Spartan
Well-Known Member
I doubt you've even read it.
Which one is that, the "Skeptic's Revisionist Edition"?
-
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
- Thread starter usfan
- Start date
I doubt you've even read it.
Which one is that, the "Skeptic's Revisionist Edition"?
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
All that fundies need is a VENEER of scholarship to resolve their cognitive dissonance.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Well, you'd be wrong.
You can stop repeatedly posting it to me.
Nope, just a regular Bible I was given when I was a kid at Sunday School. I'll have to check which version it is when I get home later.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
But Paul did offer anecdotes about Jesus.
Both Jesus and John were urging a life-change. That’s what Paul did too.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
All Mark confirms is an empty tomb and a hint of resurrection. Mark does not confirm post-resurrection sightings or interaction. Don’t create a forest out of a copse.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Again: biased assertions without evidence. I should dismiss your post then, correct?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
That’s been done without computers a long time ago.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Heresay. The supposedly “eyewitnesses” who “wrote the gospel” didn’t actually witness the resurrection; they were told about the resurrection. By your criterion in this debate, the gospels, themselves, would be dismissed as “heresay.”
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
ALL bibles — even the beloved KJV — have been revised, redacted, edited, added to. ALL. Revision is the process used in compiling the texts that would later become “the Bible.” Of course, you understand the Bible didn’t just fall out of the sky one day in its present form?
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
That would be hundreds, I reckon.
Of course they were; this was the headquarters of the Syrian Legate who controlled Palestine among other areas.
You think that I forgot that people from all over the Roman Empire, covering a quarter of the Earth, joined the Roman armies? They became Roman soldiers.
I know that Saul had been contracted (or even commissioned) to lead forces, but I don't need to plug that in because I don't pay much attention to Revelation, Isiah or Daniel. My only interest is about the Lives and missions of The Baptist and Jesus..... what happened before or after is just mildly interesting.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
@sooda ........ you clearly have never understood any of my posts about Jesus. You clearly don't comprehend yet that I do not believe that Paul had any interest in the truth about Jesus.
I have come to the opinion, after many years' research in to the Jesus story, that Jesus was borne, lived and died a Galilean Jewish peasant (not a Levite) who continured the Baptist's mission to erase corruption in the priresthood and Temple.
Please remember that when you read my posts.
Augustus
…
Spartan
Well-Known Member
Why don't you document for me the specific changes made to the resurrection narratives, when and by whom, starting from the 1st century?
Spartan
Well-Known Member
Mark said Jesus has RISEN. Don't create a corpse out of a resurrected Savior!
Spartan
Well-Known Member
My NIV Bible says, about the authorship of Matthew, "The early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the twelve disciples, was its author."
For Mark, the notation is, "...it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark."
For Luke is says, "...much unmistakable evidence points to Luke (as the author)."
And for John, "The author is the apostle John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved".
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (d. ca.202AD, disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John) noted, "Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterward, John, the disciple of the Lord who reclined at His bosom, also published a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia." Against Heresies Book III chapter 1.1
Spartan
Well-Known Member
All the skeptics need to cure their dysfunctional, revisionist thinking is to actually read something other than liberal propaganda and Mad magazines.
sooda
Veteran Member
Do you have a link?
usfan
Well-Known Member
I'll repeat what i said earlier:
"So avoid the topic, and ridicule me, or promote narratives about me, personally, as if that provides reason for your arguments. Don't take it personally, if i don't take these hostile outbursts personally. I find them vapidly amusing, and see them as tactics for defeated debaters, who have no arguments, facts, or reason for their beliefs, and must rely on fallacies."
So, contemporary revisionist history is what you choose to believe, instead of millennia of scholarship, corroborating writers, and historical tradition..
Dismiss my call for evidence, if you wish. That does not improve your arguments, nor support the list of false accusations.
oh, good. There hasn't been any psychobabble analysis of me in several posts. This evidences your arguments?/shakes head/
Romans9:1I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel.
Seriously? This supercedes the historical and traditional consensus of the authors?
Groupthink loyalty, much? This is evidence of 'error!', in the biblical texts?
Or are you adding to the list of false narratives?
I had that one, already:
12. Christians cannot reason or follow science, as they are blinded by their superstitions.
..but it helps to rephrase things, for clarity.
"Cognitive dissonance!!", is a great psychobabble term, and demeans your debating opponents very well. Who needs facts or arguments, when you can dismiss people with groupthink smears!?!
Maybe they misread, and thought 'unanimous', was 'anonymous!'
usfan
Well-Known Member
Revisionist history, from contemporary critics, millennia removed from the people and events, does not refute the historical evidence for authorship of the original texts.
1. The early church fathers, apologists, and defenders of the faith constantly (and voluminously!) disputed against heresies, distortions, and lies, that attempted to corrupt the purity of the Gospel message. They CLEARLY acknowledged the authors of the NT books, and there was no dispute as to their accuracy. Marcion, an early heretic, CHANGED and edited the NT books, to suit his personal agenda, and was exposed and condemned as a heretic.
2. "According to", was the only preface, in the gospel accounts. κατά, is the simple word, attributing authorship.
3. Nobody disputed the authorship of the manuscripts, because early on, the writers were there, and everyone knew them. Their disciples and followers kept the integrity and sources of the books, as Irenaeus and other early apologists clearly illustrate.
4. Asserting, 'change!', or 'anonymous!', is an unevidenced assertion.. a FALSE NARRATIVE, to impugn the integrity & credibility of the texts. These are smears, ONLY, from hostile competitors, promoting their own beliefs and smearing the competition. There is NO EVIDENCE, for this accusation. It is a propaganda driven belief, to promote anti-christian sentiments.
1. The early church fathers, apologists, and defenders of the faith constantly (and voluminously!) disputed against heresies, distortions, and lies, that attempted to corrupt the purity of the Gospel message. They CLEARLY acknowledged the authors of the NT books, and there was no dispute as to their accuracy. Marcion, an early heretic, CHANGED and edited the NT books, to suit his personal agenda, and was exposed and condemned as a heretic.
2. "According to", was the only preface, in the gospel accounts. κατά, is the simple word, attributing authorship.
3. Nobody disputed the authorship of the manuscripts, because early on, the writers were there, and everyone knew them. Their disciples and followers kept the integrity and sources of the books, as Irenaeus and other early apologists clearly illustrate.
4. Asserting, 'change!', or 'anonymous!', is an unevidenced assertion.. a FALSE NARRATIVE, to impugn the integrity & credibility of the texts. These are smears, ONLY, from hostile competitors, promoting their own beliefs and smearing the competition. There is NO EVIDENCE, for this accusation. It is a propaganda driven belief, to promote anti-christian sentiments.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Risen? This morning I woke up and discovered that my wife had risen. But she is still around this afternoon.
Look, I acknowledge Christian's Faith, and I acknowledge yours as long as it is just Faith.
You'd be much better off clinging to the manuscript from c. 430, the Codex Bobbiensis, "k", contains an interpolation between 16:3 and 16:4 which appears to present Christ's ascension occurring at that point:
But suddenly at the third hour of the day there was darkness over the whole circle of the earth, and angels descended from the heavens, and as he [the Lord] was rising in the glory of the living God, at the same time they ascended with him; and immediately it was light.
Now that's what I call a full-on resurrection and ascension, and an early copy of G-Mark, so why don't you stop fiddling about with 'risen' and go the full hog, straight from the cross?
Who by? A bunch of Christians?
Pilate never wanted Jesus dead in the first place. And it's unlikely that a Cenurian would have supervised a group of executioners, possibly a Decurion? Stating alive after a few hours on the cross or never being the one executed in the first place are both serious considerations for objective researchers. Obviously Christians cannot een consider these much more tenable possibilities.
Only for Christians. John and Luke were not witnesses. The 'Matthew' of G-Matthew was no witness, needing to copy other gospels, and the Mark of G-Mark just might have been a witness imo, and that gospel mostly of the memoirs of Cephas, but with no resurrection...... we don't have much from history to be honest........ that;'s it.... we're honest.