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.
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.
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.
I guess we're done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
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.
Story based on an event; same as what science does today and they call them theories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
And yes, you do lack scientific knowledge as you've shown with your comments concerning the Chicxulub asteroid.
Since you're only rebuttable, concerning my comments made about the Chicxulub asteroid, is that I lack scientific knowledge, then yes, we are done.
Story based on an event; same as what science does today and they call them theories.
Since you're only rebuttable, concerning my comments made about the Chicxulub asteroid, is that I lack scientific knowledge, then yes, we are done.
A person is going to have to learn the language that came before Koine Greek (everything comes from somewhere before it) ...
Not to study texts written in the late 1st and early 2nd century AD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
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)
Someone or some people wrote the works attributed to Homer, and it is those works that Mark would have used.
And no, you are using tradition invented by people known to invent things (like 40 gospels). I am using evidence we have no reason to doubt. I am not doing what you are doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
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)
No, you need to a time machine to know if the authors of the gospels used oral tradition. Otherwise you have no evidence they did. Whereas we do have the evidence Mark use the OT. All those alleged prophecies is also the evidence gospel Jesus was invented out of the OT. The more prophecies you claim to have, the more invented your Jesus becomes.
Ugg, ug and King Tut are STILL irrelevant to the source for the gospels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
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.
Err, no. People copied texts and then sent them all across the Roman empire. We even have 2nd century AD Christians complaining about these texts being changed as they were copied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
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.
Also applies to YOUR ARGUMENTS, so we can dismiss everything you say. Also, the fact that you had to quote PART of what I wrote is dishonest.
Again, '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'.
Not to study texts written in the late 1st and early 2nd century AD.
Na, und?
No, the cumulative evidence is strong. There is no big if. Even your link supports this.
Someone or some people wrote the works attributed to Homer, and it is those works that Mark would have used.
And no, you are using tradition invented by people known to invent things (like 40 gospels). I am using evidence we have no reason to doubt. I am not doing what you are doing.
No, you need to a time machine to know if the authors of the gospels used oral tradition. Otherwise you have no evidence they did. Whereas we do have the evidence Mark use the OT. All those alleged prophecies is also the evidence gospel Jesus was invented out of the OT. The more prophecies you claim to have, the more invented your Jesus becomes.
Ugg, ug and King Tut are STILL irrelevant to the source for the gospels.
Err, no. People copied texts and then sent them all across the Roman empire. We even have 2nd century AD Christians complaining about these texts being changed as they were copied.
Also applies to YOUR ARGUMENTS, so we can dismiss everything you say. Also, the fact that you had to quote PART of what I wrote is dishonest.
Again, '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 Harry Diogenes
Not to study texts written in the late 1st and early 2nd century AD.
To make a comparison? Which you said "to compare them is to learn Koine Greek".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Na, und?
Centuries of oral traditions prior to and during the evolution of language spoken, then written.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Someone or some people wrote the works attributed to Homer, and it is those works that Mark would have used.
And no, you are using tradition invented by people known to invent things (like 40 gospels). I am using evidence we have no reason to doubt. I am not doing what you are doing.
Correlation does not imply causation. [per that i placed in bold of your post]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
No, you need to a time machine to know if the authors of the gospels used oral tradition. Otherwise you have no evidence they did. Whereas we do have the evidence Mark use the OT. All those alleged prophecies is also the evidence gospel Jesus was invented out of the OT. The more prophecies you claim to have, the more invented your Jesus becomes.
Ugg, ug and King Tut are STILL irrelevant to the source for the gospels.
Wasted effort by anthropologist I see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Also applies to YOUR ARGUMENTS, so we can dismiss everything you say. Also, the fact that you had to quote PART of what I wrote is dishonest.
Again, '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'.
Your midday meal was irrelevant and you use of your midday meal was irrelevant and I replied to the part that was --- calling me dishonest is a way to not properly address what I wrote. Mark's use of Paul's teachings? Some people's opinions agree with you while others do not. Again, correlation does not imply causation, which is the same as what you are telling me about oral traditions and the gospels and that one doesn't mean the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
You said 'Constantine established freedom of religion, which was a first'. This is false, the Romans and Greeks also had freedom of religion.
Constantine I was a Roman emperor in 312 and the sole Roman emperor in 324 and he established freedom of religion during his reign. If he was not the first to do so, then who was?
Christ was the first advocate for the separation of church and state, 'give to Caesar that which is Caesar; give to God that which is God's'. The Church was running the government in the creation of laws used to govern the citizens. imo, if you take Him out of the story of our beginnings, then you take out the separation of church and state, which didn't happen until centuries later and for some countries, it still hasn't happened yet.
Last edited by Ellis Bell; 12-13-2022 at 03:34 PM..
All I'm going to say is try explaining the oldest Bible which is from Ethiopia 800 years before the King James Version Bible from 1611. The Ethiopia's Bible have 88 books. The letter J didn't existed till around the 16th century.
To make a comparison? Which you said "to compare them is to learn Koine Greek".
The KJV was written after the gospels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Centuries of oral traditions prior to and during the evolution of language spoken, then written.
So the gospels exist, therefore they must be based on oral tradition, even though we can never prove that, and the evidence is against that? Why are you ignoring the evidence we do have for he evidence we can never have?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Correlation does not imply causation. [per that i placed in bold of your post]
No, but it can infer correlation, as it does with the different, independent historians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Wasted effort by anthropologist I see.
No, it is not wasted, it is of no value as we can (once again) never know if the gospels are based on oral tradition or not, and therefore oral tradition does not help. But we DO have the back references to the OT, the evidence you insist on ignoring for evidence we can never have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Your midday meal was irrelevant and you use of your midday meal was irrelevant and I replied to the part that was ---
Exactly my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
... calling me dishonest is a way to not properly address what I wrote.
No, calling you dishonest is because you took my post out of context to ignore the point it was making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Mark's use of Paul's teachings? Some people's opinions agree with you while others do not. Again, correlation does not imply causation, which is the same as what you are telling me about oral traditions and the gospels and that one doesn't mean the other.
Compare the teaching of Jesus on Mark with Paul's teachings. Mark is a Pauline Christian. And the order of some of the stories in Mark are identical to the same message found in Paul, which is most unlikely if Mark was not using Paul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Constantine I was a Roman emperor in 312 and the sole Roman emperor in 324 and he established freedom of religion during his reign. If he was not the first to do so, then who was?
As I said, the Romans and Greeks. Why do you think the Jews could practice their religion centuries before Constantine?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Christ was the first advocate for the separation of church and state, 'give to Caesar that which is Caesar; give to God that which is God's'.
Did Paul not say something similar? Why, it is as if Mark was rewriting what Paul wrote, but in a more interesting way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
The Church was running the government in the creation of laws used to govern the citizens. imo, if you take Him out of the story of our beginnings, then you take out the separation of church and state, which didn't happen until centuries later and for some countries, it still hasn't happened yet.
No, take 'historical' Jesus out of the picture, and you still have Paul and his angelic Jesus promoting paying Roman taxes.
All I'm going to say is try explaining the oldest Bible which is from Ethiopia 800 years before the King James Version Bible from 1611. The Ethiopia's Bible have 88 books. The letter J didn't existed till around the 16th century.
Just one more bit of evidence the Christian religion is a wholly man-made construct not based on anything except myths, stories, politics and imagination.
Just one more bit of evidence the Christian religion is a wholly man-made construct not based on anything except myths, stories, politics and imagination.
So the gospels exist, therefore they must be based on oral tradition, even though we can never prove that, and the evidence is against that? Why are you ignoring the evidence we do have for he evidence we can never have?
No, but it can infer correlation, as it does with the different, independent historians.
No, it is not wasted, it is of no value as we can (once again) never know if the gospels are based on oral tradition or not, and therefore oral tradition does not help. But we DO have the back references to the OT, the evidence you insist on ignoring for evidence we can never have.
Exactly my point.
No, calling you dishonest is because you took my post out of context to ignore the point it was making.
Compare the teaching of Jesus on Mark with Paul's teachings. Mark is a Pauline Christian. And the order of some of the stories in Mark are identical to the same message found in Paul, which is most unlikely if Mark was not using Paul.
