Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Tyndale was compelled to flee at one time with a few printed sheets and complete his work on another press. Several times copies of his books were solemnly burned, and his own life was frequently in danger.
<snip>
The final revision of the Tyndale translations was published in 1534, and that becomes the notable year of his life. In two years he was put to death by strangling, and his body was burned. When we remember that this was done with the joint power of Church and State, we realize some of the odds against which he worked."
All the copies of the translation were burned except for one. (ps. imagine a world without Christianity and you can see the future)
I showed you mine, where is yours?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
I don't know what you're implying, sorry.
Back up what you posted in bold. Because I've got a huge cover up that, that history was never to see the light of day, but you have something opposite, where did you get it from?
The earth will not crash into the sun. Rather, when the sun enters into its last phase it will swell up in size and engulf the earth. Until then the earth is slowly moving away from the sun.
"As Newton was able to show, Kepler's third law requires that the gravitational force between two objects decrease as the inverse square of their distances.
<snip>
What causes an orbit to be stable?
An orbit is the balance between inertial (Newton's First Law) and gravitational forces (Newton's second law). That is, the earth is continually falling toward the sun, but inertia also wants the earth to keep moving in a straight line. When these two forces are in balance a stable orbit results ... " (emphasis is mine)
Now what did I say --- I mention science class 50 years ago and what was said about Newton's laws. I also said that God had told Noah that he wouldn't destroy the earth by flood again, but by fire.
Both things can't be true as logic dictates --- the second is the false statement. God's destruction of earth by fire was the preacher's interpretation as a loop hole to God's promise. And I just found that out ...
And if you keep telling me that I lack knowledge --- we're done. Mud slinging does not a productive conversation make.
God never told Noah anything about a Flood. It's a legendary story based on some regional flood that occurred in the ancient Near East.
And yes, you do lack scientific knowledge as you've shown with your comments concerning the Chicxulub asteroid.
What about the similarities between Jesus and Horus, if someone hasn't brought this up yet. After I read those, I'm pretty convinced Jesus was based on Horus from thousands of years earlier.
What about the similarities between Jesus and Horus, if someone hasn't brought this up yet. After I read those, I'm pretty convinced Jesus was based on Horus from thousands of years earlier.
How about Jesus stories in the gospel drawn from a dozen different pagan gods and a few Old Testament heroes Moses, Elijah and Elisha. For example Jesus feeding the 5000 can be found right here:
2 Kings 4:42-44
42 A man came from Baal Shalishah. He brought the man of God 20 loaves of barley bread. They had been baked from the first grain that had ripened. The man also brought some heads of new grain. “Give this food to the people to eat,†Elisha said. 43 “How can I put this in front of 100 men?†his servant asked. But Elisha answered, “Give it to the people to eat. Do it because the Lord says, ‘They will eat and have some left over.’ †44 Then the servant put the food in front of them. They ate it and had some left over. It happened just as the Lord had said it would.
Compare:
Mark 6:30-44
15 As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a remote place, and it’s already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food.†16 Jesus replied, "You give them something to eat.†17 “They said to him, “A half year's wages would not buy that much food. We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish." 18“Bring them here to me,†he said. 19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. He blessed the bread and fish, then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people.20 They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over.
You want to talk about gospel plagiarism--there it is in technicolor. Nearly ever story in the gospels can be traced back to earlier completely unrelated accounts of other gods and heroes.
Everything comes from somewhere else ... everything.
Well done. That still does not explain that because oral tradition exists, why the gospels must be based on oral tradition, nor does it refute the large amount of evidence Mark used Paul's letters, the OT, and texts such as Homer, nor does it refute the large amount of evidence the other gospels are rewrites of earlier texts such as Mark, the root for all the gospels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
The cause as yet to be determined ... and science is of no use. Now what? Faith? Faith in what, humans wouldn't lie --- ? Or humans do lie? Governments are known to lie, even those thousands upon thousands of years ago --- but you seem to think that is irrelevant. Do you really think the leader of that day would want to go down in history as the one that hung the Son of God? Heck, be the (week minded) pharaoh that let slaves leave Egypt --- he would not want that known, in his day, much less, for those in the future. Any one repeating that, is going to get dead, real fast. That is what makes it relevant. Contextualize ----
Yes, that governments lie is irrelevant to many things, including what I had for my midday meal, and the source the unknown author of mark used for his fictional allegory of Paul's teachings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Archeology and Paleontology, as well as, that guys research is not enough for you --- I got that, you don't need to repeat it.
Correct, work based on later myths invented by 2nd and 3rd century AD Christians should be ignored when compared with source material, such as Mark's gospel itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
It was in my search history from the last time you brought this up ... An Introduction to Homer and the Papyri and there is more, you want that too? Now your task --- put Homer's literary works in Marks hands at the Library at Alexandria. Again, the word is, fragment(s).
Yes, NOW they are fragments. That does not mean they were fragments THEN (as I explained before), and considering the texts of Homer in Alexandria were used to create our canonical version used by the Romans then, and those we use today, then clearly they were not fragments THEN.
The unknown author of Mark was NOT using fragments, just as my copies of Homer are NOT fragments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Not any different than taking the scholarly interpretations of literary works, without question. You are actually doing the same thing, you accuse me of doing.
No, you are using a non sequitur, I am using multiple independent sources that I do question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
I found the 1611 version online and I was going to give it a go. Kings English isn't difficult for me, but that, is out of my range.
Now all you have to do to compare them is to learn Koine Greek.
Take Christianity out of the equation --- what is left? If a person is not born of Jewish descent or Islam (640s a.d.) of that era, what is there for them within the first centuries of settlements and the laws they are subjected to? Constantine established freedom of religion, which was a first and those laws only survived the length of his reign. Abraham had Two Sons, and I'm sure that doesn't mean anything to you, but it should.
No, the Greeks and Romans also had freedom of religion.
Back up what you posted in bold. Because I've got a huge cover up that, that history was never to see the light of day, but you have something opposite, where did you get it from?
Let me understand, Ellis. You're actually disputing that Constantine established religious tolerance that allowed people to worship whatever gods they wanted?
And that after he died the Catholic hierarchy went on a murderous rampage destroying every non-Catholic document that even sniffed of paganism they could get their hands on?
Ellis, these are undisputed historical facts. Maybe Harry is right. You should either take a few courses in ancient history or at the least just absorb yourself in Internet readings and videos.
Christian power grew, and Christians were soon denying freedom of religion to everyone except followers of the Christian faction currently in favour. In the year that the Emperor Constantine inaugurated his new capital at Byzantium, AD 330, he prohibited the performance of rites of other faiths there. In 333, Christian censorship, pillaging, dispossession and judicial killing started in earnest. Not only were works of Arius, but also people who owned such works, to be consigned to the flames. Gold and treasure were removed from Eastern temples. Under Constantine's Christian sons, the trend developed further. More temples were destroyed, and sacrifices were forbidden. Marriages between Christians and Jews were declared illegal, and the crime was punishable by death. Constantius II passed laws against pagans in 341
Now I was nice and did the work for you this once, Ellis. But from now on I won't be defending myself on such basic historic points that anyone should know.
Well done. That still does not explain that because oral tradition exists, why the gospels must be based on oral tradition, nor does it refute the large amount of evidence Mark used Paul's letters, the OT, and texts such as Homer, nor does it refute the large amount of evidence the other gospels are rewrites of earlier texts such as Mark, the root for all the gospels.
Yes, that governments lie is irrelevant to many things, including what I had for my midday meal, and the source the unknown author of mark used for his fictional allegory of Paul's teachings.
Correct, work based on later myths invented by 2nd and 3rd century AD Christians should be ignored when compared with source material, such as Mark's gospel itself.
Yes, NOW they are fragments. That does not mean they were fragments THEN (as I explained before), and considering the texts of Homer in Alexandria were used to create our canonical version used by the Romans then, and those we use today, then clearly they were not fragments THEN.
The unknown author of Mark was NOT using fragments, just as my copies of Homer are NOT fragments.
No, you are using a non sequitur, I am using multiple independent sources that I do question.
Now all you have to do to compare them is to learn Koine Greek.
A person is going to have to learn the language that came before Koine Greek (everything comes from somewhere before it) ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Well done. That still does not explain that because oral tradition exists, why the gospels must be based on oral tradition, nor does it refute the large amount of evidence Mark used Paul's letters, the OT, and texts such as Homer, nor does it refute the large amount of evidence the other gospels are rewrites of earlier texts such as Mark, the root for all the gospels.
An original (cuneiform/papyrus) manuscript for the 66 Books of the Bible has never been found. The Book of Mark is a compilation (fragments anyone?) from two different (translations) codecs, Codex Vaticanus & Bobbiensis dated 400 A.D. (from bible researcher)
Oral tradition was what they had to work with --- because language was young and a written word, not yet developed. The only ones knowing how to write and read were --- the leaders, also known as high priest, pharaohs, ect. (no time machine needed, just anthropology)
The first translations "codex" of the works found began (debated even among those) 70A.D - 100A.D. of the Bible and it took those of that era 300 years to put a 'book' together and it was written by hand. The church fathers collected them, sending out word across regions (not by plane, probably carrier pigeon) so they could carry what they had to Africa so as to begin the compilation process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Yes, that governments lie is irrelevant ...
Yea, no --- don't consider it relevant, because if you did, everything you've got on that era just might fall a part. Their government told them what their culture, religion and rituals were --- the people had 0 power, they did what they were told and worshiped what god they were told to worship and in what manner.
Take Christianity out of the equation --- what is left? If a person is not born of Jewish descent or Islam (640s a.d.) of that era, what is there for them within the first centuries of settlements and the laws they are subjected to? Constantine established freedom of religion, which was a first and those laws only survived the length of his reign. Abraham had Two Sons, and I'm sure that doesn't mean anything to you, but it should.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
No, the Greeks and Romans also had freedom of religion.
Constantine was ruler of Rome and did I say he was the only one? PS: I said, it, because I read it.
Last edited by Ellis Bell; 12-12-2022 at 05:29 PM..
Back up what you posted in bold. Because I've got a huge cover up that, that history was never to see the light of day, but you have something opposite, where did you get it from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Let me understand, Ellis. You're actually disputing that Constantine established religious tolerance ...
No I was merely asking for your research, so that I could reconcile it with the era of King James and ...
"Tyndale was compelled to flee at one time with a few printed sheets and complete his work on another press. Several times copies of his books were solemnly burned, and his own life was frequently in danger.
<snip>
The final revision of the Tyndale translations was published in 1534, and that becomes the notable year of his life. In two years he was put to death by strangling, and his body was burned. When we remember that this was done with the joint power of Church and State, we realize some of the odds against which he worked."
All the copies of the translation were burned except for one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and science is of no use. Now what? Faith? Faith in what, humans wouldn't lie --- ? Or humans do lie? Governments are known to lie, even those thousands upon thousands of years ago --- but you seem to think that is irrelevant. Do you really think the leader of that day would want to go down in history as the one that hung the Son of God? Heck, be the (week minded) pharaoh that let slaves leave Egypt --- he would not want that known, in his day, much less, for those in the future. Any one repeating that, is going to get dead, real fast. That is what makes it relevant. Contextualize ----
