[split] Debating Lion IRC
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-01-2013, 02:44 PM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2013 03:10 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(22-01-2013 01:43 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(21-01-2013 12:51 AM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Nope, I was only playing duelling URLS. Thats what I thought you wanted to play. Huh
And I'll do exactly the same thing every time YOU post some wall of text at me instead of having a person-to-person dialogue.

(21-01-2013 01:16 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Bullshit. Liar. YOU provided the link as a refutation to why the gospel inconsistencies were not really inconsistencies. I like how you rewrite the thread, and think no one will notice.

See, NOW we are getting to the real advanced debate techniques. Drooling
Youve been shamed out of posting someone else’s YouTube to make up for your content deficiency and now youre opting for the slightly more laborious ....''bullshit liar.''

(I think you might have also been stung by the embarrassment of that whole....Jews didnt understand about all that history and writing stuff... blunder you made.) LOL
Writing/cuneiform was invented where? Mesopotamia? Ur of the Chaldees? Isnt that exactly where the Jewish patriarch Abraham grew up?

(21-01-2013 01:04 AM)Lion IRC Wrote:  One historian argues with another about why his historical methods are more valid than another of his contemporaries in the field.

WOW!

I never heard of that before.

Canonical exegesis is the method of viewing the text as part of a whole canon directed, not at one single audience locked in time, but at a wider future audience over time.
The New Testament writers felt they KNEW they were writing the Good News for all nations as part of a bigger picture and from Gods perspective. Thats why deliberately they staked/anchored the events in real human history, just as Old Testament events had historical markers.
The Gospel writers were not merely providing hymns to be sung by the choir among a closed group of existing believers. Unlike Judaism, Christianity was immersed in the theology of evangelism to the gentiles - all nations- because God wants everyone to hear the Good News.

(21-01-2013 01:21 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Bullshit. Prove one word of it.
LOL.
Again with the gainsaying. I can prove the Gospel intent by its content which states over and over and over again.

...And this gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations;

See? ALL NATIONS.

...Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

See? BAPTISING! This is the Gospel you claimed was intended for liturgical singing by existing believers - already baptized.

...Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.

All nations. Are you getting the gist?

...But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them. And the Gospel must first be published among all nations.

One more for emphasis.....since you asked for proof. This one is for you. You are part of the Gospels universal target audience too!

...For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


(21-01-2013 01:21 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...Each of the gospels were written to a specific audience. There were huge fights over whether the whole world would be included.

Guess what? The ''whole world'' won the argument because God already had the Jews. Salvation comes from the Jews. (John 4) Now, there is neither Jew nor gentile, neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for we are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galations 3) The Gospels ARE written to a specific audience - individual single human beings each having a unique personal decision to make about what to do upon hearing Jesus' words of hope and life.

(21-01-2013 01:21 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...They had no clue who would read them in the future.

You just contradicted your own case.
You said they were written for specific audiences - intended for liturgical practices.
You can try to bluster your disagreement about the intent but you cant say they had no clue because it defeats your own argument.

Glad we are taking the time to discuss the important issue of motive. :-)
Hahaha. And I can prove they were all liars : http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly+Church

For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?"
St. Paul, Romans 3.7.

Wow. Just wow. And all you can do is babble quotes. That's IT ?? Hahaha.
You forgot. You can't use the gospel to prove the gospel. It's called "circular" logic. Oops.
I also said no more unsupported assertions.
I said EXTERNAL evidence. Supported. external, refereced, documented evidence. By scholars. None here. Try harder IRC.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
22-01-2013, 02:47 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
For reference, external evidence, means evidence outside the bibal.

And supported means the evidence is supported by another external piece.

A single action is worth more than the words it takes to describe it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Free Thought's post
22-01-2013, 03:05 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
Using biblical quotations to prove the bible. Ouch. Weeping

...it would rather be a man... [who] plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them with aimless rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent digressions and skilled appeals to religious prejudice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes guitar_nut's post
22-01-2013, 05:33 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(22-01-2013 03:05 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  Using biblical quotations to prove the bible. Ouch. Weeping


Please try to keep up.

