Someone stole the body!

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Do you have an original?

There are no originals; in fact, the earliest copy of Mark is about 50% complete (half is missing) and dates from around the year 200 AD.  The earliest complete copy of Mark is from around 350 AD.

So it's all BS as usual.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Don't you know a fake when you see one?  That's written in the modern Greek alphabet and it uses lower case letters which didn't exist before 800 AD.

http://www.ancientscripts.com/greek.html

Both the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are emblematic of the Alexandrian text-type which was the language of the early church writers before being replaced by the Byzantine text-type.

This was sometime after the catholic church decided to switch to Latin instead of Greek.

It's a fake.

[Minimalist]

Tell it to Trump.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Tell it to Trump.

Trump isn't my bitch.

Have you ever noticed that the so-called "early" manuscripts are lousy fuzzy copies that are barely readable?  They are that way to fool people.  Let's get some crystal clear copies for analysis.  It'll never happen because they are all frauds.

[Godscreated]

Oh yes I understood it alright, it was a bunch of what ifs and maybes and that sort of nonsense. Min I study to find out if my stances are the correct ones, sometimes I find I was wrong and others are confirmed by my studies. You are the one who lives by his biases as a lifestyle, so take the log from your eye bfore you accuse me of having a speck in mine.

GC

You may have understood it, but refused to 'believe' it, because you already know without question that the Bible is the Truth. You're then in a position of having to weigh up the validity of Ehrman's conclusions, versus your own pre-determined conclusions. One set of conclusions has been derived from an objective, dispassionate analysis of the data sources from a historicity point of view. Yours (I am surmising) are a result of religious dogma. Surely you can see that the likelihood of confirmation bias in this scenario is pretty damn high. Problem is, if you're in a larger group of people who are all deluded, you're not likely to find out any time soon.

[/quote]

 You must not read very well, do you not realize that I said Ehrman uses what ifs and if that's and maybe this or that so much he shows he just guessing at best.

GC

[Minimalist]

When Ehrman points out that the ending of Mark and the story of the woman taken in adultery were later additions to your holy horseshit there are no "ifs" involved.  Those stories do not appear in our earliest existing copies.

This is your problem.  You and your holy horseshit.

[Godscreated]

Please don't be stupid or take me as stupid, God's providence over His creation means He can and does allow misery, pain, sickness and other things that He wills, not to see and enjoy anyone suffering but to complete His will that He had for His creation before He created it. Why didn't you answer the question, could it be you do not have one. God's providence over His creation is His and His alone because it's His creation and He actually can do with it a He desires.

I don't take you as stupid, I take you as someone who evidently doesn't believe that God is omnibenevolent. To say that he "can and does allow misery, pain, sickness, and other things" in order to "complete His will" isn't to defend the moral character of your deity. "His will" could as easy be malicious or indifferent to suffering as it could be benevolent.

No it can't, the Bible clearly lays out for us God's purpose and that purpose is redemption, He desires all to be saved and works for that to be possible for every one, unfortunately that want happen.

Do you believe that God's commands, whatever they are, are morally justified, just because it was God who issued them? If so, then I suppose you could claim to believe in a God who is omnibenevolent, although in that case his omnibenevolence is a trivially true entailment of divine command theory.

 Yes absolutely, without doubt, He has providence over His creation. I suppose one could look at it that way. I dislike the term because it's used to discredit God and the Bible doesn't teach He is omnibenevolent. This is a term that atheist have made up and or learned from those who hate God, and they use it in a negative way against God and, like I said the Bible doesn't teach omnibenevolence.

GC

[Godscreated]

The Gospels are the only information we have,

That's just nonsense:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Note that the Gospel of Thomas contains some unique history of Jesus.

 Those are not reliable or accepted teachings of Christ, the go against the Bible we now have.

GC

[Godscreated]

Answer to Mark 9:1
 Please explain to me what the kingdom of God is, hint, not the second coming nor heaven is being referred to here, so why don't you search out what Jesus was actually saying. Remember the verse says "with power", so what could it possibly be, another hint it's here right now, today and till the end of time.

GC

Mark explains what he means:

Mark 13:26 And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.

 You jumped several chapters which could have covered as much as 6 months to a year. You cherry picked right out of the middle of Jesus answering the disciples questioning about the end of time the two verses here have nothing to do with each other. The kingdom Jesus referred to in Mark 9:1 is here today, so you haven't found out yet what it is. I gave you a hint that it is here in power.

GC

[Godscreated]

There are no originals; in fact, the earliest copy of Mark is about 50% complete (half is missing) and dates from around the year 200 AD.  The earliest complete copy of Mark is from around 350 AD.

So it's all BS as usual.

 Hey dummy, we do not have an original copy of Shakespeare, so is this also BS. We haven't originals of many historical documents, does this mean they are worthless. The original Constitution is fading away even in it's protective case, one day we will lose it too, grow up and be reasonable.

GC