Jesus was born an had a childhood

Thin evidence of anything

3. Jesus' mother was a virgin (Ebionites would disagree)
4. Jesus preached about the faith of the Abrahamic god (Marionites would disagree) [/quote]

Well yes, and how does that prove God has not spoken to us in different forms, as an omnipotent God is entirely capable of doing you must agree. This is hardly convincing when you have Muslims saying Jesus did not even go to the cross!

5. Jesus preached that there was one god (Marcionites would disagree).

So I guess that proves he was God then.

Was there one god, two, several, hundreds? Was Jesus a physical being? If he was, was he a god, an angel, or a mortal man? How do we gain salvation? Did Jesus preach to keep the Law or discard it? These are serious theological differences and yet they are all part of "Christianity" in the first few centuries.

These are mostly rhetorical questions. You still haven't answered my question: What are the contradictions in the documents listed? You are still resorting to disagreements among sects as some sort of evidence there are contradictions. That is simply not logical. If you can't find and point out the contradictions yourself, you are simply going by what some guy says. I thought unbelievers were against such mindless faith.

---

Is it not ironic that the typical atheist will call one a scholar up to the very minute s/he realizes the story is true, and then the atheist decides they were wrong?

The number of no-longer-scholars-because-they-believed is frighteningly long I would say

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps no one is responding to your little argument because it has nothing to do with the statements made by the person you're railing against? It's not entirely true that no one addresses it either. "Good fiction, plenty of editors, a lot of time". Let me give you an example, I could take your posts for you, edit them in about 5 minutes, and we'd be left with something very much like an intelligent argument from your side. It would have nothing to do with the preceding pages and posts (or your actual argument), but if all we wanted to consider was my edited version of that argument, solid gold. It would be fiction, of course.

[DeistPaladin]

Well then you are only further confusing the issue, which is that because people disagree or other "gospels" came later, what does that tell us about whether the actual ms listed contradict each other? The answer to that is nothing, and the logical fallacy problem remains

I said I didn't know when all the non canonical gospels, etc were written, that I'm not a scholar in such areas. As for your question on the subject of contradictions between the manuscripts, are you referring to contradictions between the books (Synoptic vs. Johnnine Gospels) or are you referring to contradictions between one version of Matthew vs. another?

If the former, the contradictions are legion, as I mentioned earlier with my example of the Synoptic Jesus vs. John's Jesus. From the bloodline to the resurrection account, the story of Jesus is irreconcilable. If the latter, I've already given some significant examples, such as Mark 16.

It doesn't matter what scholars on either side think. That is an argument by authority fallacy.

Argument from authority is not the same thing as citing sources and their research. Argument from authority is where a scholar offers their opinion and we should just accept it on the basis of their mere say-so. Citing a source and that scholar's research, which is what I did, is a different matter. Get the definitions of fallacies straight before you bandy them around in the future.

Does Ehrman ever point out that you can reconstruct 90 % the NT from the writings of second century Christians?

Source please? I'd not heard this before. Or is this a bare assertion?

Presumed facts don't impress me- maybe some of the readers looking for the contradictions the non-Christian Durant called "minutae" for a reason. But as Jesus said, we all find what we are looking for.

Considering that Biblical scholars doubt the authenticity of half of Paul's alleged epistles, I think there's reason to express doubts. Do you dispute that interpolation and pseudo-epigraphy are serious problems with ancient religious scriptures?

I would love to hear your theory on why Marcion promoted the works of Paul and used Paul as his primary prophet. Had Marcion not read the epistles of Paul to know that Jesus was born of a woman, of the seed of David? Or was Marcion hoping no one else would read the works of Paul?

I find it very strange and wonder if the problems of pseudo-epigraphy and interpolation which abounded at that time might serve to explain the mystery. Or would you prefer to believe one of the two options I outlined in the previous paragraph?

My turn to roll on the floor laughing perhaps. Are you suggesting that this second presumed fact (they had nothing written) means they did not hear the Gospel?

What?

There was no "THE" Gospel. Frankly, there isn't a THE Gospel even today. Even with the modern NT, the story is an irreconcilable mess. Back then, there were many more versions of the story and many wild variations of "Christianity".

BTW doesn't your statement contradict the "Q" Gospel theory, you know the one Gospel writers copied? When was that written?

The "Q" Gospel is a hypothetical document, a supposed "source" for the later authors. Show me proof it really existed.

Yes, but not hundreds, and this fact is duely noted in all serious study Bibles. You did know that "false in one part therefore false in all" is a logical fallacy, no?

You asked for an example and I gave you two. And I'm not a Bible scholar. And while it doesn't suggest every word if false, it does effectively sink claims of "perfectly preserved". One error is all that is needed to disprove "perfect".

No the majority says he wrote to verse 16:8, but you no doubt have a preferred list of "Christian" scholars.

Wait, are you saying that Mark should end at 16:8 and the later verses are non-canonical? You do realize that this ending omits the sighting of the resurrected Jesus? That it ends with an empty tomb, some guy in white and fleeing, frightened women? And this is the earliest story of the resurrection? It's easy to see why Mark was later changed with a more satisfying ending.

"I and the father are one," and "he who has seen me has seen the Father," makes it entirely unclear I'm afraid. I'm surprised he said that much, give how it enraged religious quite people willing to knock him off early.

Are you so dense that you don't know what "Synoptic Gospels" means? Matt, Mark and Luke. NOT John. Find me where in the SYNOPTIC Gospels that Jesus claims to be God.

I'm going to fast forward through your exegesis of Matthew. "There are no contradictions. You see when Jesus said... he really meant... and so..." (mental gymnastics).

Echoes, assumptions, vague "guilt by association" arguments are no help here.

I'm not sure what you mean by "guilt by association". 1John 4:1-3 and 2 John verse 7 make it clear the Docetics were a serious problem for the early "church" that they should be condemned in not one but two canonical epistles. And instead of appealing to recent history, within the lifetimes of some who would read it, John appeals to faith.

And I'm going to fast forward through your reactions to what Muslims and Trinitarian Christians agree on that the early Christians did not. My point flew right over your head and your reactions show you had no comprehension of what I was trying to tell you.

I don't have the patience to speak any slower to you. Go back and re-read my post on this point and see if you understand it any better.

These are mostly rhetorical questions. You still haven't answered my question: What are the contradictions in the documents listed?

Actually, they're significant questions of theological disagreement among the early Christians. And I provided two non-disputed points at which canonical scripture was changed.

[radorth]

Does it really need to be said that this is the biggest crock of shit from the apologist side? Let me ask, do you know what word was substituted throughout the Old Testament whenever Yahweh appeared? The word was Adonai which just so happens to be translated as LORD. What was written was James the brother of Yahweh. Where is your historical idiocy now?

Yeesh. That's kinda scary. A legalistic atheist.

---

[/i][i]

I said I didn't know when all the non canonical gospels, etc were written, that I'm not a scholar in such areas. As for your question on the subject of contradictions between the manuscripts, are you referring to contradictions between the books (Synoptic vs. Johnnine Gospels) or are you referring to contradictions between one version of Matthew vs. another?

Let's simplify the issue a little. I am interested in specific contradictions between the earliest known manuscripts. That is by far the most useful discussion. And BTW the non-cananocal Gospels were virtually all written later than the canonical Gospels. Canon critics have a terrible habit of ignoring this fact and leading their listeners to believe the assemblers of the Bible randomly picked the books regardless of their age. That is just not so.

If the former, the contradictions are legion, as I mentioned earlier with my example of the Synoptic Jesus vs. John's Jesus. From the bloodline to the resurrection account, the story of Jesus is irreconcilable. If the latter, I've already given some significant examples, such as Mark 16.

Highly intelligent people, including agnostic historians, disagree with everything except the addition at the end of Mark

Argument from authority is not the same thing as citing sources and their research.

Well that's a thin line but I will grant that upon re-reading it.

Does Ehrman ever point out that you can reconstruct 90 % the NT from the writings of second century Christians?

Source please? I'd not heard this before. Or is this a bare assertion?

Oh gosh, this is practically common knowledge. The early Christian writers are walking New Testaments. Have you read any of them?

Considering that Biblical scholars doubt the authenticity of half of Paul's alleged epistles, I think there's reason to express doubts.

That's one of those vague statements that will just get us into arguing about what qualifies one as a "Biblical scholar." You surely know that.

Do you dispute that interpolation and pseudo-epigraphy are serious problems with ancient religious scriptures?

If its less than 10-20% which is what my "real Biblical scholars" say, I absolutely dispute it. If two Gospels are half true, you should become a Christian immediately. You could save a lot of bandwidth and air polution, no? Why do you think "false in one part false in all" is a logical fallacy? And a serious one. It means you can die in your sins finding meaningless discrepencies, and saying you can therefore doubt everything. You will never find out if there are nine gifts of the Spirit, or experience one. You will never find out what the" rivers of living water" Jesus promised to those who belive feels like. Right? You are too busy pointing fingers and talking about what Christians disagree on to figure out what the truth is yourself, you see. You are unlikely to employ "the greatest system of morals, ancient or modern" as Jefferson called Jesus' teachings, and see what they can do for you and all the world, for that matter. Anyway you guys are supposed to be the logical ones, and if a Christian can see major fallacies, how logical is the average unbeliever?

And by the way, I find discrepencies you probably haven't seen yourself. But then I study it more probably. I could give you a list but it might slow your spiritual progress further.

on why Marcion promoted the works of Paul and used Paul as his primary prophet. Had Marcion not read the epistles of Paul to know that Jesus was born of a woman, of the seed of David? Or was Marcion hoping no one else would read the works of Paul?

I don't see any point in the question. All the Gospel writers, other epistle writers and Paul believed in the ressurrection of Christ, and salvation through faith in him. The only major issue between them had to do with how to view the law as a Christian, (a works vs faith issue) and this they finally resolved after great controversy. Why should I care what some heretic said, or even if he was one?

I find it very strange and wonder if the problems of pseudo-epigraphy and interpolation which abounded at that time might serve to explain the mystery. Or would you prefer to believe one of the two options I outlined in the previous paragraph?

False dichotomy? You decide. You are the most familiar with logical fallacies, you seem to think. I offered a perfectlly rational third way of looking at the problem I think.

There was no "THE" Gospel. Frankly, there isn't a THE Gospel even today. Even with the modern NT, the story is an irreconcilable mess.

Or it appears so to those looking for problems. I don't need even half of it to be true to benefit from it's relatively infinite wisdom, which is what all the founders believed precisely by the way. John Locke , probably way smarter than us, sees nothing to doubt in the NT

Back then, there were many more versions of the story and many wild variations of "Christianity".

Yeah, written in the second century or later for the most part. That's the biggest problem with your argument. You have no documents written coincident with the NT canon manuscripts to help prove your case. But then you don't think the earliest manuscripts carry much authority apparently. In fact you don't even have one of the thousands of apostate Christians saying any NT writer or ms was a fraud. So you just find what you can, from whatever later source and claim the Christians were in total disagreement. Actually the NT says what their major disagreements were and at least one was the biggest problem the church had, and still has really

The "Q" Gospel is a hypothetical document, a supposed "source" for the later authors. Show me proof it really existed.

My God man, half the critics of the NT rely on its existence to bolster their imaginary cases!!! I could care less.

You asked for an example and I gave you two. And I'm not a Bible scholar. And while it doesn't suggest every word if false, it does effectively sink claims of "perfectly preserved".

Fundies like to claim that. It's nonsense, and just shows how fragile and theoretical their faith is. But then it's easy to shoot down such claims, much easier than figuring it out for yourself. That would be a lot of work I find very few unbleievers willing to do, and it would mean changing your worldview, or at least letting it float for a time.

As for Mark stopping with the empty tomb, and calling that evidence Jesus wasn't risen is a clear argument from silence. Even the lowly Radorth knows that.

[The Grand Nudger]

If two of the gospels are half true I'd be interested in spiritual suicide. I don't want to spend an eternity in either of your fairies theme parks. Neither by his side, nor held prisoner by his power. You like third ways, give me another option?

No one's going to die in any sin, more fairy tale bullshit (but it's always nice to see a theist immediately threaten death and sin, etc, helps my cause). There are no gifts, and there is no living water. Perhaps people could better find "truth" if you and yours would quit poisoning that well? The christian religion contains all the morality of a school of pirahna, with the pirahna having a slight edge: they don't eat their own. "Spiritual progress" is an oxymoron.

Where in that massive flow of bullshit was anything resembling a response to the question you quoted as though you were addressing it? Is your soapbox all worn out, because I have a spare? I know, I know, it wasn't addressed at me, but I've been feeling left out. I'm going to call your post bad fiction for the time being, but remember I did offer my services as an editor.

[Minimalist]

Unfortunately, this thread has become unreadable because of all the multi-quoting.

[DeistPaladin]

I am interested in specific contradictions between the earliest known manuscripts. That is by far the most useful discussion.

Good. I provided two. And I'm not a Biblical scholar.

Highly intelligent people, including agnostic historians, disagree with everything except the addition at the end of Mark

Now there's a classic example of the logical fallacy, "Appeal to Authority".

Argument from authority is not the same thing as citing sources and their research.

Well that's a thin line but I will grant that upon re-reading it.

The line seems pretty thick and distinct to me.

1. "Smart people say you're wrong" -Appeal to Authority
2. "Dr. So-and-so in his research study X published in book Y found that Z." - Citing a source

The distinction is that even experts and authorities need to show the evidence as to what convinces them something is true. Presenting evidence or citing research is different from "cause smart guy says so".

Clear?

Oh gosh, this is practically common knowledge.

Apparently not as this is the first I've heard of this assertion. And I read both apologetic and skeptic sources.

The early Christian writers are walking New Testaments. Have you read any of them?

Heard of them, yes. Expert on them? No. I'll leave such things to Min. I'm more concerned with the Bible and Christian mental gymnastics that they employ to make it all coherently work.

That's one of those vague statements that will just get us into arguing about what qualifies one as a "Biblical scholar." You surely know that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epi...e_epistles

If two Gospels are half true, you should become a Christian immediately.

They are not, as evident by their contradictions with what we know of science, history or their lack of agreement with one another.

Why do you think "false in one part false in all" is a logical fallacy?

If the vaunted WORD OF GOD has flaws in it, on what basis would you presume to know which parts are true and pure revelation and which parts are human error and prejudice? Are you God? Are you an angel? Do you somehow know the mind of God that you can edit out all the errors in the Bible?

You will never find out if there are nine gifts of the Spirit, or experience one. You will never find out what the" rivers of living water" Jesus promised to those who belive feels like. Right?

You know what a brain is, right? You know that the brain stores and accesses memories, right? You know that these memories can be lost of the brain is damaged by injury or illness, right? Alzheimer's ring a bell? Amnesia? These are conditions by which memory is lost while the body and brain still lives.

What gives you even the slightest hope that memory can survive the total destruction of the brain which happens at death?

Just food for thought as you spout all you woo-woo about nine levels of spirit and living water rivers.

You are unlikely to employ "the greatest system of morals, ancient or modern"

Yeah, because the NT outlawed slavery. Oh, wait, no it didn't. It admonished slaves to obey their masters.
But the NT promoted gender equality. Oh, wait, no it didn't. It actually did the opposite.
But the Bible outlaws rape. Oh, wait, no it didn't. It actually prescribes the rape survivor to marry her attacker.
But it outlaws torture, right? Oh, wait, the eternal Hell thing.

These are no-brainer moral issues that modern civilization is solving while Biblical morals fail miserably.

False dichotomy? You decide. You are the most familiar with logical fallacies, you seem to think. I offered a perfectlly rational third way of looking at the problem I think.

Your "third way" is to dismiss Marcion by the logical fallacy of Poisoning the Well. You said:

Why should I care what some heretic said

Classic dismissal by Poisoning the Well. Well done!

John Locke , probably way smarter than us, sees nothing to doubt in the NT

Another Appeal to Authority. Bravo!

Back then, there were many more versions of the story and many wild variations of "Christianity".

Yeah, written in the second century or later for the most part.

Evidently not, based on 1John 4:1-3 or 2John 1:7.