We are debating the motive of the writers of the Gospel.

The CONTENT of the Gospel shows this wouldnt you say?

Besides, Bucky Ball is the one claiming to have extra-biblical stuff which shows motive - something about liturgical recitals by a gathering of existing believers who already think Jesus rose from the dead.

Nice! Thats a great admission that before the Gospels were written, there ALREADY WAS a critical mass of people who didnt need to be told what happened.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2013, 05:44 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(22-01-2013 02:44 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?"
St. Paul, Romans 3.7

You do realise thats an admonishment AGAINST the sin of lying dont you?

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2013, 06:18 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(22-01-2013 05:44 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(22-01-2013 02:44 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?"
St. Paul, Romans 3.7

You do realise thats an admonishment AGAINST the sin of lying dont you?

Drinking Beverage
Hahaha. It's a justification for and complaint againt those who said he was lying. You are seriously hilarious.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2013, 06:21 PM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2013 07:49 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(22-01-2013 05:33 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Besides, Bucky Ball is the one claiming to have extra-biblical stuff which shows motive - something about liturgical recitals by a gathering of existing believers who already think Jesus rose from the dead.

Nice! Thats a great admission that before the Gospels were written, there ALREADY WAS a critical mass of people who didnt need to be told what happened.

Say what ? You DO know that the gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark Luke and John right ? There is absolutely no dispute about that by Biblical scholars. The gospels were not written at the EARLIEST until late in the 1st Century, and probably much later. Are you trying to say no one thought Jebus rose until they read the gospels ? PAUL was the first to say he was "exalted", (not physically risen), and there was no gospel when his communities existed in Corinth and Ephesus, Rome etc etc etc. So YES, I am saying there was a large number of what woud be called Christians BEFORE any of the gospels existed. Again, you need a course on the bible, AND some Ancient History. I am seriously shocked a belieber could actually know so little about their own cult.

The content of a lie, or the fact that is "sounds nice" in no way proves the motives for the lie, or the truthfulness of a text. The debate is NOT the motive for the gospels. The debate is the resurrection. The motives for the gospels was to gain adherents to the new cult, obviously. We're still waiting for any evidence of the resurrection of Jebus, or why that would be in any way "special" since all the other dying and miracle working and rising-from-the-dead gods of the day did exactly the same thing. We want external, corroborated, supported, documented nonbibilcal EVIDENCE. I guess hell will freeze over before you can provide any.

As I have said before, no one sat around reading gospels. They were on scrolls, locked up. They were very expensive to produce. The literacy rate was < 5%. They were written to be "proclaimed". Where did that happen ? In worship services. To whom ? People who already believed. No one stood on the street and shouted gospels. So, IRC can make it sound however he likes. THAT is how they were used. It's not in dispute in academic circles, (something he knows nothing about).


"I will only mention the Apostle Paul. [...] He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: ‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles'."
Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus

"We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory, which in volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all ... the line so often adopted by strong men in controversy – of justifying the means by the result."
St. Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus (xlviii, 13; N&PNF. vi, 72-73)

Was Saint Paul a liar? Looks like it.

"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?"
St. Paul, Romans 3.7.

However, in context, Paul is actually censuring other Christians who say "Let us do evil, that good may come" (that is, from God's judgement). But like Paul, we can "take the passage captive" to make a point.

Bishop Eusebius, the official propagandist for Constantine, entitles the 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation:

"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived."

Eusebius is famously the author of many great falsehoods, yet at the same time he warns us:

"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2

Clement of Alexandria was one of the earliest of the Church Fathers to draw a distinction between "mere human truth" and the higher truth of faith:

"Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."
Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)

John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and erstwhile bishop of Constantinople: "Do you see the advantage of deceit? [...] For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ... And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.

"Golden Mouth'' John is notable for his extensive commentaries on the Bible which emphasized a literal understanding of the stories. The style popular at Alexandria until then was to acknowledge an allegorical meaning of the text:

"Thus eminent ‘believers’ added falsehood to the beliefs of later generations. ‘For the best of reasons’ they ‘clarified’ obscure points, conjured up characters to speak dialogue that could have been said, invented scenarios that could have happened and borrowed extensively from a wider culture. And this all before they became the custodians of power and had real reasons for lies, inventions and counterfeits. As we shall see, god's immutable laws became as flexible as putty."
(St.?) John Chrysostom

The 5th and 6th centuries were the 'golden age' of Christian forgery. In a moment of shocking candour, the Manichean bishop and opponent of Augustine Faustus said:

"Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since – as already it has been often proved – these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them."

In the huge battle for adherents, the propagandists sought to outdo each other at every turn. For example, by the 5th century, four very different endings existed to Mark's gospel. Codex Bobiensis ends Mark at verse 16:8, without any post-crucifixion appearances. It lacks both the 'short conclusion' of Jesus sending followers to 'east and west' as well as the 'long conclusion', the fabulous post-death apparitions, where Jesus promises his disciples that they will be immune to snake bites and poison.

Once the Church had gained acceptance by much of Europe and the Middle East, it's forgery engine went nuts.

"The Church forgery mill did not limit itself to mere writings but for centuries cranked out thousands of phony "relics" of its "Lord," "Apostles" and "Saints" […] There were at least 26 'authentic' burial shrouds scattered throughout the abbeys of Europe, of which the Shroud of Turin is just one […] At one point, a number of churches claimed the one foreskin of Jesus, and there were enough splinters of the "True Cross" that Calvin said the amount of wood would make "a full load for a good ship."
Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy.

Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556), the zealot for papal authority and founder of the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits, wrote:

"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."

The Reformation may have swept away some abuses perpetrated by the church liars, priesthood but lying was not one of them. Martin Luther, in private correspondence, said:

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church [...] a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."
Martin Luther (Cited by his secretary, in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmüthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. I.)

The Donation of Constantine:
'This document is without doubt a forgery, fabricated somewhere between the years 750 and 850.'
Catholic Encyclopedia

A two-part document purporting to be from the first Christian emperor to Pope Sylvester I (314-35). In the 'Confessio', Constantine thanks Sylvester for his Christian instruction and baptism (and consequent cure of leprosy!). In his 'Donatio', Constantine confers on the pope and his successors primacy over all other bishops, including the eastern patriarchs, senatorial privileges for the clergy, imperial palaces and regalia, Rome itself and the Western Empire.

In truth, this monstrous 8th century forgery (peppered with anachronisms) was almost certainly written by the future Pope Paul I (757-67) while his equally ambitious brother Stephen II (752-57) sat on the papal throne.

The False Decretals (aka Pseudo-Isidorian Forgeries):
They are a riot of more than a hundred fake letters and decrees attributed to pontiffs from 1st century Clement (88-97) to 7th century Gregory I (590-604). Today they are attributed to either 'Isodore Mercator', a supposed 9th century master forger and papal aide, or to a group of Gallic forgers trading on the name and reputation of Isodore of Seville. Like the Donation, the Decretals conferred rights and privileges on the papacy.

A similar collection, the 'Dionysiana', was named for a 6th century monk 'Dennis the Little' (Dionysius Exiguus), inventor of the BC -AD dating system. Dionysius provided the papacy with Latin translation of the canons the Eastern Church. This ripe collection included fifty canons from the very Apostles themselves.

The 'Thundering Legion' Decree of Marcus Aurelius:
In this fabricated letter from the emperor to the Senate, Marcus is said to have forbidden persecution of Christians because prayers from Christian soldiers brought on a thunderstorm which rescued the Romans from thirst and dispersed the barbarian opponents in a battle with the Quadi in 174. The emperor is said to have accorded the Twelfth Legion the suffix fulminata or fulminea, that is, 'thundering'. Tertullian (c.160 – c.230), a North African theologian, made up this nonsense; the twelfth legion had had the suffix legio fulminata from the time of Augustus. The stoic Marcus Aurelius had nothing but contempt for the Christians.

'Letters' of Emperor Antoninus Pius to the Greeks:
More fakery, this time from the pen of 4th century Bishop Eusebius (Ecclesiastic History, IV, 13). He has the pious 2nd century pagan forbid 'tumults against the Christians.'

The Clementines:
These fakes, twenty books of 'curious religious romance' (Catholic Encyclopedia), masquerade as the work of 1st century pontiff Clement I. Written in the 4th century, their purpose was to bolster Rome's claim to be the primary see. Here we have the 'Epistle of Clement to James' which originated the notion that St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.


More "pious fraud".
http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c5.htm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
22-01-2013, 07:38 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(22-01-2013 05:33 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Please try to keep up.

We are debating the motive of the writers of the Gospel.

The CONTENT of the Gospel shows this wouldnt you say?

Besides, Bucky Ball is the one claiming to have extra-biblical stuff which shows motive - something about liturgical recitals by a gathering of existing believers who already think Jesus rose from the dead.

Nice! Thats a great admission that before the Gospels were written, there ALREADY WAS a critical mass of people who didnt need to be told what happened.
You're debating the resurrection. Or, at least, that was the initial idea about 1000 pages ago. And I stand by my statement... you use the bible to prove the the bible's statements. When you get called out, you change topics, and duck questions and real debate. Oh, I'd say I'm keeping up just fine.

Fail. Fail. Fail. I say it three times, symbolically, for you. Big Grin

>Nice! Thats a great admission that before the Gospels were written,
there ALREADY WAS
>a critical mass of people who didnt need to be told
what happened.

Critical mass... Weeping

...it would rather be a man... [who] plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them with aimless rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent digressions and skilled appeals to religious prejudice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes guitar_nut's post
23-01-2013, 01:10 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
[Image: tumblr_m5a4zsKbMf1qgfl3do1_1280.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
24-01-2013, 03:20 PM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2013 03:48 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(22-01-2013 06:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-01-2013 05:33 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Besides, Bucky Ball is the one claiming to have extra-biblical stuff which shows motive - something about liturgical recitals by a gathering of existing believers who already think Jesus rose from the dead.

Nice! Thats a great admission that before the Gospels were written, there ALREADY WAS a critical mass of people who didnt need to be told what happened.

Say what ?

EXISTING BELIEVERS.

Well BEFORE the written Gospels appeared.

...many of whom would have been eye-witness corroboration sources for what we read in those Gospels.

(22-01-2013 06:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...You DO know that the gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark Luke and John right ? There is absolutely no dispute about that by Biblical scholars.

Correct. Nobody has claimed that.

The name of the person who physically wrote down the text on paper is not known.

Neither do we know for certain that the oldest extant text is the very first time the accounts were written. What we have may be the later result of earlier drafts.

It stands to reason that the sources would want to cross-check and verify details BEFORE committing them into writing.

And as I said earlier, the sources may have required translation.

That the Gospels are given appropriate ''names'' (or letter designations like "Q") for simplicity and convenience has never been a problem for any bible scholars INCLUDING theist scholars.

Now lets get to your noble lie theory and see if it applies to people who faced crucifixion for their stating their unshakable belief that Jesus was seen alive after death.


(22-01-2013 06:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...The content of a lie, or the fact that is "sounds nice" in no way proves the motives for the lie, or the truthfulness of a text. The debate is NOT the motive for the gospels.

The Gospels dont ''sound nice''.

The Gospels state things which make their sources look like idiots, cowards, doubters, disloyal to Jesus. The Gospels assert things which, in context, are laughable such as...Jewish women in 33AD being reliable primary witnesses testifying to a male Jewish audience, like the Jewish Messiah being flogged and Crucified, like a physical Resurrection, etc. They would otherwise be ashamed to profess much of what is in the Gospels. And the way a historical text sounds IS a valid method historians use to evaluate its likely authenticity.

Nobody is saying it PROVES anything, but it is certainly a factor used by historians. Embellishment and self-flattery is a motive which distorts the likelihood of a text being entirely factual.

And in this case the historical sources had the additional motive not to write or say anything at all if they wanted to avoid arrest and execution! So they were writing unflattering stuff about themselves that could get them stoned, beheaded, crucified.... Consider


(22-01-2013 06:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...The debate is the resurrection. The motives for the gospels was to gain adherents to the new cult, obviously.

The Gospel writers were doing what they were told by a person they NOW thought without doubt was a divine Being. If they had doubts, they would have waited until the risk of arrest and execution had subsided - they would have waited maybe 400-600 years to pass.

And that leads me to your supposed noble lie examples...



(22-01-2013 06:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ..."I will only mention the Apostle Paul. [...] He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: ‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles'." Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus

Pammachius 395AD. What does this have to do with the Gospels 350 years earlier?

Jerome is having a petty dispute with someone over a matter which he thinks goes to personal/intellectual credibility.

Nobody in 395AD is getting arrested and tortured for sending letters back and forth debating theology and squabbling about Church politics.

Are you seriously forgetting that the Roman Empire at that time was being ruled by a CHRISTIAN who accepted Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?




(22-01-2013 06:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...Bishop Eusebius, the official propagandist for Constantine...
..."We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2

Yep. Eusebius stating the bleeding obvious. When writing history propaganda, leave out the unflattering stuff.

The Gospels fail the propaganda test. They were unflattering, embarrassing, shameful, and proclaimed stuff that went not only against Messianic Jewish orthodoxy, but also against Roman theism and politics. The only motive Christians had was to please God. And lying displeases God.

The Nazis would torture you if you DIDNT affirm the Hitler-flattering Nazi propaganda. But thats the exact OPPOSITE of what was going on in AD 50 when the authorities were torturing early Christians.



(22-01-2013 06:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...Clement of Alexandria was one of the earliest of the Church Fathers to draw a distinction between "mere human truth" and the higher truth of faith:

"Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."
Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)

Again with the...Church Fathers. Christianity was already firmly established as a contending viable, credible theistic worldview. So much so, that it had attained tolerance and the ability to be openly discussed by intellectuals in the safety of an uncensored public square in cosmopolitan Alexandria.


(22-01-2013 06:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and erstwhile bishop of Constantinople:

The 5th Century?!!! Man you are late to the party.

(22-01-2013 06:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...The 5th and 6th centuries were the 'golden age' of Christian forgery. In a moment of shocking candour, the Manichean bishop and opponent of Augustine Faustus said:

"Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since – as already it has been often proved – these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them."

Again, completely ignoring the fact that the Gospel authors werent living in the 5th and 6th Centuries by which time Rome was ruled by a Christian. By this time there was certainly a motive to assert POLITICAL influence - nothing to do with pleasing God and EVERYTHING to do with terrestrial self-gain. (Money/power)
Yep - people WILL lie for THAT.

(22-01-2013 06:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...Once the Church had gained acceptance by much of Europe and the Middle East, it's forgery engine went nuts.

See? You know that the motive to lie for self-gain here is entirely driven by different circumstances.
''Once the Church had gained acceptance...''
YEP. And not before.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  [split] Fruitcake-o-meter morondog 50 445 03-07-2014 10:41 AM
Last Post: Taqiyya Mockingbird
  [split] Coming Out And Ready To Crawl Back In. Jeremy E Walker 78 1,261 25-06-2014 07:18 PM
Last Post: Bucky Ball
  [split] I need to rant to other atheists. Jeremy E Walker 492 6,962 15-06-2014 09:47 PM
Last Post: Taqiyya Mockingbird
  [split] The Perfect Ideal World Created By Science Jeremy E Walker 14 248 04-06-2014 06:46 PM
Last Post: cjlr
  [split] An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available) Jeremy E Walker 46 688 03-06-2014 08:34 PM
Last Post: Taqiyya Mockingbird
  [split] Commentary on the viodjit vs. Drich "book of your religion" match Taqiyya Mockingbird 43 714 29-05-2014 08:08 PM
Last Post: Taqiyya Mockingbird
  [split from] Atheist because Jeremy E Walker 167 2,521 12-05-2014 09:06 PM
Last Post: Taqiyya Mockingbird
Forum Jump: