Slaughtering the faithful on yahoo...great fun
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-12-2014, 12:05 PM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2014 12:11 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
Slaughtering the faithful on yahoo...great fun
SO I have replied on a couple of yahoo threads were I slid out some bait to draw engagement, and then sift through and reply. I enjoy a general forum debate because the audience is literally worldwide, and of all different flavors, thus getting the message that religion is based on false disproven dogma gets out to more people then debating in a religion forum....the yahoo reply box can be frustrating though, seemingly to pick when it wants to let you post or not, and how big...but anyway, this one has over 113 replies, and this tool named Notanymore and an educated theist named John were trying to tagteam me. John and I exchanged papers, and assertions, displaying how different perspectives can see the same info different, and how different people can cling to diversely different "proofs." We got pretty deep over emperor constantine and the nicene council area...but I wanted to share the ramblings of notanymore and me....truly nuclear level face palm....Here are the last couple of exchanges:

(for ease of readership, I will bold mine)

Quote:Goodwithoutgod
The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer...do some research. Knowledge is power, and quite liberating.

Quote:Notanymore

"The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date"

Still lying I see even after you were given all the dates of the NT. It was in the 60s by Matthew. We've seen your "scholars" and they are quite laughable. They don't even know Arianism when they see it...LOL! And if you knew anything about how the bible was written at all you'd know it does not matter when it was written.

Quote:Goodwithoutgod

my poor misguided believer in fairy tales. Lets review:

The authors of mark were first, then the anonymous authors of matthew and luke utilized mark as the basis for their books....see, it isn't three different "witnesses", it is one story, not written by a witness, then two other collaborating stories based on the first story...am i going to fast for you?

" The most widely accepted hypothesis is that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source for various reasons. Matthew even reproduced about ninety percent of Mark, while Luke reproduced about sixty percent."

and that quote from a biblical historical site *gasp* yup, it seems you are the only one with this skewed views of historical dates of compilation. The take-away here though is, none of them were written by eye witnesses, thus all written based on hearsay, by people other than the "author's names"...that is called pseudepigrapha.

Pseudepigrapha are falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed author is represented by a separate author, or a work "whose real author attributed it to a figure of the past."

Here, have some more guidance from christian historicity:

Early Christian tradition held that the Gospel of Matthew was written in "Hebrew" (Aramaic, the language of Judea) by the apostle Matthew, the tax-collector and disciple of Jesus, but according to the majority of modern scholars it is unlikely that this Gospel was written by an eyewitness. Modern scholars interpret the tradition to mean that Papias, its source, writing about 125–150 CE, believed that Matthew had made a collection of the sayings of Jesus. Papias's description does not correspond well with what is known of the gospel: it was most probably written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew, it depends on the Greek Gospels of Mark and on the hypothetical Q document, and it is not a collection of sayings. Although the identity of the author is unknown, the internal evidence of the Gospel suggests that he was an ethnic Jewish male scribe from a Hellenised city, possibly Antioch in Syria, and that he wrote between 70 and 100 CE using a variety of oral traditions and written sources about Jesus.

BAAM! That sound is me beating you with your own faith, perhaps you should study it...


Quote:Notanymore

"The authors of mark were first, then the anonymous authors of matthew and luke utilized mark as the basis for their books"'

See, this is why I don't bother to read your garbage and did not after this very first sentence you wrote. It is widely known that the book of Galatians was the first book written at about 49 AD. Like I said, all I have to do is glance, usually just at the first sentence...LOL!

Quote:Goodwithoutgod

Did I lose you Notaclue?

We were talking about the Synoptic Gospels...do you even know what that means? Not Paul. Speaking of paul, of the 14 books attributed to Paul, he only wrote 8, see, look at you learning stuff.

They grow up so fast these days.


oh ya, in reference to Galatians, which paul did write by the way; No original of the letter is known to survive. The earliest reasonably complete version available to scholars today, named P46, dates to approximately the year 200 AD, approximately 150 years after the original was PRESUMABLY drafted. This papyrus is fragmented in a few areas, causing some of the original text carefully preserved over the years to be missing.....uhoh

Note the word PRESUMABLY.


Quote:Notanymore

"Did I lose you Notaclue?"

You lost me the very first time you opened your mouth. I don't entertain error.

"The earliest reasonably complete version available to scholars today, named P46, dates to approximately the year 200 AD, approximately 150 years after the original was PRESUMABLY drafted. This papyrus is fragmented in a few areas, causing some of the original text carefully preserved over the years to be missing.....uhoh"

Yeah, I see you conveniently left out the fact there are thousands of manuscript copies. Taken together, it allows one to form a comprehensive reconstruction of the text to at least a 99% accuracy rate. You're not too smart are you?



You're not even an atheist. A rank amateur is what you are. A complete embarrassment to atheism because there's not one iota of truth in you. One of your heroes, Anthony Flew, generally regarded as the most influential atheist of the 20th century examined the God hypothesis employing science and came to the conclusion there is a God. That's honest work. But not you. No, you have zero integrity. A laughing stock in your ignorance. Mr. Flew upon examining the evidence came to the conclusion that in order to deny the existence of God, one would have to throw out science altogether. The very thing Christians have been telling you while you in lies and deceit claim Christians reject science. No, we reject the folly and foolishness you embrace. You know nothing of science and you're a lying fraud.


Quote:Goodwithoutgod

I love how I always have a hard time reading your hubris and ineducable tyro ravings while shaking my head. Maybe you think if you close your eyes and ears while reciting blah blah blah you can convince yourself the lies are true....

You are right, there are thousands of copies, about 30,000 actually, want to know how many match? Ever researched the process of copies? I have a couple books that tear into that pretty well, basically these scribes, most not even literate, would grind away dark to dark 7 days a week copying the squiggly lines....ever heard of human error? Even the literate ones would misread, mistranslate or in good faith add or modify here and there thinking they were correcting a previous mistake or "typo."

Get some education in the anthropocentric faith of christian theology my clueless friend, there is much you clearly do not know.

Drink the kool aid, nothing to see here notaclue...don't you worry your pretty little head about inconvenient things like fact, historicity, reason and logic, you just keep believing a genie blew into a handful of dirt and created man *pats on head*

...and it isnt how many copies of copies of copies, of lies fiction, fantasy and forgery exist, it is the fact NO ORIGINAL exists for us to examine..



Quote:Notanymore

"ever heard of human error?"

Hey genius, ever heard of the Holy Spirit? Not to mention the fact it is also well known the standard practice was when any mistake was found in a manuscript copy, then that entire manuscript was destroyed. Get a clue! Like I said, you're no atheist. You're merely a lying antagonist posting error after error.

In the many thousands of manuscript copies we possess of the New Testament, scholars have discovered that there are some 150,000 "variants."

This may seem like a staggering figure to the uninformed mind.

But to those who study the issue, the numbers are not so damning as it may initially appear.

Indeed, a look at the hard evidence shows that the New Testament manuscripts are amazingly accurate and trustworthy.
To begin, we must emphasize that out of these 150,000 variants, 99 percent hold virtually no significance whatsoever.

Many of these variants simply involve a missing letter in a word; some involve reversing the order of two words (such as "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ"); some may involve the absence of one or more insignificant words.

Really, when all the facts are put on the table, only about 50 of the variants have any real significance - and even then, no doctrine of the Christian faith or any moral commandment is effected by them.

For more than ninety-nine percent of the cases the original text can be reconstructed to a practical certainty.

Even in the few cases where some perplexity remains, this does not impinge on the meaning of Scripture to the point of clouding a tenet of the faith or a mandate of life.
Thus, in the Bible as we have it (and as it is conveyed to us through faithful translations) we do have for practical purposes the very Word of God, inasmuch as the manuscripts do convey to us the complete vital truth of the originals.

By practicing the science of textual criticism - comparing all the available manuscripts with each other - we can come to an assurance regarding what the original document must have said.

Let us suppose we have five manuscript copies of an original document that no longer exists. Each of the manuscript copies are different. Our goal is to compare the manuscript copies and ascertain what the original must have said. Here are the five copies:
Manuscript #1: Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole worl.

Manuscript #2: Christ Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.

Manuscript #3: Jesus Christ s the Savior of the whole world.

Manuscript #4: Jesus Christ is th Savior of the whle world.

Manuscript #5: Jesus Christ is the Savor of the whole wrld.
Could you, by comparing the manuscript copies, ascertain what the original document said with a high degree of certainty that you are correct? Of course you could.

This illustration may be extremely simplistic, but a great majority of the 150,000 variants are solved by the above methodology.

By comparing the various manuscripts, all of which contain very minor differences like the above, it becomes fairly clear what the original must have said.

Most of the manuscript variations concern matters of spelling, word order, tenses, and the like; no single doctrine is affected by them in any way.

We must also emphasize that the sheer volume of manuscripts we possess greatly narrows the margin of doubt regarding what the original biblical document said.

If the number of [manuscripts] increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small.

YOU'RE NO ATHEIST, YOU'RE A MORON WHO WANTS TO BE AN ATHEIST...LOL!

Quote:Goodwithoutgod

Nice google there notaclue. Now google what an interpolation is...like for example in Mark:

All scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark, are highly dubious and are considered interpolations. The earliest ancient documents of mark end right after the women find the empty tomb. This means that in the first biography, on which the others based their reports, there is no post-resurrection appearance or ascension of jesus. uhoh.

So all of that snake handling, and resurrection stuff? made up, this is called an interpolation notaclue, and the bible has lots of them, Unlike your assertion that "oh it is just an errant letter or two here and there and doesn't affect actual christian doctrine.

"the Gospel of Mark ends at verse 8 in two of the oldest and most respected manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. As the oldest manuscripts are known to be the most accurate because there were fewer generations of copies from the original autographs (i.e., they are much closer in time to the originals), and the oldest manuscripts do not contain vv. 9-20, we can conclude that these verses were added later by scribes."

ADDED later by scribes.

Look at you learning stuff


Quote:Notanymore

"All scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark, are highly dubious and are considered interpolations."

We've seen your "scholars." Arians and Catholics, lunatics and liars just like you. Just how does one not know what a cult is anyway, yet would cite a cult as scholarly? Or just how does one not know that the RCC has never been authentic Christian in the first place, and they actually work for Satan?! And just how does one not know that those you cite as "scholars" are generally regarded as what is known as the lunatic fringe of liberal journalism and not scholars at all? That's what you use for scholars?? Is it any wonder then you yourself appear insane...LOL?!

"As the oldest manuscripts are known to be the most accurate"

Which is a false premise and a lie. That may be man's thinking but it is certainly not God's. You're a fool who can't see the forest for the trees. Let me clue you it on a little something. Do you think Christians today are not still writing for God? Somewhere in the world right now some Christian is writing exactly what God told them to write. Did it ever occur to your infantile mind that such writing is still necessary? The whole thing is dictated by God. God makes you write it over and over until you get it exact. God checks it for error and makes you re-write it if there is error to ensure it is correct down to the precise synonym intended by God. Of course it does not occur to you. It does not because you're deceived, hard of heart, and generally stuck in ignorance and pride way out in left field somewhere as a result. Man really has nothing to do with it except follow God's orders. Yep, you're a complete fool.

Quote:Goodwithoutgod

"Somewhere in the world right now some Christian is writing exactly what God told them to write."

voices in your head are a sign of hallucination, not divine telepathy.

"The whole thing is dictated by God. God makes you write it over and over until you get it exact. God checks it for error and makes you re-write it if there is error to ensure it is correct down to the precise synonym intended by God."

lol wow, I can sit back and watch you make a complete idiot of yourself...you see this folks? There are actually people who think this way...amazing isn't it? Then why is the bible so full of errors, inconsistencies, lies and forgeries dear notsosmart? hmmm?

Where was this god of yours when 14 million jews were being marched into the ovens? Why did this god of yours create/allow cancer to strike young children? Why does the sun bombard us with cancer causing rays? Why did god not leave proof of himself or oh his false prophet alleged son jesus? no, your inconsistent fiction, forgeries and fantasy provided by years of hand wringing delusionals does not evidence make. Try again. You aren't really good at this. Dismantling your assertions truly is child's play, hold on, let me call one of my 4 atheist children in here, they know enough to take your ramblings apart and are easily above your intellect and knowledge level on the buy-bull.


Laugh out load

Facepalm

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
20-12-2014, 12:31 PM
RE: Slaughtering the faithful on yahoo...great fun
and it continues..

Quote:Notanymore

"voices in your head are a sign of hallucination, not divine telepathy."

Last I recall a hallucination involved seeing or some other form, not hearing. That would be ILLUSION or DELUSION. You don't even know the definition of the word. Just as your idiotic interpolation claim. You're deluded. A little something you picked up from the Muslims. Everybody knows the Muslims have been claiming interpolation forever. Are they your "scholars" too...LOL! A rank amateur...LOL!

BTW, you better hope you start hearing the voice of God too. Otherwise that means you're scheduled for hell. The fact is every human being on the planet is supposed to hear that voice as a matter of being the norm rather than the exception. It is God's intent that he communicates with everyone in this form. You've got the whole thing backwards in your ignorance as usual.

"lol wow, I can sit back and watch you make a complete idiot of yourself...you see this folks? There are actually people who think this way...amazing isn't it?"

Deflect much? Ad hominem gibberish. Yeah, the fact is that never occured to your small mind ruled by an epistemology which re}tards intelligent thought.

"Where was this god of yours when 14 million jews were being marched into the ovens?"

Hey genius, were they his? They belonged to Satan just like you do. Did you not claim to have read a bible, liar? For it is written,

2 And now they sin more and more, and have made them molten images of their silver, and idols according to their own understanding, all of it the work of the craftsmen: they say of them, Let the men that sacrifice kiss the calves

and again

18 Yet I will preserve 7,000 others in Israel who have never bowed down to Baal or kissed him!"

Furthermore, you show yourself to be a liar yet again. Everybody also knows it was 6 million, 5,933,900 to be exact, and not the outrageous lie you are claiming of 14 million. See, you're just a liar easily caught in the lie again and again. You're the one who looks idiotic...14 million...hahanaha!

"Why did this god of yours create/allow cancer to strike young children?"

Um...are they his? No! They too belong to Satan just like you. What makes you think God is obligated to save children that are not even his? Nevertheless, those children are taken to heaven where they enjoy an infinitely better life now then they would have had had they not had cancer. They escaped the hell you're facing.

"Dismantling your assertions truly is child's play"

If lying i your idea of child's play.

Quote:Goodwithoutgod

what happened to"we are all god's children?" The depth to your ineducable tyro and hubristic approach to comprehending the world is epic on a whole new level.

Faith IS the delusion, belief without evidence. Faith is pretending to know things that you dont know. To say "I have faith in god" really means "I pretend to know things I don't know about god"....THINK about it, you dont know, you HOPE. Faith is an epistemology. It's a method and process people use to understand reality. Faith-based claims are knowledge claims. For example, "I have faith that jesus christ will heal my sickness because it says so in Luke" is a knowledge claim. The utterer of this statement is asserting jesus will heal her. Those who make faith claims are professing to know something about the external world. For example, when someone says "jesus walked on water" (matthew 14:22-33), that person is claiming TO KNOW there was an historical figure names jesus and that he, unaided by technology, literally walked across the surface of the water. This is a knowledge claim...an objective statement of fact.

Your religious beliefs typically depend on the community in which you were raised or lived. The spiritual experiences of people in ancient greece, medieval japan or 21st century saudia arabia do not lead to belief in christianity. It seems, therefore, that religious belief very likely tracks not truth but social conditioning.

Faith is a failed epistemology. Showing why faith fails has been done before and done well. (Bering 2011, Harris 2004, Loftus 2010, 2013, McCormick 2012, Schick & Vaughn 2008, Shermer 1997, 2011, Smith 1979, STenger & Barker 2012, Torres 2012, Wade 2009 etc)

If a belief is based on insufficient evidence, than any further conclusion drawn from the belief will at best be of questionable value. This can not point one to the path of truth. Here are five points believers/non believers should be able to agree upon.

1) There are different faith traditions.
2) Different faith traditions make different truth claims.
3) The truth claims of some faith traditions contradict the truth claims of other faith traditions. For example, Muslims believe muhammad (570-632) was the last prophet (Sura 33:40). Mormons believe Joseph Smith (1805-1844), who lived after muhammad was a prophet.
4) It cannot both be the case that muhammad was the last prophet, and someone who lived after him was also a prophet.
5) Therefore: At LEAST one of these claims must be false....perhaps both....

it is impossible to figure out which of these claims is incorrect if the tool one uses is faith. As a tool, as an epistemology, as a method of reasoning, as a process for knowing the world, faith cannot adjudicate between competing claims. The ONLY way to figure out which claims about the world are likely true, and which are likely false, is through reason and evidence. There is no other way.

Which god by the way notaclue?

Go read psalms 82.1, (kjv)

God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

I find it quite amusing with 4500 different religion, 40,000+ different strains of christian delusion, and yet each thinks THEIR delusion is the one, the will, the way and the truth, and EVERYONE else is wrong or "not a true christian."

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do, When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours..

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
20-12-2014, 12:40 PM
RE: Slaughtering the faithful on yahoo...great fun
How do you have the patience for this?

I suppose you do it for the spectators reading because it has to be lost on notaclue.

Carry on. Thumbsup

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
20-12-2014, 02:03 PM
RE: Slaughtering the faithful on yahoo...great fun
Gotta love the threat of hell. Tell me how to get involved, I would love to start some shit with these types of morons.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WillHopp's post
20-12-2014, 02:28 PM
RE: Slaughtering the faithful on yahoo...great fun
(20-12-2014 12:31 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  and it continues..

Quote:Notanymore

"voices in your head are a sign of hallucination, not divine telepathy."

Last I recall a hallucination involved seeing or some other form, not hearing. That would be ILLUSION or DELUSION. You don't even know the definition of the word. Just as your idiotic interpolation claim. You're deluded. A little something you picked up from the Muslims. Everybody knows the Muslims have been claiming interpolation forever. Are they your "scholars" too...LOL! A rank amateur...LOL!

Yabut - paracusia. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
21-12-2014, 06:40 AM
RE: Slaughtering the faithful on yahoo...great fun
(20-12-2014 02:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-12-2014 12:31 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  and it continues..


"voices in your head are a sign of hallucination, not divine telepathy."

Last I recall a hallucination involved seeing or some other form, not hearing. That would be ILLUSION or DELUSION. You don't even know the definition of the word. Just as your idiotic interpolation claim. You're deluded. A little something you picked up from the Muslims. Everybody knows the Muslims have been claiming interpolation forever. Are they your "scholars" too...LOL! A rank amateur...LOL!

Yabut - paracusia. Drinking Beverage

This is why I love being a part of this forum, I am always learning new things. Thanks for the erudite assist Smile

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2014, 06:43 AM
RE: Slaughtering the faithful on yahoo...great fun
(20-12-2014 12:40 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  How do you have the patience for this?

I suppose you do it for the spectators reading because it has to be lost on notaclue.

Carry on. Thumbsup

Exactly the reason I do it. With few exceptions, the person I am actually debating is unlikely to "switch teams", odds are if they feel assertive enough to debate it they are completely committed to their worldview. I do it for those who watch...planting a seed here and there, making assertions that make them go, "that can't be true"...then they go research it and go, wow, it is true...and then perhaps their journey down the path of truth begins...

Drooling

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
21-12-2014, 07:56 AM
RE: Slaughtering the faithful on yahoo...great fun
(21-12-2014 06:43 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(20-12-2014 12:40 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  How do you have the patience for this?

I suppose you do it for the spectators reading because it has to be lost on notaclue.

Carry on. Thumbsup

Exactly the reason I do it. With few exceptions, the person I am actually debating is unlikely to "switch teams", odds are if they feel assertive enough to debate it they are completely committed to their worldview. I do it for those who watch...planting a seed here and there, making assertions that make them go, "that can't be true"...then they go research it and go, wow, it is true...and then perhaps their journey down the path of truth begins...

Drooling

Exactly. That's what I've always said about what we talk about here. There are far more passing guests than members. I write for that audience as much as here.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
21-12-2014, 08:03 AM
RE: Slaughtering the faithful on yahoo...great fun
(21-12-2014 07:56 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(21-12-2014 06:43 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Exactly the reason I do it. With few exceptions, the person I am actually debating is unlikely to "switch teams", odds are if they feel assertive enough to debate it they are completely committed to their worldview. I do it for those who watch...planting a seed here and there, making assertions that make them go, "that can't be true"...then they go research it and go, wow, it is true...and then perhaps their journey down the path of truth begins...

Drooling

Exactly. That's what I've always said about what we talk about here. There are far more passing guests than members. I write for that audience as much as here.

Yes

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2014, 08:54 AM
RE: Slaughtering the faithful on yahoo...great fun
(20-12-2014 12:05 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  SO I have replied on a couple of yahoo threads were I slid out some bait to draw engagement, and then sift through and reply. I enjoy a general forum debate because the audience is literally worldwide, and of all different flavors, thus getting the message that religion is based on false disproven dogma gets out to more people then debating in a religion forum....the yahoo reply box can be frustrating though, seemingly to pick when it wants to let you post or not, and how big...but anyway, this one has over 113 replies, and this tool named Notanymore and an educated theist named John were trying to tagteam me. John and I exchanged papers, and assertions, displaying how different perspectives can see the same info different, and how different people can cling to diversely different "proofs." We got pretty deep over emperor constantine and the nicene council area...but I wanted to share the ramblings of notanymore and me....truly nuclear level face palm....Here are the last couple of exchanges:

(for ease of readership, I will bold mine)

Quote:Goodwithoutgod
The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer...do some research. Knowledge is power, and quite liberating.

Quote:Notanymore

"The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date"

Still lying I see even after you were given all the dates of the NT. It was in the 60s by Matthew. We've seen your "scholars" and they are quite laughable. They don't even know Arianism when they see it...LOL! And if you knew anything about how the bible was written at all you'd know it does not matter when it was written.

Quote:Goodwithoutgod

my poor misguided believer in fairy tales. Lets review:

The authors of mark were first, then the anonymous authors of matthew and luke utilized mark as the basis for their books....see, it isn't three different "witnesses", it is one story, not written by a witness, then two other collaborating stories based on the first story...am i going to fast for you?

" The most widely accepted hypothesis is that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source for various reasons. Matthew even reproduced about ninety percent of Mark, while Luke reproduced about sixty percent."

and that quote from a biblical historical site *gasp* yup, it seems you are the only one with this skewed views of historical dates of compilation. The take-away here though is, none of them were written by eye witnesses, thus all written based on hearsay, by people other than the "author's names"...that is called pseudepigrapha.

Pseudepigrapha are falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed author is represented by a separate author, or a work "whose real author attributed it to a figure of the past."

Here, have some more guidance from christian historicity:

Early Christian tradition held that the Gospel of Matthew was written in "Hebrew" (Aramaic, the language of Judea) by the apostle Matthew, the tax-collector and disciple of Jesus, but according to the majority of modern scholars it is unlikely that this Gospel was written by an eyewitness. Modern scholars interpret the tradition to mean that Papias, its source, writing about 125–150 CE, believed that Matthew had made a collection of the sayings of Jesus. Papias's description does not correspond well with what is known of the gospel: it was most probably written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew, it depends on the Greek Gospels of Mark and on the hypothetical Q document, and it is not a collection of sayings. Although the identity of the author is unknown, the internal evidence of the Gospel suggests that he was an ethnic Jewish male scribe from a Hellenised city, possibly Antioch in Syria, and that he wrote between 70 and 100 CE using a variety of oral traditions and written sources about Jesus.

BAAM! That sound is me beating you with your own faith, perhaps you should study it...


Quote:Notanymore

"The authors of mark were first, then the anonymous authors of matthew and luke utilized mark as the basis for their books"'

See, this is why I don't bother to read your garbage and did not after this very first sentence you wrote. It is widely known that the book of Galatians was the first book written at about 49 AD. Like I said, all I have to do is glance, usually just at the first sentence...LOL!

Quote:Goodwithoutgod

Did I lose you Notaclue?

We were talking about the Synoptic Gospels...do you even know what that means? Not Paul. Speaking of paul, of the 14 books attributed to Paul, he only wrote 8, see, look at you learning stuff.

They grow up so fast these days.


oh ya, in reference to Galatians, which paul did write by the way; No original of the letter is known to survive. The earliest reasonably complete version available to scholars today, named P46, dates to approximately the year 200 AD, approximately 150 years after the original was PRESUMABLY drafted. This papyrus is fragmented in a few areas, causing some of the original text carefully preserved over the years to be missing.....uhoh

Note the word PRESUMABLY.


Quote:Notanymore

"Did I lose you Notaclue?"

You lost me the very first time you opened your mouth. I don't entertain error.

"The earliest reasonably complete version available to scholars today, named P46, dates to approximately the year 200 AD, approximately 150 years after the original was PRESUMABLY drafted. This papyrus is fragmented in a few areas, causing some of the original text carefully preserved over the years to be missing.....uhoh"

Yeah, I see you conveniently left out the fact there are thousands of manuscript copies. Taken together, it allows one to form a comprehensive reconstruction of the text to at least a 99% accuracy rate. You're not too smart are you?



You're not even an atheist. A rank amateur is what you are. A complete embarrassment to atheism because there's not one iota of truth in you. One of your heroes, Anthony Flew, generally regarded as the most influential atheist of the 20th century examined the God hypothesis employing science and came to the conclusion there is a God. That's honest work. But not you. No, you have zero integrity. A laughing stock in your ignorance. Mr. Flew upon examining the evidence came to the conclusion that in order to deny the existence of God, one would have to throw out science altogether. The very thing Christians have been telling you while you in lies and deceit claim Christians reject science. No, we reject the folly and foolishness you embrace. You know nothing of science and you're a lying fraud.


Quote:Goodwithoutgod

I love how I always have a hard time reading your hubris and ineducable tyro ravings while shaking my head. Maybe you think if you close your eyes and ears while reciting blah blah blah you can convince yourself the lies are true....

You are right, there are thousands of copies, about 30,000 actually, want to know how many match? Ever researched the process of copies? I have a couple books that tear into that pretty well, basically these scribes, most not even literate, would grind away dark to dark 7 days a week copying the squiggly lines....ever heard of human error? Even the literate ones would misread, mistranslate or in good faith add or modify here and there thinking they were correcting a previous mistake or "typo."

Get some education in the anthropocentric faith of christian theology my clueless friend, there is much you clearly do not know.

Drink the kool aid, nothing to see here notaclue...don't you worry your pretty little head about inconvenient things like fact, historicity, reason and logic, you just keep believing a genie blew into a handful of dirt and created man *pats on head*

...and it isnt how many copies of copies of copies, of lies fiction, fantasy and forgery exist, it is the fact NO ORIGINAL exists for us to examine..



Quote:Notanymore

"ever heard of human error?"

Hey genius, ever heard of the Holy Spirit? Not to mention the fact it is also well known the standard practice was when any mistake was found in a manuscript copy, then that entire manuscript was destroyed. Get a clue! Like I said, you're no atheist. You're merely a lying antagonist posting error after error.

In the many thousands of manuscript copies we possess of the New Testament, scholars have discovered that there are some 150,000 "variants."

This may seem like a staggering figure to the uninformed mind.

But to those who study the issue, the numbers are not so damning as it may initially appear.

Indeed, a look at the hard evidence shows that the New Testament manuscripts are amazingly accurate and trustworthy.
To begin, we must emphasize that out of these 150,000 variants, 99 percent hold virtually no significance whatsoever.

Many of these variants simply involve a missing letter in a word; some involve reversing the order of two words (such as "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ"); some may involve the absence of one or more insignificant words.

Really, when all the facts are put on the table, only about 50 of the variants have any real significance - and even then, no doctrine of the Christian faith or any moral commandment is effected by them.

For more than ninety-nine percent of the cases the original text can be reconstructed to a practical certainty.

Even in the few cases where some perplexity remains, this does not impinge on the meaning of Scripture to the point of clouding a tenet of the faith or a mandate of life.
Thus, in the Bible as we have it (and as it is conveyed to us through faithful translations) we do have for practical purposes the very Word of God, inasmuch as the manuscripts do convey to us the complete vital truth of the originals.

By practicing the science of textual criticism - comparing all the available manuscripts with each other - we can come to an assurance regarding what the original document must have said.

Let us suppose we have five manuscript copies of an original document that no longer exists. Each of the manuscript copies are different. Our goal is to compare the manuscript copies and ascertain what the original must have said. Here are the five copies:
Manuscript #1: Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole worl.

Manuscript #2: Christ Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.

Manuscript #3: Jesus Christ s the Savior of the whole world.

Manuscript #4: Jesus Christ is th Savior of the whle world.

Manuscript #5: Jesus Christ is the Savor of the whole wrld.
Could you, by comparing the manuscript copies, ascertain what the original document said with a high degree of certainty that you are correct? Of course you could.

This illustration may be extremely simplistic, but a great majority of the 150,000 variants are solved by the above methodology.

By comparing the various manuscripts, all of which contain very minor differences like the above, it becomes fairly clear what the original must have said.

Most of the manuscript variations concern matters of spelling, word order, tenses, and the like; no single doctrine is affected by them in any way.

We must also emphasize that the sheer volume of manuscripts we possess greatly narrows the margin of doubt regarding what the original biblical document said.

If the number of [manuscripts] increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small.

YOU'RE NO ATHEIST, YOU'RE A MORON WHO WANTS TO BE AN ATHEIST...LOL!

Quote:Goodwithoutgod

Nice google there notaclue. Now google what an interpolation is...like for example in Mark:

All scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark, are highly dubious and are considered interpolations. The earliest ancient documents of mark end right after the women find the empty tomb. This means that in the first biography, on which the others based their reports, there is no post-resurrection appearance or ascension of jesus. uhoh.

So all of that snake handling, and resurrection stuff? made up, this is called an interpolation notaclue, and the bible has lots of them, Unlike your assertion that "oh it is just an errant letter or two here and there and doesn't affect actual christian doctrine.

"the Gospel of Mark ends at verse 8 in two of the oldest and most respected manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. As the oldest manuscripts are known to be the most accurate because there were fewer generations of copies from the original autographs (i.e., they are much closer in time to the originals), and the oldest manuscripts do not contain vv. 9-20, we can conclude that these verses were added later by scribes."

ADDED later by scribes.

Look at you learning stuff


Quote:Notanymore

"All scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark, are highly dubious and are considered interpolations."

We've seen your "scholars." Arians and Catholics, lunatics and liars just like you. Just how does one not know what a cult is anyway, yet would cite a cult as scholarly? Or just how does one not know that the RCC has never been authentic Christian in the first place, and they actually work for Satan?! And just how does one not know that those you cite as "scholars" are generally regarded as what is known as the lunatic fringe of liberal journalism and not scholars at all? That's what you use for scholars?? Is it any wonder then you yourself appear insane...LOL?!

"As the oldest manuscripts are known to be the most accurate"

Which is a false premise and a lie. That may be man's thinking but it is certainly not God's. You're a fool who can't see the forest for the trees. Let me clue you it on a little something. Do you think Christians today are not still writing for God? Somewhere in the world right now some Christian is writing exactly what God told them to write. Did it ever occur to your infantile mind that such writing is still necessary? The whole thing is dictated by God. God makes you write it over and over until you get it exact. God checks it for error and makes you re-write it if there is error to ensure it is correct down to the precise synonym intended by God. Of course it does not occur to you. It does not because you're deceived, hard of heart, and generally stuck in ignorance and pride way out in left field somewhere as a result. Man really has nothing to do with it except follow God's orders. Yep, you're a complete fool.

Quote:Goodwithoutgod

"Somewhere in the world right now some Christian is writing exactly what God told them to write."

voices in your head are a sign of hallucination, not divine telepathy.

"The whole thing is dictated by God. God makes you write it over and over until you get it exact. God checks it for error and makes you re-write it if there is error to ensure it is correct down to the precise synonym intended by God."

lol wow, I can sit back and watch you make a complete idiot of yourself...you see this folks? There are actually people who think this way...amazing isn't it? Then why is the bible so full of errors, inconsistencies, lies and forgeries dear notsosmart? hmmm?

Where was this god of yours when 14 million jews were being marched into the ovens? Why did this god of yours create/allow cancer to strike young children? Why does the sun bombard us with cancer causing rays? Why did god not leave proof of himself or oh his false prophet alleged son jesus? no, your inconsistent fiction, forgeries and fantasy provided by years of hand wringing delusionals does not evidence make. Try again. You aren't really good at this. Dismantling your assertions truly is child's play, hold on, let me call one of my 4 atheist children in here, they know enough to take your ramblings apart and are easily above your intellect and knowledge level on the buy-bull.


Laugh out load

Facepalm

It's rather hilarious that a god which goes to the trouble to "inspire" something can't bother to see to it that it gets copied correctly. Facepalm

It's also funny notaclue thinks he knows "how God thinks". (Don't they all ?)

When Timothy said "All scripture is god-breathed" there was no canon, and a lot of it hadn't been written yet, so he couldn't possibly have been referring to the Bible.

GWG never said Flew was one of his heroes. Ever.
Science does not lead to the gods. It DOES show that if a deity were to have designed things, it did a piss-poor job.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: