• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
joobz said:
A lie need not be pre-meditated.

I understand your point here, but I can't help but think that KK knew she was lying when she said she could grasp science. Why else did she start explaining her motherhood anad then challenged my wife's credentials.
Click to expand...

Christian Dude has done much the same in other threads. When pressed for the details of his knowledge he becomes evasive.
 
kmortis said:
:redface1

I'm honored. Although, my line was a paraphrase of someone else. I don't remember who, so I'll attribute it to a dead scientist...um...Nils Bohr.
Click to expand...
Either Hanlon or Heinlein, take your pick.

Personally I'd go with Heinlein, partly because he wrote it first, but mostly because he wrote really good sci-fi and didn't start a nutty religion. ;)
 
DOC said:
The very passage in and of itself can be considered divine since it prophesies Jesus.
Click to expand...

Ack. Christianity is nothing more than a cult of personality. Just like the various Egyptian gods: every village had their favourite and it was the "supreme" god to them. Same thing with the Hindus, too.

They just all pick their pet character and elevate it to be "supreme".
 
DOC said:
I assume you mean the "theory" that a small portion at the end of "one" gospel (Mark) was added. Even if this theory about one gospel is true, it doesn't mean the portion was added to combat any alleged view that Christ was human -- it simply could have been added to give additional information that the copyist thought would more fully describe what they knew actually happened.
Click to expand...

Nope, that's not specifically what I had in mind, though that is interesting.
 
kmortis said:
:redface1

I'm honored. Although, my line was a paraphrase of someone else. I don't remember who, so I'll attribute it to a dead scientist...um...Nils Bohr.
Click to expand...
It is attribute to Robert Hanlon or Robert Heinlein(of Starship Troopers).
Heinlein's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice/keep your eyes open.
Hanlon's Razor:Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
 
wollery said:
Really? How did a copyist several decades (at least) after the fact know what actually happened?
Click to expand...

If this copyist did in fact exist, and did in fact make the small addition to Mark it would be very easy to remember what happened decades earlier just like it is very easy for me to remember what happened over 35 years ago in my high school. And I would imagine if a person like Jesus existed in my high school who could perform miracles it would be even easier to remember.
 
DOC said:
If this copyist did in fact exist, and did in fact make the small addition to Mark it would be very easy to remember what happened decades earlier just like it is very easy for me to remember what happened over 35 years ago in my high school. And I would imagine if a person like Jesus existed in my high school who could perform miracles it would be even easier to remember.
Click to expand...


If by "decades" you mean over a hundred years, sure. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16
 
DOC said:
If this copyist did in fact exist, and did in fact make the small addition to Mark it would be very easy to remember what happened decades earlier just like it is very easy for me to remember what happened over 35 years ago in my high school. And I would imagine if a person like Jesus existed in my high school who could perform miracles it would be even easier to remember.
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting that the addition to Mark's gospel occurred in the first century? There is a reason why we know the current ending to Mark's gospel was a medieval addition (though some think it originated from stuff in the second century).

There are several different endings to Mark from the late fourth century manuscripts onward.
 
Last edited:
joobz said:
The parts he removed were the parts he called "Dunghills" THings like Jesus resurrecting from the dead, turning water to wine, walking on water.... Really, anything that the christian faith relies on.

ETA:

Yup: He took the philosophy and left the magic. He took the diamonds and left the dunghills.
Dunghills=crap.
Jefferson called the ressurection a load of crap!
Click to expand...

But the above didn't stop him from going to church on Sunday for seven years while President and giving money for the construction of churches. What's the saying -- Action speaks louder than words.

And your post just verifies Jefferson was a Cafeteria Christian - I'll take a little of this and a little of that. I think I already said enough about Jefferson in my 500 posts in the "Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity" thread.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
But the above didn't stop him from going to church on Sunday for seven years while President and giving money for the construction of churches.
Click to expand...
Great, you've proven he's a Cultural Christian.
What's the saying -- Action speaks louder than words.
Click to expand...
Yes, so where are his actions that show that he believe in all that "dung" that you believe in?
And your post just verifies Jefferson was a Cafeteria Christian - I'll take a little of this and a little of that.
Click to expand...
So, you accept that people who go through the trappings of the Church but does not believe in Jesus divinity or any other the magic nonsense is Christian, am I correct?

I think I already said enough about Jefferson in my 500 posts in the "Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity" thread
Click to expand...
You've said enough to show you don't know a thing about Thomas Jefferson. Beats, me Hitler supported the Church as well, was he Christian?
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Are you suggesting that the addition to Mark's gospel occurred in the first century? There is a reason why we know the current ending to Mark's gospel was a medieval addition (though some think it originated from stuff in the second century).

There are several different endings to Mark from the late fourth century manuscripts onward.
Click to expand...

If there are reasons why you know the (alleged) current ending was a medieval addition (you again gave no source) why did Irenaeus quote the possible addition in 180 ad.

From the article "Alleged forgery in the Gospel of Mark" by B.A. Robinson.

"One addition was quoted in the writings of Irenaeus circa 180 CE, 9 and of Hippolytus in the second or third century CE."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mark_16.htm

And even if there was an addition, the gospel "without" the alleged addition "still" reports that the women went to the tomb, found the stone rolled back, found the tomb empty and a man with a long white garment there who frightened them. The man then told them that Jesus has risen and that Jesus would meet the apostles in Galilee.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
If there are reasons why you know the (alleged) current ending was a medieval addition (you again gave no source) why did Irenaeus quote the possible addition in 180 ad.

From the article "Alleged forgery in the Gospel of Mark" by B.A. Robinson.

"One addition was quoted in the writings of Irenaeus circa 180 CE, 9 and of Hippolytus in the second or third century CE."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mark_16.htm

And even if there was an addition, the gospel without the alleged addition still reports that
Click to expand...


Why are you assuming that the ending Irenaeus was discussing is the same as the current ending?
 
My mom didn't go to college until she was in her forties and had a stroke before she finished her last semester. Let's not judge other people's moms for their achievements. Not everyone has the same opportunities and not everyone is cut out for college, and that's nothing to be ashamed of. My mother was born in a shack and it was a bigger accomplishment for her to get in three years of college in middle age than it is for some people to get a Ph D. I know KK seems to provoke the worst in some of us, but let's observe some limits, okay?
 
joobz said:
'Not Malice'?
Click to expand...
Malice isn't a prerequisite for something to be a lie.

If you were to tell me, "You look great." (even though I didn't), that would be a lie. The lie was meant out of kindness, but it was still a lie.
Click to expand...

When I said "'Not Malice'?", I was suggesting that we eliminate one of the two options in kmortis' line: "Never assume malice when stupidity is just as a viable reason"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom