• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Lies and Phony Caricatures of Christianity

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
'To the man', rather than 'to the topic', is an ad hominem fallacy.

..just like you do here..

Whether i look ridiculous or not is not the debate... :screamcat:
No, that is not an ad hominem fallacy. Didn't we go over this once before?

It could be an ad hominem attack, but even that is not the case if the claims are well supported, as the claims against you have been.

You are conflating ad hominem attacks, for example:

"You are stupid and ugly, and you are wrong".

With an ad hominem fallacy:

"You are stupid and ugly therefore you are wrong".

Do you see the difference?

But since you keep running away and will not even properly define your terms all we can do is to give general answers as to why you are wrong. This is not an ad hominem attack nor an ad hominem fallacy. When you claim that there is evidence for a flood you demonstrate that you do not even understand the concept of evidence and I would gladly go over that with you. But you tend to run away when cornered.

Let's try to be very specific and go over point by point.

You have not even given an example or definition of what you would consider an error so of course no one can meet your bogus challenge. Define your terms properly, give an example of what a failure would be, it need not be an actual failure, and then you might get the sort of answers that you are looking for.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Q is a myth..

Well, 'Q' is the abbreviation for the term that the German researchers named the collection of speeches which both Matthew and Luke copied almost word for word.

But you're right about myth for sure. I reckon that the speeches delivered in the Q verses are mostly mythical, although Jesus was surely pushing the people hard to come together as a cohesive force against Temple corruption.

And in that he failed, I reckon. The people of Galilee didn't follow him to Jerusalem, and the thousands of Temple visitors didn't side with him when it mattered.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Asserted without evidence.

False assertion. The historical evidence clearly points to Matthew as being a disciple and an eyewitness. There is NO EVIDENCE to the contrary, just pejorative speculations.

At last, we are off and away into a proper debate. :)

Let's take just this one aspect, and I'll respond to all your other claims about me being a lier some other time, OK?

Please produce verses from the bible that show that Matthew was a disciple. OK?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
You have the same problem as many other Christians posting on Religious Forums - you don't see the evidence that is shown to you. People often do not see what they have a stake in not seeing.



The Messianic prophecies have never been fulfilled. Biblical prophecy is what is called low quality prophecy, a topic I already covered for you.

High quality prophecy is specific, detailed and unambiguous. Optimally, the time and place are specified. It also needs to prophecy something unexpected, unlikely or unique - something that was not self-fulfilling and could not have been contrived or easily guessed. High quality prophecy must be accurate, it must be verified that it came before the event predicted, and that it was fulfilled completely.

Low quality prophecy, such as that from biblical scripture, horoscopes, psychics, and the like, is relatively vague and nonspecific, predicts trivial or predictable events, and may be self-fulling or written after the fact. That describes the messianic prophecy pretty well.

I gave you an example of what kind of prediction would be convincing from a movie some years back called Frequency, in which Dennis Quaid's character’s son contacts his father from his father's future by ham radio. To convince his father that he, the son, really is calling his father from his father's future - from 1998 back to 1969 - the son discusses the outcome of game five of what is for the father the as-yet unfinished 1969 World Series, which the father is watching live in 1969 on TV in a local pub

"Well, game five was the big one. It turned in the bottom of the 6th. We were down 3-0. Cleon Jones gets hit on the foot - left a scuff mark on the ball. Clendenon comes up. The count goes to 2 and 2. High fastball. He nailed it. Weis slammed a solo shot in the 7th to tie. Jones and Swoboda scored in the 8th. We won, Pop."

Then the father watches it happen on TV.

That's what high quality "prophecy" of future events would look like, only it wouldn't be fiction. This would be a convincing demonstration of knowledge of future events, once fraud such as a tape-delayed broadcast of an already played game is ruled out. It's extremely specific and unexpected, preceded the event predicted, not self-fulfilling, and accompanied by no error. Biblical prophecy just can't compare to that, which is why it doesn't convince skeptics.Believers offer it as evidence of something profoundly unlikely, but what I see is something different.



Hearsay.



The evidence makes resurrection extremely unlikely, and it is not found in the Bible. Look around you. Are dead people revivifying? This just doesn't happen. Against that are words in an ancient manuscript, which imitate those in other manuscripts featuring similar stories of virgin births and resurrections attributed to many other legendary gods and heroes.



I told him all of that a few weeks ago when he wanted evidence of embellishment in the gospels, complete with comparisons of Luke and Matthew to Mark, and reference to the Q document. Not surprisingly, he said he didn't see any evidence.



Another faith-based thinker that can't see evidence.

Once somebody has accepted a notion on faith, a filter called a faith-based confirmation bias can form that allows in only that which seems to support the faith-based idea. Nothing else can be seen. No contradictory evidence gets through. I find this phenomenon endlessly fascinating. It also goes by the names antiprocessing, and Morton's demon.

As counterintuitive as this may seem, there is an excellent description of this phenomenon from geologist and former young earth creationist (YEC) Glenn Morton, now an old earth creationist (OEC), of his own experience encased in such a confirmation bias. He anthropomorphizes the experience by equating it to a demon like Maxwell's demon, one which sits at the portal to his mind and decides what will enter and what will not. This is from Morton:

"When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data.

"The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view ... one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data."​

I find Morton sincere and credible. If he says that he was blind to this process, as counterintuitive as that claim may seem, I believe him. And this is how I now view most religious apologists telling me that they see no evidence for biological evolution, for example, even when it is handed to them. I count you and @Spartan among them.

Neither of you sees evidence that the demon doesn't want you to see. From their distorted vantage point, such people find the rational skeptic's position unbelievable and insincere. They think were just intransigently resisting God, inventing contradictions that aren't there, refusing to see a god that is so obvious to them.

This is why I don't call you people liars. If Morton is right, that is an unfair description of what is going on in the apologist's head. He simply doesn't see evidence that is there, and also find evidence in support of his faith-based beliefs that isn't there.





Not needing evidence is not the same as not having any. You can't see evidence, but there is plenty that supports dismissing Christianity.





I dismiss any idea based in faith.



No. I told you that I reject faith-based thought and anything derived from it. Only scientists that do not believe by faith, or those that do who can learn to compartmentalize their religious beliefs and exclude them from their professional work are able to make lasting and useful contributions to science.

As soon as gods creep into the thinking, you get pseudoscience, as with the ID people. Their work is sterile. It has produced no evidence of an intelligent designer, but has been repeatedly embarrassed by making claims of irreducible complexity in biological systems such as the eye, the flagellum, the hemostatic cascade, and the immune system, each of which has been shown to be a false claim.

Newton only thought clearly when he left his faith-based assumptions out of his work. His work in areas like mathematics, optics, celestial mechanics, and gravitation, which employ's no faith-based assumptions, was as useful then as it is now.It's exactly the same science an unbeliever would do.

But living on the cusp of modernity, Newton also had a foot in medieval traditions like alchemy, a faith based system. His work there is only of historical interest, and never had any other value. Faith is the enemy of reason.

I remember the movie..
 

sooda

Veteran Member
It does, actually. Lack of evidence means it didn’t happen. In fact, all archaeological evidence shows that there was no influx of new cultural anything.


I said it was opinion, because opinion is all there is. But there is also such a thing as an informed opinion, using the best evidence available. The intent isn’t to discredit, the intent is to shed light. Which it does.

Yep...…….
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
LOL! Whatever floats your boat!
Everybody gotta believe something.
No, because major events, such as the sort of cultural shift illustrated by the Exodus epic, always leave archaeological evidence. That’s why the lack of such evidence is so compelling.
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
This is religious debate.That means when you put a thread up you stay with it and those who challenge you, you read the post thoughtfully and then prove or try to prove their theory false with evidence. I have not even seen the Fundamentalist group up here debating much at all with those who are providing proof, there been a lot of just ignoring the posts without even trying to disprove.

It would seem that the Fundamental Christians of this thread would like to share how the bible is perfect and use the bible over and over scream out they are right and everyones wrong and then run off without even debating. I havn't even seen challenging posts that have proof, your just ignoring it chalking it all up as stupid repetitive same old proof.

To me if your not going to stay and read others posts thoughtfully and present proof that those who would challenge you are wrong, your thread might as well not exist in the first place.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
When reason fails, ad hominem is a handy evasion tactic

I think shouting "ad hom" every time you are sincerely and constructively disagreed with is your evasion tactic. If somebody tells you that your science background is weak, that is not an ad hominem attack, especially if it's correct.

And what room do you have to talk? Your position since the OP is that we are liars knowingly and unjustly maligning Christianity. No, we are not liars.

Most of your examples are extreme over-exaggerations to the point of hyperbole of what is actually said about Christianity. They're straw men standing in for what critics of Christianity actually do say. That's your other favorite tactic for dealing with legitimate criticism. Fact. There is a dangerous and well-funded theocratic movement in the States. Your way of dealing with it. Exaggerate the claim to ridiculous extremes, and then berate the straw man.

And some of the claims are true as written, such as that the Christian Bible is full of errors. Pi is not 3.0. There are no flying insects with four legs. There was no global flood submerging all dry land. There was no Exodus. The mustard seed is not the least of all seeds. There is no firmament in the heavens. The earth does not sit on four pillars. All errors.

This is an error:

Day 3 - God created the dry ground and gathered the waters, calling the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters "seas." On day three, God also created vegetation (plants and trees).

Day 4 - God created the sun, moon, and the stars to give light to the earth and to govern and separate the day and the night. These would also serve as signs to mark seasons, days, and years.

But you can't see it. Notice that I don't call you a liar as you do others. I understand hat you are also sincere and are reporting what you see, or rather, what the demon lets you see.

There is mountains of evidence on the subject of a global flood within recorded history. You just refuse to see it.

According to Morton, he cannot see it. Yes, that challenges credulity, but as I noted before, I found Morton's account to be sincere and therefore compelling. I believe him when he says that he wasn't lying as a Young Earth Creationist, just deceived by his own mind.

The accuracy (or not) of the flood account has not been breached, nor has it been presented with evidence as an example of 'error!'

The flood myth is easily disproved. But not to you, of course. The demon just won't let you see the evidence that is so plain to most of your audience.

Have you considered the impression you are making with those who can see the evidence invisible to you? You probably aren't even willing to consider that others see evidence you don't, or how you would appear if that were the case. Would you want to know this if it were true?

There is evidence of a global (seeming) flood, or a literal global flood.

And here's the other side of that - seeing evidence that doesn't exist. That's the work of the demon as well. A faith-based confirmation bias shows you what you have decided was true by faith.

There is not conclusive proof that it did not happen.

Actually there is, unless you want to claim that God dropped five miles of water from space not previously on earth, and then removed it again. It's not here now.

But we don't need evidence to reject the flood story. Why? I'll let you answer that yourself :

What is asserted without evidence, will be dismissed without evidence.

Whether interpreted literally or allegorically, the global flood story does not automatically invalidate Genesis as "Myth!'

Maybe you should investigate what a myth is. The flood story is a myth.

And exactly what is the flood story an allegory of? Calling the flood story an allegory presumes that its writers knew that no such thing had happened and that they were creating an account with a hidden meaning - perhaps political or moral. Gulliver's Travels is an allegory, meaning that its author, Swift, realized that he was writing fiction intended to make a political statement about contemporary England in which each element of the allegory represents something from history known to the author.

"One clear example of Swift's use of political allegory is the Rope Dancers, who are Lilliputians seeking employment in the government, All candidates are asked to dance on the rope and whoever jumps the highest without falling is offered a high office . Very often the current ministers are asked to dance to show their skills . For instance, Flimnap, the treasurer, is required to dance on a tight rope to show his superiority to other in this respect. This jumping game may sound innocent to the children, however, politically it significance is far from innocent. Obviously, Swift makes a satire on the way in which political offices were distributed among the candidates by George I. Flimnap stands for Sir Robert Walpole the prime minister of England. Dancing on a tight rope symbolizes Walpole's skill in parliamentary tactics and political intrigues. In general, Swift wants to infer that England's system is arbitrary and corrupted." Political Allegory In Gulliver's Travels

That's allegory. The flood story doesn't meet that criterion inasmuch as its authors could not possibly have had any concept of a truth for which their story was symbolic. Furthermore, what does Noah stands for? What does the ark stand for? What do the water and animals stand for? They stand for nothing.

It's clearly something that was once believed to be a historical account, not symbolic. My guess is that they were trying to account for marine fossils on mountaintops. We know today that that is due to sea floor lifting, not water levels rising, but one can understand making such a mistake at that time.

'social and political agendas!' ROFL!! Yes, all i have done, in this thread is push a fundamentalist 'social and political agenda!'

What would you call your agenda? What is your purpose with this thread if not to promote your religion?

This, 'You refuse!', 'Ignorant!', 'Look ridiculous!!', and other such ad hom deflections only show the desperation of posters who have lost reason.

Nobody here is desperate, but you come off as a little rattled.

So telling you unflattering things about you is "as hom," and therefore should be off limits, but you reserve the right to call others desperate, liars, and having lost reason. Speaking of reason, does that seem reasonable to you?
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
I think shouting "ad hom" every time you are sincerely and constructively disagreed with is your evasion tactic. If somebody tells you that your science background is weak, that is not an ad hominem attack, especially if it's correct.

And what room do you have to talk? Your position since the OP is that we are liars knowingly and unjustly maligning Christianity. No, we are not liars.

Most of your examples are extreme over-exaggerations to the point of hyperbole of what is actually said about Christianity. They're straw men standing in for what critics of Christianity actually do say. That's your other favorite tactic for dealing with legitimate criticism. Fact. There is a dangerous and well-funded theocratic movement in the States. Your way of dealing with it. Exaggerate the claim to ridiculous extremes, and then berate the straw man.

And some of the claims are true as written, such as that the Christian Bible is full of errors. Pi is not 3.0. There are no flying insects with four legs. There was no global flood submerging all dry land. There was no Exodus. The mustard seed is not the least of all seeds. There is no firmament in the heavens. The earth does not sit on four pillars. All errors.

This is an error:

Day 3 - God created the dry ground and gathered the waters, calling the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters "seas." On day three, God also created vegetation (plants and trees).

Day 4 - God created the sun, moon, and the stars to give light to the earth and to govern and separate the day and the night. These would also serve as signs to mark seasons, days, and years.

But you can't see it. Notice that I don't call you a liar as you do others. I understand hat you are also sincere and are reporting what you see, or rather, what the demon lets you see.



According to Morton, he cannot see it. Yes, that challenges credulity, but as I noted before, I found Morton's account to be sincere and therefore compelling. I believe him when he says that he wasn't lying as a Young Earth Creationist, just deceived by his own mind.



The flood myth is easily disproved. But not to you, of course. The demon just won't let you see the evidence that is so plain to most of your audience.

Have you considered the impression you are making with those who can see the evidence invisible to you? You probably aren't even willing to consider that others see evidence you don't, or how you would appear if that were the case. Would you want to know this if it were true?



And here's the other side of that - seeing evidence that doesn't exist. That's the work of the demon as well. A faith-based confirmation bias shows you what you have decided was true by faith.



Actually there is, unless you want to claim that God dropped five miles of water from space not previously on earth, and then removed it again. It's not here now.

But we don't need evidence to reject the flood story. Why? I'll let you answer that yourself :





Maybe you should investigate what a myth is. The flood story is a myth.

And exactly what is the flood story an allegory of? Calling the flood story an allegory presumes that its writers knew that no such thing had happened and that they were creating an account with a hidden meaning - perhaps political or moral. Gulliver's Travels is an allegory, meaning that its author, Swift, realized that he was writing fiction intended to make a political statement about contemporary England in which each element of the allegory represents something from history known to the author.

"One clear example of Swift's use of political allegory is the Rope Dancers, who are Lilliputians seeking employment in the government, All candidates are asked to dance on the rope and whoever jumps the highest without falling is offered a high office . Very often the current ministers are asked to dance to show their skills . For instance, Flimnap, the treasurer, is required to dance on a tight rope to show his superiority to other in this respect. This jumping game may sound innocent to the children, however, politically it significance is far from innocent. Obviously, Swift makes a satire on the way in which political offices were distributed among the candidates by George I. Flimnap stands for Sir Robert Walpole the prime minister of England. Dancing on a tight rope symbolizes Walpole's skill in parliamentary tactics and political intrigues. In general, Swift wants to infer that England's system is arbitrary and corrupted." Political Allegory In Gulliver's Travels

That's allegory. The flood story doesn't meet that criterion inasmuch as its authors could not possibly have had any concept of a truth for which their story was symbolic. Furthermore, what does Noah stands for? What does the ark stand for? What do the water and animals stand for? They stand for nothing.

It's clearly something that was once believed to be a historical account, not symbolic. My guess is that they were trying to account for marine fossils on mountaintops. We know today that that is due to sea floor lifting, not water levels rising, but one can understand making such a mistake at that time.



What would you call your agenda? What is your purpose with this thread if not to promote your religion?



Nobody here is desperate, but you come off as a little rattled.

So telling you unflattering things about you is "as hom," and therefore should be off limits, but you reserve the right to call others desperate, liars, and having lost reason. Speaking of reason, does that seem reasonable to you?

Also theres evidence from what I saw on a video not long ago that says the Galgotha or Babylon myth of the flood was written before the Jewish story but Jews lived there, transfered over there or maybe was forced into labor there and they say there is actual evidence now that Jewish workers actually copied the flood story from Galgotha area,
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
I think shouting "ad hom" every time you are sincerely and constructively disagreed with is your evasion tactic. If somebody tells you that your science background is weak, that is not an ad hominem attack, especially if it's correct.

And what room do you have to talk? Your position since the OP is that we are liars knowingly and unjustly maligning Christianity. No, we are not liars.

Most of your examples are extreme over-exaggerations to the point of hyperbole of what is actually said about Christianity. They're straw men standing in for what critics of Christianity actually do say. That's your other favorite tactic for dealing with legitimate criticism. Fact. There is a dangerous and well-funded theocratic movement in the States. Your way of dealing with it. Exaggerate the claim to ridiculous extremes, and then berate the straw man.

And some of the claims are true as written, such as that the Christian Bible is full of errors. Pi is not 3.0. There are no flying insects with four legs. There was no global flood submerging all dry land. There was no Exodus. The mustard seed is not the least of all seeds. There is no firmament in the heavens. The earth does not sit on four pillars. All errors.

This is an error:

Day 3 - God created the dry ground and gathered the waters, calling the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters "seas." On day three, God also created vegetation (plants and trees).

Day 4 - God created the sun, moon, and the stars to give light to the earth and to govern and separate the day and the night. These would also serve as signs to mark seasons, days, and years.

But you can't see it. Notice that I don't call you a liar as you do others. I understand hat you are also sincere and are reporting what you see, or rather, what the demon lets you see.



According to Morton, he cannot see it. Yes, that challenges credulity, but as I noted before, I found Morton's account to be sincere and therefore compelling. I believe him when he says that he wasn't lying as a Young Earth Creationist, just deceived by his own mind.



The flood myth is easily disproved. But not to you, of course. The demon just won't let you see the evidence that is so plain to most of your audience.

Have you considered the impression you are making with those who can see the evidence invisible to you? You probably aren't even willing to consider that others see evidence you don't, or how you would appear if that were the case. Would you want to know this if it were true?



And here's the other side of that - seeing evidence that doesn't exist. That's the work of the demon as well. A faith-based confirmation bias shows you what you have decided was true by faith.



Actually there is, unless you want to claim that God dropped five miles of water from space not previously on earth, and then removed it again. It's not here now.

But we don't need evidence to reject the flood story. Why? I'll let you answer that yourself :





Maybe you should investigate what a myth is. The flood story is a myth.

And exactly what is the flood story an allegory of? Calling the flood story an allegory presumes that its writers knew that no such thing had happened and that they were creating an account with a hidden meaning - perhaps political or moral. Gulliver's Travels is an allegory, meaning that its author, Swift, realized that he was writing fiction intended to make a political statement about contemporary England in which each element of the allegory represents something from history known to the author.

"One clear example of Swift's use of political allegory is the Rope Dancers, who are Lilliputians seeking employment in the government, All candidates are asked to dance on the rope and whoever jumps the highest without falling is offered a high office . Very often the current ministers are asked to dance to show their skills . For instance, Flimnap, the treasurer, is required to dance on a tight rope to show his superiority to other in this respect. This jumping game may sound innocent to the children, however, politically it significance is far from innocent. Obviously, Swift makes a satire on the way in which political offices were distributed among the candidates by George I. Flimnap stands for Sir Robert Walpole the prime minister of England. Dancing on a tight rope symbolizes Walpole's skill in parliamentary tactics and political intrigues. In general, Swift wants to infer that England's system is arbitrary and corrupted." Political Allegory In Gulliver's Travels

That's allegory. The flood story doesn't meet that criterion inasmuch as its authors could not possibly have had any concept of a truth for which their story was symbolic. Furthermore, what does Noah stands for? What does the ark stand for? What do the water and animals stand for? They stand for nothing.

It's clearly something that was once believed to be a historical account, not symbolic. My guess is that they were trying to account for marine fossils on mountaintops. We know today that that is due to sea floor lifting, not water levels rising, but one can understand making such a mistake at that time.



What would you call your agenda? What is your purpose with this thread if not to promote your religion?



Nobody here is desperate, but you come off as a little rattled.

So telling you unflattering things about you is "as hom," and therefore should be off limits, but you reserve the right to call others desperate, liars, and having lost reason. Speaking of reason, does that seem reasonable to you?

Heres more proof from wiki. Jews were held captive in Babylon
Atrahasis (recorded in an 18th C. BC Akkadian myth) and Utnapishtim (recorded in the Epic of Gilgamesh, dating to the Neo-Sumerian 21st C. BC), as well as the biblical Noah are similar heroes of deluge myths of the ancient Near East.

With specific reference to Atrahasis - depending on source Atrahasis and Ziusudra are listed as son or grandson of the king Ubara-Tutu, and though the genealogies differ, brings the possibility to conflate the two.

Although each version of the flood myth has distinctive story elements, there are numerous story elements that are common to two, three, or four versions. The earliest version of the flood myth is preserved fragmentarily in the Eridu Genesis, written in Sumerian cuneiform and dating to the 17th century BC, during the 1st Dynasty of Babylon when the language of writing and administration was still Sumerian. Strong parallels are notable with other Near Eastern flood legends, such as the biblical account of Noah.

See also
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
You keep listing these, without listing any actual evidence though.

I mean, if we think the existence of books that favour your claim means that your burden of proof has been met, then all I have to do to disprove that Jesus was divine, is to list a bunch of books on the subject, right?

"Christ Myth Theory" by Tobias Goldrich
"Misquoting Jesus" by New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman
"The Christ Myth" by philosopher and historian Arthur Drews
"Jesus Christ is not God with a Capital G" by Jesse Acuff
"Jesus Christ is not God" by theologian Victor Paul Wierville

There! Now can I claim that Jesus didn't exist and/or wasn't divine? That's all it takes, right?
Or should we maybe take a look at the actual evidence being presented?

You should read "
"Misquotes in MISQUOTING JESUS: Why You Can Still Believe," by Dillon Burroughs Then your liberal Bart Ehrman won't seem so smart, LOL!
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
@usfan
oldbadger (that's me :) )said: ↑
Like some of the items on your OP list, when confronted with the truth of these selected ones you don't want to come back........ you just deny it.

usfan :- >> Truth? Hardly. Lies and smears, repeated as a propaganda meme, is more like it.

Oh dear....... Nasty! :)
OK, usfan. Get ready for some Truth. (Why do the more extreme Christians just deny truth, and throw insults?)

Now, Although deeper study of the provincial taxation systems (esp Galilee) can help to throw light on why Mark referred to 'Levi' as the junior taxation offer who became a disciple, possibly marrying the two names of Matthew and Levi in to one, thus:-
Mark: {2:14} And as he passed by, he saw Levi the [son] of
Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him. {2:15} And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.

Matthew: {9:9} And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him. {9:10} And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.

....we can begin to see a problem already!!! :) .
The problem is that Matthew the APOSTLE didn't know what Matthew the DISCIPLE or any others had been doing from 1st hand experience.... he was not a witness. And so he copied large tracts of G-Mark in to his gospel! :D
The example below is just the tip of the iceberg, so you can go and research scores of others in your own time.

Another problem with Matthew is that he referred to 'Matthew' as if he was not actually Matthew himself..... do you notice that?

Here you go........ the extracts, like so many others, are almost literally 'cut and paste' jobs from G-Mark. Amazing!

Mark: {1:3} The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Matthew: {3:3} ............... The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.


And here comes Luke with his own 'individual' account. :p

Luke: {3:4} .................... The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Couldn't tell 'em apart! :facepalm:

By the way, one of the other disciples had most probably been a tax officer as well...... can you guess which one? But that's just for interest, OK? :D
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Q is a hypothetical and mythical document no one has ever seen. No fragments, no identified author, etc., etc.

Hypothesis is not myth, it's hypothesis.
And as in the Mark, Matthew, Luke copy situation, the pieces are so similar that to propose that a lost document was copied is reasonable.

Either that or Luke copied Matthew, or vice versa, but I prefer the German research.

PS: I followed your link to link stuff against Q and saw that G-Mark was introduced in to the subject matter. G-Mark was not included in the Q research results! :facepalm:
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Also theres evidence from what I saw on a video not long ago that says the Galgotha or Babylon myth of the flood was written before the Jewish story but Jews lived there, transfered over there or maybe was forced into labor there and they say there is actual evidence now that Jewish workers actually copied the flood story from Galgotha area,

What you have is a THEORY, with ZERO evidence to support it.

It's entirely feasible that Noah's flood story was the original, and others piggybacked off of Noah. Noah was there first. And if you say there's no Noah manuscripts, I can argue there were, but they didn't survive.

So, your EVIDENCE is nothing more than a THEORY.
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
What you have is a THEORY, with ZERO evidence to support it.

It's entirely feasible that Noah's flood story was the original, and others piggybacked off of Noah. Noah was there first. And if you say there's no Noah manuscripts, I can argue there were, but they didn't survive.

So, your EVIDENCE is nothing more than a THEORY.
Actually no if you read the article in Wiki it says the Babylon texts on the flood myth is the oldest that has been tested. Scientists tested it and proved its the oldest, Babylon is the oldest not the Jewish. Scientists, its been tested, thats scientific proof...........
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
What you have is a THEORY, with ZERO evidence to support it.

It's entirely feasible that Noah's flood story was the original, and others piggybacked off of Noah. Noah was there first. And if you say there's no Noah manuscripts, I can argue there were, but they didn't survive.

So, your EVIDENCE is nothing more than a THEORY.

The earliest version of the flood myth is preserved fragmentarily in the Eridu Genesis, written in Sumerian cuneiform and dating to the 17th century BC, during the 1st Dynasty of Babylon when the language of writing and administration was still Sumerian. Strong parallels are notable with other Near Eastern flood legends, such as the biblical account of Noah.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Actually no if you read the article in Wiki it says the Babylon texts on the flood myth is the oldest that has been tested. Scientists tested it and proved its the oldest, Babylon is the oldest not the Jewish. Scientists, its been tested, thats scientific proof...........

It's the oldest that's SURVIVING. There's no evidence it's the oldest that there ever was. Older manuscripts might still be discovered or are lost to history.

In addition, did they copy from a now non-extant manuscript that no longer exists? You don't know. What's more, history in that part of the world was also in the form of oral traditions, that no doubt proceeded written accounts.

So you still have nothing but a theory.
 
Top