As I said, the Romans and Greeks. Why do you think the Jews could practice their religion centuries before Constantine?
Did Paul not say something similar? Why, it is as if Mark was rewriting what Paul wrote, but in a more interesting way.
No, take 'historical' Jesus out of the picture, and you still have Paul and his angelic Jesus promoting paying Roman taxes.
"The fact may, however, be regarded as certain, that prior to the year 285 B.C. the Septuagint version had been commenced, and that in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, either the books in general or at least an important part of them had been completed.
<snip?
The Septuagint version having been current for about three centuries before the time when the books of the New Testament were written, it is not surprising that the Apostles should have used it more often than not in making citations from the Old Testament. They used it as an honestly-made version in pretty general use at the time when they wrote. They did not on every occasion give an authoritative translation of each passage de novo, but they used what was already familiar to the ears of converted Hellenists, when it was sufficiently accurate to suit the matter in hand. In fact, they used it as did their contemporary Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus, but not, however, with the blind implicitness of the former." An Historical Account of the Septuagint Version
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
So the gospels exist, therefore they must be based on oral tradition, even though we can never prove that, and the evidence is against that? Why are you ignoring the evidence we do have for he evidence we can never have?
Why are you ignoring the literacy rates of the people who lived in medieval times?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
No, but it can infer correlation, as it does with the different, independent historians.
No, it is not wasted, it is of no value as we can (once again) never know if the gospels are based on oral tradition or not, and therefore oral tradition does not help. But we DO have the back references to the OT, the evidence you insist on ignoring for evidence we can never have.
Who are these historians; what are their names?
Correlation does not imply causation.
Homer's may have been a text circulating, but you still can not for certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, put that text in John Mark's hands (or the several people who may have authored the book of mark). Given the literacy rate --- the probability begins to dwindle that they all had a copy of Homer. You have to put those people and/or John Mark in a school or in a library that hasn't been burnt down to the ground (in medieval times) learning how to read and write, with a teacher.
Anthropology may be lost on some, but not others --- not applying their world in their time and how they lived to the argument? Seriously Harry, I would think only (some) Christians would kick out civilization's evolution in an argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Exactly my point.
No, calling you dishonest is because you took my post out of context to ignore the point it was making.
Your use of sarcasm was irrelevant, calling me dishonest was the way to ignore what I wrote. Do you call that debate strategy? The text I highlighted and quoted I added 3 dots afterwards to allow readers to know to look up, as there is more to that quote. I am not the only one that does that on this forum, but will be the one called out on it during a debate? (this is not personal, it's a debate)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Compare the teaching of Jesus on Mark with Paul's teachings. Mark is a Pauline Christian. And the order of some of the stories in Mark are identical to the same message found in Paul, which is most unlikely if Mark was not using Paul.
Yes, I've read that and I've also read other debates on the topic stating the John Mark was not a theologian and because he was a Christian, he was not being objective which accounts for the reason they seem identical. I am not a theologian or a Bible scholar; therefore I hold no position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
As I said, the Romans and Greeks. Why do you think the Jews could practice their religion centuries before Constantine?
Does not answer my question: "Constantine I was a Roman emperor in 312 and the sole Roman emperor in 324 and he established freedom of religion during his reign. If he was not the first to do so, then who was?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Did Paul not say something similar? Why, it is as if Mark was rewriting what Paul wrote, but in a more interesting way.
I know the events and what those events represent in the evolution of civilizations from then to now --- I'm not speculating on two authors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
No, take 'historical' Jesus out of the picture, and you still have Paul and his angelic Jesus promoting paying Roman taxes.
They may talk about taxes --- but take Christ and the events around Him out of the equation, Jesus isn't there for a discussion or to have any history of Him recorded. The idea of separation of church and state may not even surface with the church continuing to run the government. (as it is in other countries)
Last edited by Ellis Bell; 12-14-2022 at 04:10 PM..
Reason: added text in parentheses
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.
Seriously Harry, I would think only (some) Christians would kick out civilization's evolution in an argument. 
