>I did my very best to hold on to my faith that the Bible was the inspired word of God with no mistakes and that lasted for about two years.

>I did my very best to hold on to my faith that the Bible was the inspired word of God with no mistakes and that lasted for about two years. I realized that at the time we had over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, and no two of them are exactly alike. The scribes were changing them, sometimes in big ways, but lots of times in little ways. And it finally occurred to me that if I really thought that God had inspired this text, If he went to the trouble of inspiring the text, why didn't he go to the trouble of preserving the text? Why did he allow scribes to change it?

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    He's the evangelical of atheists. Too bad he never became catholic to see how much a moron he really is

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I love Erhman. He's done more to spread the insights of text critical scholarship than anyone.

    I'm a blog subscriber, if anyone is interested in reading one of his posts just ask and I'll screenshot it and post it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What are some of his books you suggest reading?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I've only read Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Forged, and Heaven and Hell. All three are excellent, and I found all of his arguments persuasive (respectively - that Jesus is best understood historically as a israeli apocalyptic prophet, that many canonical books are pseudepigraphal, and that the common conceptions of heaven and hell are very late among israeli doctrines, and contradictory eschatological beliefs are in view in some Christian sources).
        I've heard his more academic books are good too, but the popular books recapitulate most of their content anyway, and are not only readable but entertaining.
        A lot of what he has to say will not be too surprising if you have already critically studied Christianity and Judaism, Ehrman's distinction is that he is indeed the evangelist of atheists as

        He's the evangelical of atheists. Too bad he never became catholic to see how much a moron he really is

        said. A lot of what he says that makes him so controversial have been the consensus in critical scholarship for decades, Ehrman is singled out because more than anyone he has brought that knowledge to the public.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Ehrman is singled out because more than anyone he has brought that knowledge to the public.
          >by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What are some of his books you suggest reading?

      His podcast is good, too

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Is there anything about the Eternal Sin?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There is some part in the NT where israelites claim christians just bribed the guards and took the body which is denounced as false.
      I wonder what he has to say about it as he doesnt even believe Jesus got buried in a tomb iirc.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >so Bart what do you think the original text said since it changed so much
    >"oh the exact same thing"
    >w-w-w-hat I thought there were 5,000 different manuscripts
    >"yeah that's how we know"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >proceeds to disbelieve because of the problem of evil
      Bravo Bart.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What do you mean, Ehrman readily assents to the academic consensus that the Biblical books have a complicated redactional history. Just off the top of my head, Ehrman has affirmed theories about the textual history of Genesis, Mark, and Isaiah which have no manuscript evidence.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Believe it or not, but there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that specifically calls the israelites or the tribe of Judah God’s chosen people. This misconception comes from the fact that the israelites of today have declared themselves to be Israel and not the house of Judah, as the Scriptures rightfully call them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the tribe of Judah is one of the twelve tribes of Israel. Judah was a son of Jacob and Leah.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        i think you're responding to a paranoid schizophrenic.

        anyways. modern israelites only have trace ancestry to the ancient israelites. that* is a fact.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Apparently Bart Ehrman's mind simply can't handle the idea that Matthew mentions both the colt and the foal that Jesus rode upon, while the other Gospels only mention one of these animals or the other. His mind somehow concludes that this is an absolute contradiction, but to me it's just laughable he would think that, because the other Gospel writers could have simply chosen not to explicitly mention both.

    Wikipedia parrots this whole demented logic from Ehrman verbatim, seemingly showing that none of them is able to see how the Gospel writers could have simply mentioned one or the other of the animals.

    Even more interesting is the fact that John's Gospel, in John 12:14-15, actually does mention both the ass as well as the ass's colt separately, which is similar language to Matthew 21:2. But Ehrman and the rest seem to be unaware of this fact entirely. To this day you can still see the wikipedia page claiming this is a contradiction in the Gospel of Matthew based on Ehrman's comments when it's very clearly not.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You should know outsiders don't find "one narrative just omits incredibly bizarre details" to be even a little bit tenable. The idea that you could see a man riding two animals at the same time and record it as "he was riding a donkey" is only plausible to Christians who believe the NT is the univocal word of God.
      >John 12:14-15, actually does mention both the ass as well as the ass's colt separately
      John is paraphrasing Zechariah. "Donkey's colt" or "foal of an ass", either way in John Jesus sits only on one animal.

      the greek majority text. and the masoretic hebrew. the idea that copying texts was a "tradition" and not a trade is where you go very wrong.
      there would be thousands of New Testaments in circulation at the same exact time being carried all across the roman empire. the idea you could somehow engineer a mass forgery when everyone had nearly identical copies already* is laughable.

      when they dig up fringe religious texts like those of the essenes, that's literally all they are. it would be like in 2,000 years finding a KJV and a Book of Mormon in a Utah cave and declaring
      >WOW the ancient christians must've had additional scriptures lost to time!

      >the greek majority text.
      Give me one reason to believe the Byzantine text-type is more "preserved" than any other manuscript, say the Codex Vaticanus. And there are variants within it as well.
      >and the masoretic hebrew
      Demonstrably has later readings than the Septuagint at points. E.g., the MT recension of the David and Goliath story is about twice as long, and if you take out all of the verses not in the LXX, they form a separate and nearly complete narrative, in order - i.e., the MT has a recension that conflated the LXX vorlage with an another source.
      >the idea you could somehow engineer a mass forgery when everyone had nearly identical copies already* is laughable.
      You clearly know nothing about Biblical manuscripts. There are enormous amounts of significant variants from the first millennium. There are four major variations (delta of several verses) of the ending of Mark, to name just one.
      At times the Church fathers openly question the authorship and inspiration of several canonical scriptures (Revelation, Hebrews, etc.)
      >it would be like in 2,000 years finding a KJV and a Book of Mormon in a Utah cave and declaring "WOW the ancient christians must've had additional scriptures lost to time!"
      Yeah, they'd be right. And if they had a good knowledge of their ancient history, they should easily be able to date the BoM to the 19th century, too. Christianity has never been monolithic.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Logically speaking, it's not a contradiction in the slightest. It is a logical fallacy to state that it is one. That's the bottom line.

        As for the question of why Mark and Luke mention one animal, it seems perfectly plausible to me that Jesus could have ridden it by itself at another point on the journey. If so, this would be a detail that is conveyed by the parallel accounts, similar to other instances of this. For instance, the Transfiguration scene in Matthew, Mark and Luke all give highly unique details in all three accounts. None of these things contradict, and clearly the details in one could be happening at one point and the details in another happened slightly later during the same event.

        The reason why people get confused is that they don't even consider the possibility that this is describing a real event. A real event occurs in stages. People think the Gospel of John is "out of order" because it talks about Jesus clearing out the temple early in chapter 2. But it doesn't have to be "out of order" at all, it could simply be that multiple different events like this actually happened in Jesus' life. Sometimes life is like that, but I can see why someone might be confused by it if they don't believe this is describing real world events. But you see, to do this is to beg the question, as they are presupposing that the Gospels aren't describing real events and that leads them to being confused about the fact that different people mention different details that do not strictly contradict each other. The account of the Triumphal entry is just one prominent example, made worse by the fact that the critics either ignore or falsely misrepresent the fact that John also mentioned both animals, and it wasn't just Matthew.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Logically speaking, it's not a contradiction in the slightest.
          "It's not logically impossible for these narratives to be harmonized" doesn't really amount to a good case for univocality to anyone, on any subject. That the notion that different sources for the same event completely omit entire persons, verbal exchanges, events, etc. is itself an indictment of the sources.
          >it seems perfectly plausible to me that Jesus could have ridden it by itself at another point on the journey
          It doesn't seem plausible to a single non-Christian. The simple reading is that the context of them all is Zechariah 9, and they all concern his entry into Jerusalem.
          >The reason why people get confused is that they don't even consider the possibility that this is describing a real event
          Only Biblical literalist Christians read the Gospels and presume they must consist of historical accounts that don't and most importantly can't contradict each other.

          By the way, Ehrman actually wrote an article on this exact apologetic technique. He even gives the example of the cleansing of the temple. No wonder they nailed him up, fool me once...
          Also,
          >According to Epiphanius, the Gospel of the Ebionites has the voice speak three different times at Jesus's baptism, corroborating all three different sources.
          Turns out God is just very redundant.
          He gives a great example from The Life of Christ in Stereo, which is all about this technique.
          >what does one do with the fact that in the Gospel of Matthew Jesus predicts Peter’s denial by saying that “he would deny him three times before the wiener crows”, but in the Gospel of Mark he predicts that he would deny him three times “before the wiener crows *twice*”? It’s very simple. Peter denied Jesus *six* times: three times before the wiener crowed and three times before the wiener crowed twice!
          It's cute, but this is not remotely persuasive to outsiders, it just suffices for those who want to continue believing in Biblical univocality.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That the notion that different sources for the same event completely omit entire persons, verbal exchanges, events, etc. is itself an indictment of the sources.
            When the accounts agree too much, they are accused of copying one another. But when not enough, this occurs.

            It's like the accusers in Luke 22. "Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go."

            They act like they want to know. But they are just going to deny one way or another because that's their presupposition. You might even find the same person saying, at one place/time that the Gospels must be copying from each other (though they often can't seem to decide how) while in another place, the critic will say the accounts are too different. So it's always something.

            >Only Biblical literalist Christians read the Gospels and presume they must consist of historical accounts that don't and most importantly can't contradict each other.
            People who are able to view things with an open mind are able to do this. Those who are already determined to get a conclusion they want will not, and that will result in them being confused. The Bible only makes sense in the context of an actually existing Creator God. There is no other context in which it is supposed to make sense, so if a person presumes atheism first from the start and then tries to understand how the Bible is consistent, they will always be tripped up.

            >No wonder they nailed him up,
            Actually in John 10 Jesus says that He lays down His own life, it wasn't taken by force. Since we're talking about what the Biblical account says, this should be specifically noted. Since I'm not part of the camp that automatically assumes that what the Bible says is false as a starting point and tries to make sense of things from there.

            >this is not remotely persuasive to outsiders,
            Some people will refuse the truth to continue in some error. Rom. 1:20.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >When the accounts agree too much, they are accused of copying one another.
            Literary dependence between the gospels is obvious. Mark always calls Herod "king", even though he was a tetrarch. Matthew corrects this mistake - we know specifically that he corrected Mark's mistake, because he forgot to keep correcting it, Matthew starts calling him "king" half way through. In Mark, Herodias wants John the Baptist dead, and Herod grieves for him. In Matthew, Herod himself wands John the Baptist dead - but when he dies, he grieves for him, following Mark. This is best explained by Matthew failing to sustain changes he is making to Mark. I could go on.
            >Unfortunately you are too depraved/deluded/worldly/hard of heart to just believe everything I do.
            If a Muslim said this to you, would it give you pause?
            >People who are able to view things with an open mind are able to do this
            I'm perfectly capable of imagining contrived scenarios to explain the Gospel text. It's just a facile explanation.
            >automatically assumes that what the Bible says is false
            I just don't assume it's all true. Again, you can repeat almost all of your arguments mutatis mutandis to excuse any problematic text. I could trivially harmonize Mark and gThomas.

            >How incompetent would you have to be as a biographical author
            According to the Biblical account, those who wrote Scripture were not doing so of their own will, but according to God's inspiration, no more and no less. God inspired his word to be written a certain way, if we're going by what the Biblical account says.

            "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
            For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
            (2 Peter 1:20-21)

            "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
            For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
            (Galatians 1:11-12)

            According to scripture, the Quran was authored by God and dictated by Gabriel.
            According to the Quran, Adam was made out of a clot of dried blood, out of clay, out of dust, and out of nothing. Why shouldn't I consider this all equally credible?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >problematic text
            Anon, the funny thing is that nobody knows or can agree on what the supposed "problematic text" actually is. They talk about it like they have it, but they all have different ideas and can't seem to agree on what the supposed indictment actually is. I don't think there is any.

            >because he forgot to keep correcting it, Matthew starts calling him "king" half way through.
            Is there some evidence for this or is it just a supposition I imagine.

            >In Matthew, Herod himself wands John the Baptist dead - but when he dies, he grieves for him, following Mark.
            That's a strange thing to say. In both Matthew and Mark, Herod is induced to have John the Baptist killed because of Herodias. In Matthew 14:3, it literally says, "For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife."

            And in Mark 6 it says the same: "For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her."

            I don't get where the contradiction is here.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Is there some evidence for this or is it just a supposition I imagine.
            It's the best explanation for why Matthew should go from calling Herod by an accurate title to calling him by an inaccurate one in the same book.
            >I don't get where the contradiction is here
            Mark says Herod protected John when Herodoas wanted him executed for criticizing her marriage, because he believed he was righteous, and that he liked to listen to him. John is only executed when he foolishly promises Herodias any wish, therefore it makes sense that Herod might grieve.
            Matthew says Herod had John arrested because he was criticizing Herodias's marriage and wanted to execute him, but he "feared the crowd", so John wasn't executed until Herodias got her way. The best explanation for why Herod grieves in this text is that he grieves in Mark.

            >Matthew corrects this mistake
            This is not a "mistake", and this claim is arbitrary. This
            >he forgot to keep correcting it
            Is ridiculous.
            >This is best explained by Matthew failing to sustain changes he is making to Mark.
            If, and only if you presuppose an anti-Christian narrative of church history. In reality, the sole reason secular scholarship insists on Markine priority is because of this presupposition and the fact Mark is the shortest gospel. Secondary justifications (such as the one you gave) are actively sought after to justify the first. We could (and do) play the same games in reverse, because they have no merit beyond the minds of the critics.
            >If a Muslim said this to you, would it give you pause?
            He didn't say that to you. You have no self-awareness.

            >This is not a "mistake"
            Herod was not a king, he was a petty prince, and called "tetrarch" by Josephus. They're two very distinct positions and you can't be both. Please tell me, why did Matthew switch appellations?
            How is Marcan priority anti-Christian? If you think "it's short" is the only reason Mark is dated earliest, you need to read one of the hundreds of books on the synoptic problem by Christians that isn't just apologetics for the Augustinian hypothesis.
            >He didn't say that to you
            2,000 character limit, you're going to have to forgive me for not quoting verbatim.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Herod was not a king, he was a petty prince, and called "tetrarch" by Josephus. They're two very distinct positions and you can't be both.
            True, Caesar Augustus was not an emperor, Rome was a republic. And Fidel Castro was not a dictator, he was a president. Those are very different offices and you can't be both, Americans are so stupid for mixing those up!
            >How is Marcan priority anti-Christian?
            It isn't, but secular scholarship's reasoning for it is.
            >If you think "it's short" is the only reason Mark is dated earliest
            It's short + secular presuppositions are why secular scholarship insists it has to be.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Herod Antipas was never a king. Kings ruled nations, tetrarchs ruled quarters of nations. This is a matter of fact, not a distinction without a difference.
            >secular scholarship's reasoning for it is
            Yeah do go on. Is every synoptic problem hypothesis except Augustine's anti-Christian too? For every book since 1970 you can name advancing traditional authorship, l can name two by Christian authors that presume Marcan priority.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Herod Antipas was never a king. Kings ruled nations, tetrarchs ruled quarters of nations. This is a matter of fact, not a distinction without a difference.
            Fidel Castro was never a dictator. Dictators ruled with an iron fist, presidents were chosen by the people. This is a matter of fact, not a distinction without a difference.
            >Yeah do go on. Is every synoptic problem hypothesis except Augustine's anti-Christian
            Cope
            >For every book since 1970 you can name advancing traditional authorship, l can name two by Christian authors that presume Marcan priority.
            Are you under the impression priority and authorship are the same thing?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Let's hear your definitions of king and tetrarch, maybe they're not so different! Oh wait, this is a matter of historical fact.
            >Are you under the impression priority and authorship are the same thing?
            Absolutely not, but I think you're ignorant of the fact that Marcan priority has been the majority position for the last century, and Christians have hardly been totally unpersuaded. John Dominic Crossan and Alan Garrow, both clergy, although Crossan retired from the priesthood. Name a latter day Augustinian you like to read, I can easily match you two to one.

            >You must have assumed this because Thomas is meaninglessly called "gnostic", but it isn't true.
            I'm aware Thomas is not a systematic theology of Gnosticism but I'm also aware of the worldview it represents.
            >This is my honest mistake, I thought you were trying to affirm my authority as judge
            Yes, you were mistaken in thinking appeasing you was my objective.
            >This conclusion of this argument is that it is impossible to say "X will happen before Y" and be wrong as long as Y follows X
            I want to know anon, how did the car hit the other car both before and after running the red light! Which witness is lying?
            >wieners crow regularly, so every single event in history, even if it took a thousand years to happen, happened before a wiener crowed 1, 2, 100 times and the statement is completely meaningless as you interpret it.
            No, the statement is completely meaningless in this appeal to ridicule. It's perfectly meaningful the way I interpret it.
            Just to be clear, your position right now is that the intention of Matthew was specifically to convey that the wiener crowed EXACTLY one time, and ABSOLUTELY not a single time more?

            Well just pick out the logion you think "represents" a demiurgical worldview, tell me why you think Mark disagrees, and I'll tell you why you're wrong. There isn't one by the way.
            >I want to know anon, how did the car hit the other car both before and after running the red light!
            I reject that the scenario is analogous.
            >No, the statement is completely meaningless in this appeal to ridicule. It's perfectly meaningful the way I interpret it.
            When you said Matthew doesn't say "before the first time", I take it your point is that Jesus can accurately have said "before the wiener crows", so long as the wiener crows after Peter's third denial, even if it crowed before his third denial, too. No?
            >Just to be clear, your position right now is that the intention of Matthew was specifically to convey that the wiener crowed EXACTLY one time, and ABSOLUTELY not a single time more?
            My position is that in Matthew, Jesus intends to say that Peter will betray him three times temporally before he hears the wiener crow in the morning. My interpretation is that this means he will betray him in a matter of less than a day and night. The same sentiment as in Mark - but there is a literal wiener crowing twice in Matthew, whereupon Peter remembers Jesus's words, and in Mark he remembers when he hears the wiener crow just the once, according to the text.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Are you under the impression priority and authorship are the same thing?
            Ah I see my mistake, traditional order

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It's the best explanation for why Matthew should go from calling Herod by an accurate title to calling him by an inaccurate one in the same book.
            I don't agree that it's inaccurate.

            [...]
            Neither of you has any formal historical education. Historians may prefer certain sources, but they never ever discard the ones they consider less reliable. What historians do is compare both, and harmonize them without including any blatant contradictions - which doesn't mean sentences not aligning 1:1, but portraying the event in an entirely different context. Judas dying one way or another has no bearing on the rest of the Bible, which is why nobody cared to do something about this "contradiction", despite Ehrman's persistent attempts at portraying christian scribes as evil pragmatists who changed the bible on a whim.
            This is because ancient writers did not write to appeal to the modern sensibility of gathering encyclopedic knowledge, but to focus on specific aspects of the event to make a point.
            Historians do not discard Livy because Polybius is "better".
            To further illustrate this point, let's take two chroniclers of the Latin Empire describing the coronation of Baldwin I. Robert de Clari provides a detailed description of the event, while Geoffrey of Villehardouin only mentions Baldwin being clothed in Roman clothing and the coronation taking place in Hagia Sophia.
            An actual historian will consider that de Clari wanted to put an emphasis on the legitimacy of Baldwin, who was coronated in a distinctly Byzantine fashion, while Villehardouin would rather skim over it, preferring to write on other subjects.
            The clothing and the place of coronation are the only common details both accounts have in common. A historian will consider them both equally viable, while textual critic """scholar""" will imply that Villehardouin's omissions are contradictory with de Clari's overly detailed account, and claim that we may never know who was in the right after all.

            >Judas dying one way or another has no bearing on the rest of the Bible
            On this one, Judas hanged himself and the rope broke, causing his body to fall to the ground and burst open. In Acts it only says his body fell, not that he tripped or anything like that. It's not a contradiction at all.

            >And so you do, it's just you do it in service to unbelief.
            Touché.
            >Which is a presuppositional issue
            Yes that's right.
            >No, you literally couldn't
            Name a contradiction between Mark and Thomas, I'll make short work of it.
            Vis-a-vis Islam - my point is that claiming the scripture simply is inspired and univocal despite infidel misapprehensions is easily recognized by Christians as unpersuasive when someone says it about Islam.

            [...]
            What Jesus said is ostensibly a matter of fact. In Mark, Peter denies Jesus for the third time right before the wiener crows twice. Tell me then, how else could Peter truly have denied him three times before the wiener crowed the first time too? If you read my post again you can find that he is literally quoting a Christian apologetic book in this case. He's basically saying that each evangelist "regards as unnecessary" recording one of the two terns of denials, but Jesus indeed said both.

            >Tell me then, how else could Peter truly have denied him three times before the wiener crowed the first time too?
            Like was mentioned before, telescoping is one possible explanation. Another is that the rooster crowing can be viewed as an event that takes a finite amount of time. The one that was at the scene may crow multiple times at the start of the day, but is not considered to have "finished" crowing until two or more individual crows, as an example.

            It's really sad that the NIV literally modifies Mark 14:68 by getting rid of the rooster crow to try to get rid of what they think is a "contradiction." Their minds are like Ehrman and the wikipedia editors, who thinks that Mark and Luke mentioning an ass but not a colt is an absolute logical contradiction. That is their stumbling stone, and it is a strange one to say the least.

            Other people I've seen reject scripture for no other reason than using the word "Unicorn." That is their stumbling stone. But what they apparently don't know is that the King James translators wrote "or, Rhinocerots" in the margin next to the word, and Rhinocerous is a real thing. This is the kind of thing we're dealing with here: very petty and trifling objections that Scripture has an alleged "absolute contradiction" that are very easily resolved.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            At least we can agree the NIV is a disgrace.

            https://i.imgur.com/dDl4RGz.jpeg

            >if it were a redaction, they have somehow managed to cut the middle half of a pericope out while the text remains perfectly coherent and grammatical,
            Actually it's not grammatically correct when you remove the pericope here, as a matter of fact. There is no case where a neuter noun substantive is indicated by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns. This was pointed out by a Greek scholar Eugenius Bulgarius. If you remove the pericope in 1 John 5:7-8, that is exactly what is created, which is what is known as a solecism in the text. So you are definitely wrong on this point.

            >it is very easy to see why it might be added, since it is the most overtly trinitarian verse in the Bible.
            It expands on what John 10:30 already says, "I and my Father are one." You can see Cyprian here quoting both verses side by side. That verse was being abused by the Sabellians, who were modalists. If they were already abusing John 10:30 to argue for modalism, adding 1 John 5:7-8 would not change anyone's mind. However this verse was used in disputes with the Arians later.

            By the way, the removal of this pericope is also clearly a place where an omission by parablepsis could occur, and I think that's how it originated. This is also what John Mill said about this verse. How it spreads from there is another question.

            >There is no case where a neuter noun substantive is indicated by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns.
            Interesting argument I have to admit I've never heard before. Wikipedia proffers some suggestions for why this should be the case.
            1. The witnesses are personified. cf. Deut 19:15
            2. According to Frederick Nolan, Robert Dabney and Edward Hills, each article-participle phrase (οἱ μαρτυροῦντες) in 1 John 5:7-8 functions as an adjective that modifies the three subsequent articular nouns (ὁ πατὴρ ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα / τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα) and therefore must agree with the grammatical gender (masculine / neuter) of the first subsequent articular noun (ὁ πατὴρ / τὸ πνεῦμα). I'll let anyone reading come to their own conclusion.
            >How it spreads from there is another question.
            That's for sure, since if it is an omission it must be the sole original textual variant to be completely unattested in or even quoted by a single Greek manuscript until the sixteenth century.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That's for sure, since if it is an omission it must be the sole original textual variant to be completely unattested in or even quoted by a single Greek manuscript until the sixteenth century.
            This is untrue on two counts. Firstly, it is attested in minuscule 629, which is older than sixteenth century. And secondly, it is unattested in extant Greek manuscripts before then, but the list of extant manuscripts today are not all manuscripts that ever existed. There could be ancient "non-extant" Greek manuscripts where it is attested. For example, we know that Stephanus in 1550 used manuscripts which are now unidentified, such as the ones he referred to in his 1550 apparatus as "sigma-iota" and "sigma-alpha". The readings that Stephanus and a handful of others chose to include (and no, they weren't just copying Erasmus; he was corrected in many places by others that came later) could be coming from ancient manuscripts that the 16th century compilers had, which we don't. This is as I don't believe they would include 1 John 5:7-8 (or many other completely unattested readings like the longer form of Acts 10:6 or Hebrews 12:20) based only on a single manuscript like 629; I believe they had more than this.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Matthew corrects this mistake
            This is not a "mistake", and this claim is arbitrary. This
            >he forgot to keep correcting it
            Is ridiculous.
            >This is best explained by Matthew failing to sustain changes he is making to Mark.
            If, and only if you presuppose an anti-Christian narrative of church history. In reality, the sole reason secular scholarship insists on Markine priority is because of this presupposition and the fact Mark is the shortest gospel. Secondary justifications (such as the one you gave) are actively sought after to justify the first. We could (and do) play the same games in reverse, because they have no merit beyond the minds of the critics.
            >If a Muslim said this to you, would it give you pause?
            He didn't say that to you. You have no self-awareness.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >This is not a "mistake", and this claim is arbitrary.
            Calling someone by the wrong title isn't a mistake? How do you square that one?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm perfectly capable of imagining contrived scenarios to explain the Gospel text
            And so you do, it's just you do it in service to unbelief.
            >I just don't assume it's all true
            Which is a presuppositional issue, because being the word of God it is of course all true.
            >Again, you can repeat almost all of your arguments mutatis mutandis to excuse any problematic text
            Again, the use of the term "problematic" is merely an expression of unbelief.
            >I could trivially harmonize Mark and gThomas
            No, you literally couldn't, because they don't even present the same worldview. The differences between Mark and Thomas are much larger and more fundamental than the supposed contradictions of scripture, which are always on topics like "so and so owned such and such amount of donkeys".
            >Why shouldn't I consider this all equally credible?
            This argument now is in no way a historical argument, but a direct assault on the Christian faith. Such is a tacit concession that your position holds merit if and only if Christianity is false, since otherwise you would not need to attack Christianity to defend it at this point. The theological argument you present is the red herring logical fallacy, as the claims of Islam are mutually exclusive with both of our worldviews, and necessarily false if either of us are right. You are essentially demanding that we drop the discussion we were having and dare not criticize your beliefs until we refute the Islamic religion, as if it had anything to do with the conflict between Christianity and secularism. It would be like if I sought to prove the Gospels are more than mere copies of each other by demanding you prove earth is spherical.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >And so you do, it's just you do it in service to unbelief.
            Touché.
            >Which is a presuppositional issue
            Yes that's right.
            >No, you literally couldn't
            Name a contradiction between Mark and Thomas, I'll make short work of it.
            Vis-a-vis Islam - my point is that claiming the scripture simply is inspired and univocal despite infidel misapprehensions is easily recognized by Christians as unpersuasive when someone says it about Islam.

            >>what does one do with the fact that in the Gospel of Matthew Jesus predicts Peter’s denial by saying that “he would deny him three times before the wiener crows”, but in the Gospel of Mark he predicts that he would deny him three times “before the wiener crows *twice*”? It’s very simple. Peter denied Jesus *six* times: three times before the wiener crowed and three times before the wiener crowed twice!
            This is a fantastic example of how unbelievers invent contradictions in the bible (because they are going out of their way to find them). The real question here is: why would I try to "reconcile" these in the first place? What is a contradiction? A contradiction is a technical term of formal logic which refers to the simultaneous affirmation of a proposition and its negation. Is that what's happening when one says "before the wiener crows" and "before the wiener crows twice"? No. Perhaps the most common way unbelievers invent contradictions is by conflating contradiction and difference. Those statements are indeed different, but they are *far* from contradictory. The difference would actually be explained by telescoping, as one author includes details the other does not, usually because he regards them as unnecessary. The reason Ehrman would misrepresent Christian interpretation like this is because his treatment of scripture is unreasonable, as is yours.

            What Jesus said is ostensibly a matter of fact. In Mark, Peter denies Jesus for the third time right before the wiener crows twice. Tell me then, how else could Peter truly have denied him three times before the wiener crowed the first time too? If you read my post again you can find that he is literally quoting a Christian apologetic book in this case. He's basically saying that each evangelist "regards as unnecessary" recording one of the two terns of denials, but Jesus indeed said both.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Name a contradiction between Mark and Thomas, I'll make short work of it.
            One conceives of God as the supreme creator of all things, and the other conceives of a god in conflict with an evil material demiurge that is the creator of evil matter which must be escaped through gnosis. good luck sorting that contradiction out.
            >my point is that claiming the scripture simply is inspired and univocal despite infidel misapprehensions is easily recognized by Christians as unpersuasive when someone says it about Islam.
            Your point is driven by abject ignorance of how Christians respond to Islamic claims. We do not simply make the exact same arguments atheists do against Christianity, as you all seem to assume. If I attempted to allege contradictions in the Koran, I would indeed fully expect a muslim to seek to harmonize them precisely because he believes they are the words of God, I would not act surprised when he did so, and I would not be so arrogant and self-obsessed to respond with "well, you're not convincing ME"
            >Tell me then, how else could Peter truly have denied him three times before the wiener crowed the first time too?
            Matthew doesn't say "before the first time", it would help this discussion if you at least pretended to interact with my points. Let's suppose there was a car accident and a cop was taking witness reports and one person said "Yes officer I saw it, he ran a red light and then rear ended that guy". Another person says "yeah, he slammed right into the other car". Now, I want you tell me Anon: how did he both run into him before, and after he ran the red light?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >One conceives of God as the supreme creator of all things, and the other conceives of a god in conflict with an evil material demiurge
            You must have assumed this because Thomas is meaninglessly called "gnostic", but it isn't true.
            >I would indeed fully expect a muslim to seek to harmonize them precisely because he believes they are the words of God, I would not act surprised when he did so, and I would not be so arrogant and self-obsessed to respond with "well, you're not convincing ME"
            But you wouldn't be convinced of course. This is my honest mistake, I thought you were trying to say something convincing.
            >Matthew doesn't say "before the first time"
            This conclusion of this argument is that it is impossible to say "X will happen before Y" and be wrong as long as Y follows X, however many times Y precedes X. wieners crow regularly, so every single event in history, even if it took a thousand years to happen, happened before a wiener crowed 1, 2, 100 times and the statement is completely meaningless as you interpret it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You must have assumed this because Thomas is meaninglessly called "gnostic", but it isn't true.
            I'm aware Thomas is not a systematic theology of Gnosticism but I'm also aware of the worldview it represents.
            >This is my honest mistake, I thought you were trying to affirm my authority as judge
            Yes, you were mistaken in thinking appeasing you was my objective.
            >This conclusion of this argument is that it is impossible to say "X will happen before Y" and be wrong as long as Y follows X
            I want to know anon, how did the car hit the other car both before and after running the red light! Which witness is lying?
            >wieners crow regularly, so every single event in history, even if it took a thousand years to happen, happened before a wiener crowed 1, 2, 100 times and the statement is completely meaningless as you interpret it.
            No, the statement is completely meaningless in this appeal to ridicule. It's perfectly meaningful the way I interpret it.
            Just to be clear, your position right now is that the intention of Matthew was specifically to convey that the wiener crowed EXACTLY one time, and ABSOLUTELY not a single time more?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >>what does one do with the fact that in the Gospel of Matthew Jesus predicts Peter’s denial by saying that “he would deny him three times before the wiener crows”, but in the Gospel of Mark he predicts that he would deny him three times “before the wiener crows *twice*”? It’s very simple. Peter denied Jesus *six* times: three times before the wiener crowed and three times before the wiener crowed twice!
            This is a fantastic example of how unbelievers invent contradictions in the bible (because they are going out of their way to find them). The real question here is: why would I try to "reconcile" these in the first place? What is a contradiction? A contradiction is a technical term of formal logic which refers to the simultaneous affirmation of a proposition and its negation. Is that what's happening when one says "before the wiener crows" and "before the wiener crows twice"? No. Perhaps the most common way unbelievers invent contradictions is by conflating contradiction and difference. Those statements are indeed different, but they are *far* from contradictory. The difference would actually be explained by telescoping, as one author includes details the other does not, usually because he regards them as unnecessary. The reason Ehrman would misrepresent Christian interpretation like this is because his treatment of scripture is unreasonable, as is yours.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What did Jesus say? Did he say that the wiener crows or the wiener crows twice? Why was one left out?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That the notion that different sources for the same event completely omit entire persons, verbal exchanges, events, etc. is itself an indictment of the sources.

            Not really. Police actually expect different people's accounts on the same real events to be variations on the same story, that is, they aren't identical. When everybody recites the same identical story, it's taken to be rehearsed.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Just to give an example, if Matthew 27:52-53 actually happened it beggars belief it would not be reported by other sources. How incompetent would you have to be as a biographical author to completely omit one of Jesus's most amazing miracles, that so strongly presages the general resurrection? If you were in Jerusalem at the time or knew anybody that was, I reckon that would be a salient detail. Non-Christians are just not going to find it plausible that this is simply a singly attested historical fact.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >How incompetent would you have to be as a biographical author
            According to the Biblical account, those who wrote Scripture were not doing so of their own will, but according to God's inspiration, no more and no less. God inspired his word to be written a certain way, if we're going by what the Biblical account says.

            "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
            For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
            (2 Peter 1:20-21)

            "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
            For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
            (Galatians 1:11-12)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Non-Christians are just not going to find it plausible that this is simply a singly attested historical fact.
            I've not been keeping up with this gay debate you're having, but what "beggars belief" for me is when unbelievers say things like this as if it has any logical merit or as if anyone should care. Do you think you're some supreme judge of truth and your consent is required before a proposition can be true? Imagine if a flat earther said "non-globe earthers just aren't going to find modern physics plausible". Who gives a frick?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If you're going to repeat over and over again that the Gospels simply perfectly but differentially attest to a perfect history, I'm going to assume you think your interlocutor might find the idea plausible and disabuse you of the notion.
            >non-globe earthers just aren't going to find modern physics plausible
            Flat Earthers don't understand physics. It is very easy to understand the notion that the NT has no contradictions, it's just that any argument to that end is of a type that could harmonize basically any two texts.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Gospels simply perfectly but differentially attest to a perfect history
            Difference in attestation does not imply a difference in events, see

            >>what does one do with the fact that in the Gospel of Matthew Jesus predicts Peter’s denial by saying that “he would deny him three times before the wiener crows”, but in the Gospel of Mark he predicts that he would deny him three times “before the wiener crows *twice*”? It’s very simple. Peter denied Jesus *six* times: three times before the wiener crowed and three times before the wiener crowed twice!
            This is a fantastic example of how unbelievers invent contradictions in the bible (because they are going out of their way to find them). The real question here is: why would I try to "reconcile" these in the first place? What is a contradiction? A contradiction is a technical term of formal logic which refers to the simultaneous affirmation of a proposition and its negation. Is that what's happening when one says "before the wiener crows" and "before the wiener crows twice"? No. Perhaps the most common way unbelievers invent contradictions is by conflating contradiction and difference. Those statements are indeed different, but they are *far* from contradictory. The difference would actually be explained by telescoping, as one author includes details the other does not, usually because he regards them as unnecessary. The reason Ehrman would misrepresent Christian interpretation like this is because his treatment of scripture is unreasonable, as is yours.

            It is actually very typical of accurate accounts of events to vary from each other, because they come from different people.
            >I'm going to assume you think your interlocutor might find the idea plausible and disabuse you of the notion
            And I would like to disabuse you of the notion that you are the judge and your verdict is significant.
            >inb4 "hurr then why are you talking to me"
            Is that why you're talking to me, because your confidence in your beliefs is contingent on me accepting them?
            >Flat Earthers don't understand physics
            100% irrelevant
            >it's just that any argument to that end is of a type that could harmonize basically any two texts
            This is false.

            >This is not a "mistake", and this claim is arbitrary.
            Calling someone by the wrong title isn't a mistake? How do you square that one?

            "Wrong" according to whom, sir? Is it "wrong" to refer to Caesar Augustus as a monarch because he was actually the savior of the Republic?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >"Wrong" according to whom, sir?
            You... You don't know what a Tetrarch is, do you? You didn't even bother looking it up to see before you started shrieking that everyone else is acting in bad faith and bullying you?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Not an argument.

            >The Christian people had the Holy Spirit, and could recognize the words of their God; as Christians visited each other's churches they realized they had books of scripture which theirs did not, and sought a copy to take home with them (this is also why uninspired books did not become recognized as scripture outside their locality, eg the Shepherd of Hermas outside the northwestern Mediterranean).
            This is pure sophistry, if god can put the ability to recognise what bibles are real and what aren't, why didn't he just make it so they all were written the same? And of course, why did he stop doing this?

            >This is pure sophistry, if god can put the ability to recognise what bibles are real and what aren't, why didn't he just make it so they all were written the same?
            This is pure red herring; text and canon are completely different subjects, and God "can" do anything.
            >And of course, why did he stop doing this?
            He didn't.

            >It is actually very typical of accurate accounts of events to vary from each other, because they come from different people
            Yeah, and almost always if there is an apparent contradiction in accounts one of them is wrong, they're not just all recording only parts of one repetitive account.
            Herodotus calls Mithras a Goddess. We can imagine Mithras was a transexual and neither he nor anyone else mentioned that bit, or we can say Herodotus was wrong.
            >Flat Earthers don't understand physics
            My point is I think understand your argument, but maybe you can point out my misapprehension.
            >This is false.
            No it isn't. I just did it for one contradiction between Herodotus and all other accounts of Mithras. Here, I'll do it for the Quranic example [...] - Adam was made out of dust and a blood clot and clay mixed, all created ex nihilo. This is a trivial exercise unless the text is very detailed or has timestamps or something, which doesn't really apply to scripture.

            >if there is an apparent contradiction
            Again, this is NOT an apparent contradiction, it is merely a difference. A contradiction is the simultaneous affirmation of a proposition and its negation, this difference does not even "appear" to be that.
            >Herodotus calls Mithras a Goddess. We can imagine Mithras was a transexual and neither he nor anyone else mentioned that bit, or we can say Herodotus was wrong.
            Or Herodotus was speaking of a variant of the cult with which he was familiar, or the feminine form is a textual corruption, or any number of plausible interpretations which do not entail a contradiction.
            >My point is I think understand your argument, but maybe you can point out my misapprehension.
            I think that's what I've been doing since I entered the thread.
            >Adam was made out of dust and a blood clot and clay mixed, all created ex nihilo.
            That is indeed a plausible interpretation.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Again, this is NOT an apparent contradiction
            My bad, glossed over the word "accurate". Two different sources can contradict each other.
            >A contradiction is the simultaneous affirmation of a proposition and its negation
            Or, an act of contradicting, i.e., "to deny the truth of (a statement) by asserting the opposite" - what one text does w/r/t another when they differ on a matter of fact.
            >Or Herodotus was speaking of a variant of the cult with which he was familiar, or the feminine form is a textual corruption
            Here is the quote so you can see he is speaking generally of the Persians, and it would probably have to be an interpolation.
            >At a later period they began the worship of Urania, which they borrowed from the Arabians and Assyrians. Mylitta is the name by which the Assyrians know this goddess, whom the Arabians call Alitta, and the Persians Mitra
            The parsimonious explanation is not to reconstruct some unattested cult when that is far from Herodotus's only error.
            >That is indeed a plausible interpretation.
            For Muslims and the very credulous.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Or
            No, not "or". You can redefine words if you want, but their significance changes too; the rules of the game change when you move the goalposts.
            >what one text does w/r/t another
            Actually, they only do that with other texts when they declare "that text is false", because that's the meaning of the (irrelevant) definition you just cited.
            >The parsimonious explanation is not to reconstruct some unattested cult when that is far from Herodotus's only error.
            The reasonable thing to do is not to throw up your hands and say "NOPE, he's just wrong no other explanation is allowed".
            >For Muslims
            Actually I think it's objectively the case, but if you mean your worldview is significant in how you approach these texts you're absolutely right. A shame you lack the self-awareness to think further about that, or to question your dogmas...

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >No, not "or"
            It's literally the first definition in the dictionary https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/contradiction
            >Actually, they only do that with other texts when they declare "that text is false
            If it is possible to differ on a matter of fact, one positive claim denies the truth of all others.
            >The reasonable thing to do is not to throw up your hands and say "NOPE, he's just wrong no other explanation is allowed".
            I disagree, and I'm surprised to hear it. It's not that there is no other possible explanation, it's that the parsimonious explanation is that he made an error, for the reason that it perfectly explains the text without supposing any facts not in evidence like "the Greeks had knowledge of a female Mithras that could be accurately ascribed to the Persians in general, attested to only by Herodotus". Reading texts assuming any apparent error is more likely to be your own misconception is irrational, authors constantly make errors.
            >Actually I think it's objectively the case
            No it isn't. Just one argument against it is that the verse referring to Adam being made out of clay is more likely to be dependent on israeli tradition where that is the sole substance of Adam's fashion than to be a very bad representative of a common belief that Adam was made out of dust and clay and blood and cum.

            >That the notion that different sources for the same event completely omit entire persons, verbal exchanges, events, etc. is itself an indictment of the sources.

            Not really. Police actually expect different people's accounts on the same real events to be variations on the same story, that is, they aren't identical. When everybody recites the same identical story, it's taken to be rehearsed.

            Written works are usually composed, the Gospels are not extemporaneous witness testimony. Mark is highly chiastic. You should have been able to recognize this example as inappropriate because in practice when manuscripts of the length in question "recite the same identical story", they come from the same source.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I accidentally deleted a few thousand characters I don't have time to rewrite btw

            >It's literally the first definition in the dictionary
            Relevance?
            >one positive claim denies the truth of all others
            No, that's literally not what the definition means by "deny". What it means is what I'm doing right now, I am contradicting you. The act of doing this is called contradiction.
            >the parsimonious explanation
            More on this in a moment.
            >the Greeks had knowledge of a female Mithras that could be accurately ascribed to the Persians in general, attested to only by Herodotus
            The Greeks don't need to know this, only Herodotus does, and it doesn't need to be attributable to Persians in general, it just needs to be the only form he is personally familiar with, or most familiar with. Even if this is "less parsimonious" that is absolutely not a basis to conclude it is untrue. If Occam's razor has any merit (again, more in a moment), it is not for distinguishing between truth and untruth.
            >Reading texts assuming any apparent error is more likely to be your own misconception is irrational, authors constantly make errors.
            They certainly do, but I'm surprised you think the humility to recognize you may not (and probably don't) possess all information is irrational. It would also be survivorship bias to suppose that all historical evidence we possess is all that ever existed, it's entirely possible for it to seem reasonable to us to reject certain historical testimonies, but it not to have been when they were written. It is altogether better, when possible, for a historian to err on the side of primary sources.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Relevance?
            You gave one definition of "contradiction", but I'm hardly "redefining" the word when my usage is consistent with definition #1.
            >No, that's literally not what the definition means by "deny"
            Lmao what the frick? Where can I find the Wiktionary interlinear gloss that strictly delimits the meaning of the words in the definition? If you are going to be this pedantic, please see definition #3.
            >only Herodotus does
            It isn't as if this is way more likely.
            >it doesn't need to be attributable to Persians in general
            His statement concerns the Persians in general.
            It doesn't matter, the whole point was only to give an example of a source contrary to all others and so clearly in error, I wasn't expecting you to seriously entertain the notion that it is true ("Herodotus quem verius mandaciorum patrem dixeris quam quomodo illum vocant nonnulli, parentem historiae"), because that's besides the point unless you think literally no author has ever committed an error. Here, I found an example from Google you have a little more epistemic access to:
            >Walter Cronkite IV, states that Ernie Pyle, a famous WW II journalist, was killed on Iwo Jima in 1945. Actually, Pyle was killed on Ie Shima
            Could both possibly be true? Of course, Pyle might have been resuscitated or raised from death and killed again on the other island. But in fact one account is wrong.
            >but I'm surprised you think the humility to recognize you may not (and probably don't) possess all information is irrational
            Sorry when I said "any" I meant as in "used to express a lack of restriction in selecting one of a specified class". I'm capable of mistakenly identifying errors, but some errors are obvious. Spare me a quip.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Now, about parsimony. I confess that Occam's razor is something about which I am extremely skeptical, as I have yet to encounter it being used in a manner I consider appropriate, have never felt there was a time when it was appropriate, and have exclusively encountered it as a substitute for a good argument in defense of falsehoods. It goes without saying that if one argues for something, they consider there to be good reasons for agreeing with them, and disagreeing with the opposition. Indeed, it is hard to call something an "argument" which does not allege exactly that. Yet I often find arguments are ignored and ideas dismissed out of hand because they were supposedly 'less simple', as if they had violated some fundamental law of logic. Now, the idea which uses the fewest number of assumptions and has the smallest set of elements is "nothing exists" (you could even call it the most parsimonious unifying theory). This is obviously absurd, but to object to it on that basis would be to form a conclusion on something other than "the simplest idea is true". So, the razor is moderated to instead be that the idea with the fewest assumptions which is reasonable to believe is probably correct, but when one wonders what "reasonable" means, they find it means "whatever I believe", and unreasonable means "whatever I don't believe", so that it is reduced to meaningless circularity.

            I find those using the razor often use it to conclude something is true or untrue without actual basis, as if them wanting it to be true was good enough. And since there is no apparent relationship between simplicity and truth, it seems more like Occam's fallacy than Occam's razor. Now I am open to the possibility there are scenario's in which it has some merit, if there is merit to it, it is not in telling you something is true or something is false. If an idea is found to be more complicated than the others it is absolutely not on that account to be thought false.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Then what objective criterion is there to prefer a theory with no corroboration or evidence over another theory?
            Perhaps the reason all those Herodotus manuscripts say Mithra is a goddess is because Mithra was a Persian goddess but then the Persians convened and unanimously decided to call her a god and destroy all prior evidence of her being female all over the world, and they missed Herodotus. Maybe they say Mithra is a goddess because the Persians had a goddess with the exact same name as Mithra. Are these explanations just as tenable as "Herodotus was misinformed or misremembered?"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Not an argument.
            ??? You need me to write the definitions for you? What possible purpose do you think this petulance serves other than making you look moronic?
            >This is pure red herring; text and canon are completely different subjects, and God "can" do anything.
            So why did he allow men to change His word? Was it Satan? Why did He allow Satan?
            You might not have understood what I meant, by the way; it's sophistry because your stance is that since x version of the bible still exists, it's correct by virtue of existing. This is both completely insane and ignores the fact we have different many, many differing bibles.
            >He didn't.
            But he did? There's plenty of people that deny bits of the bible, so why isn't God showing them the truth?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What possible purpose do you think this petulance serves
            I think it helps you cope emotionally and makes you feel warm inside.
            >So why did he allow men to change His word?
            He didn't?
            >your stance is that since x version of the bible still exists, it's correct by virtue of existing. This is both completely insane and ignores the fact we have different many, many differing bibles.
            I don't even know what the hell that's supposed to mean and you clearly did not understand me. I think in your rush to be angry, condemnatory and unreasonable you forgot to make sense.
            >But he did? There's plenty of people that deny bits of the bible, so why isn't God showing them the truth?
            My point was not that God made everyone Christians, gave anyone perfect interpretation, or that every individual Christian had a perfect canon. It was that the Holy Spirit enables Christians to recognize His word, which is why the Church as a whole quickly recognized a particular canon which has been passed down to us today.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >He didn't?
            But there are bibles that have different events in them, completely different meanings because of the change in words.You know this, so I don't understand what you're trying to do. Can you just provide whatever statement I'm meant to make so you can rebuke it?
            >I don't even know what the hell that's supposed to mean and you clearly did not understand me.
            >The Christian people had the Holy Spirit, and could recognize the words of their God; as Christians visited each other's churches they realized they had books of scripture which theirs did not, and sought a copy to take home with them (this is also why uninspired books did not become recognized as scripture outside their locality, eg the Shepherd of Hermas outside the northwestern Mediterranean).
            If you could explain for me what that means other than god guided people to know what bibles are correct and which are wrong, I think it'd help me out, because I can't find another reading.
            >My point was not that God made everyone Christians, gave anyone perfect interpretation, or that every individual Christian had a perfect canon. It was that the Holy Spirit enables Christians to recognize His word, which is why the Church as a whole quickly recognized a particular canon which has been passed down to us today.
            I don't know if you meant to type something else. You just said God didn't give people the ability to know what's true canon, but he gave people the ability to know what's true canon.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >But there are bibles that have different events in them, completely different meanings because of the change in words.
            I think you are trying to equivocate on the meaning of the words "bible version".
            >Can you just provide whatever statement I'm meant to make so you can rebuke it?
            Yeah, you should say the words "I'm a dishonest idiot" although that's true so I wouldn't rebuke it.
            >If you could explain for me what that means other than god guided people to know what bibles are correct and which are wrong
            What's a bible? I ask just because you're using it to mean multiple different things in this one use alone, as you are conflating canon, text, manuscript, and 'version' (which really refers to distinct translations) all at once.
            >You just said God didn't give people the ability to know what's true canon, but he gave people the ability to know what's true canon.
            This is, obviously, a strawman and equivocation fallacy, and demands no further reply than that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I think you are trying to equivocate on the meaning of the words "bible version".
            I assure you that wasn't my intent, but all translations, interpretations, and countless within those bounds have vast differences. Some we can even see in real time change to suit contemporary knowledge and morality! Even if you want to purely use "version" as referring to bibles with or without different , say, gospels, there are many such in existence.
            >Yeah, you should say the words "I'm a dishonest idiot" although that's true so I wouldn't rebuke it.
            I don't know what you're trying to tell me. You haven't told me what particular discipline of Christianity you're talking about, and you want to get pissy over me being dishonest over... what, exactly?
            >What's a bible? I ask just because you're using it to mean multiple different things in this one use alone, as you are conflating canon, text, manuscript, and 'version' (which really refers to distinct translations) all at once.
            Ah. Okay, right: I mean Bible in the same way you use it, completely unqualified and without any of the interrogation by others.
            I mean the book and its component pieces, because as you just told us, christians can tell when there's a falsehood in it so the entire book, whether translated, edited, appended or censored, is the true bible. Except for all the ones that differ.
            >This is, obviously, a strawman and equivocation fallacy, and demands no further reply than that.
            >My point was not that God made everyone Christians, gave anyone perfect interpretation, or that every individual Christian had a perfect canon. It was that the Holy Spirit enables Christians to recognize His word
            Genuinely you've either miswritten your post here or you don't understand what you're saying. Either Christians can recognise the true word of god, or they can't. God must have given or kept this ability from them, or else he's not God.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >>Adam was made out of dust and a blood clot and clay mixed, all created ex nihilo.
            >That is indeed a plausible interpretation.
            Lol. Lmao. I wish you people would frick off to /x/

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >why didn't he just make it so they all were written the same?
            Because there are deceivers in the world. That doesn't mean the original is ever lost, though.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It is actually very typical of accurate accounts of events to vary from each other, because they come from different people
            Yeah, and almost always if there is an apparent contradiction in accounts one of them is wrong, they're not just all recording only parts of one repetitive account.
            Herodotus calls Mithras a Goddess. We can imagine Mithras was a transexual and neither he nor anyone else mentioned that bit, or we can say Herodotus was wrong.
            >Flat Earthers don't understand physics
            My point is I think understand your argument, but maybe you can point out my misapprehension.
            >This is false.
            No it isn't. I just did it for one contradiction between Herodotus and all other accounts of Mithras. Here, I'll do it for the Quranic example

            >When the accounts agree too much, they are accused of copying one another.
            Literary dependence between the gospels is obvious. Mark always calls Herod "king", even though he was a tetrarch. Matthew corrects this mistake - we know specifically that he corrected Mark's mistake, because he forgot to keep correcting it, Matthew starts calling him "king" half way through. In Mark, Herodias wants John the Baptist dead, and Herod grieves for him. In Matthew, Herod himself wands John the Baptist dead - but when he dies, he grieves for him, following Mark. This is best explained by Matthew failing to sustain changes he is making to Mark. I could go on.
            >Unfortunately you are too depraved/deluded/worldly/hard of heart to just believe everything I do.
            If a Muslim said this to you, would it give you pause?
            >People who are able to view things with an open mind are able to do this
            I'm perfectly capable of imagining contrived scenarios to explain the Gospel text. It's just a facile explanation.
            >automatically assumes that what the Bible says is false
            I just don't assume it's all true. Again, you can repeat almost all of your arguments mutatis mutandis to excuse any problematic text. I could trivially harmonize Mark and gThomas.
            [...]
            According to scripture, the Quran was authored by God and dictated by Gabriel.
            According to the Quran, Adam was made out of a clot of dried blood, out of clay, out of dust, and out of nothing. Why shouldn't I consider this all equally credible?

            - Adam was made out of dust and a blood clot and clay mixed, all created ex nihilo. This is a trivial exercise unless the text is very detailed or has timestamps or something, which doesn't really apply to scripture.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Christbrains are hopeless

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >they don't even consider the possibility that this is describing a real event
          anything is possible, bro
          people are concerned about what's probable

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Logically speaking, it's not a contradiction in the slightest. It is a logical fallacy to state that it is one
          Right. Which is a reason I dislike the language of saying it's a "contradiction", else we're going to have people confused about being said. Or at the very least, use it as a rhetorical "out".
          Even if a lot of people do use the word that way. It's a polysemous word.

          NT doesn't use precise language, such that there could be explicit contradictions.
          Especially not with the accounts of events unfolding. It's not being told like: This things, and ONLY this thing happened, they met here, and nowhere else, ever.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >There are four major variations (delta of several verses) of the ending of Mark, to name just one.
        In two low-quality manuscripts that both descend from the Sahidic and Bohairic, yes. In every other manuscript it's there, it's in the Diatessaron and the ending of Mark was very explicitly mentioned by 2nd century Christian writers.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Manuscripts and sources over a century post facto corroborate a variant, therefore that's the urtext
          Nobody finds this plausible.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >the ending of Mark was very explicitly mentioned by 2nd century Christian writers.
          "the ending" is bullshit, there are multiple alternative endings. also what is it you imagine would be a mention of "the ending" in the second century?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >multiple alternative endings.
            Not really, that is a misrepresentation. There are exactly two, relatively poor-quality manuscripts that are missing the ending entirely.

            Eight more far more recent manuscripts, which normally no one would ever pay attention to if they were all there is, have a second ending that they add after the full ending. So only two manuscripts out of thousands are actually missing the full ending. The whole narrative of all these alternate endings is a massive misrepresentation. It's made by people who are intellectually dishonest with an agenda, because an unbiased look overwhelmingly supports this ending. It isn't even close, if we're looking at the evidence and not how it's misrepresented by some. That's the crazy thing about this; they keep pushing it despite this fact. And they are stretching reality in bizarre ways and misrepresenting facts when it comes to this passage, for some odd reason. Here is just one article of many that looks into this misrepresentation:

            https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2021/04/mark-169-20-grace-to-you-vs-evidence.html

            >also what is it you imagine would be a mention of "the ending" in the second century?
            See pic. I'm not sure why they're trying so hard to misrepresent the facts on this one. Apparently some people are to the point of claiming that this was something fabricated entirely by "medieval scribes."

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >it would be like in 2,000 years finding a KJV and a Book of Mormon in a Utah cave and declaring "WOW the ancient christians must've had additional scriptures lost to time!"
        >Yeah, they'd be right. And if they had a good knowledge of their ancient history, they should easily be able to date the BoM to the 19th century, too. Christianity has never been monolithic.

        that point really flew over your head huh
        Im saying imagine limited archaeological data of christianity circa 2024 AD 2000 years from now; people discover the "most ancient" texts yet and they happen to include or lack certain things which the extant text does not. If people came to the conclusion therefore that the extant text is not as reliable as this find from 2024, they'd be wrong. all because they're viewing texts which are, in actuality highly divergent from the originals despite the age.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You literally described the discovery of ancient lost Christian scriptures. I didn't infer your meaning because misconceptions aren't obvious. Scholars don't just presume the DSS variants are older because the manuscripts are older, they draw conclusions based on the text. Take the Johannine Comma - even if you had no physical manuscripts to count and date, you can tell it is more likely to be an expansion and not a redaction from the text itself - if it were a redaction, they have somehow managed to cut the middle half of a pericope out while the text remains perfectly coherent and grammatical, and it is very easy to see why it might be added, since it is the most overtly trinitarian verse in the Bible.
          Scholars certainly don't take the unique DSS and assume the Essenes preserved them from remote antiquity when they were more popular. All conclusions are drawn on the basis of the text if there is even the tiniest dispute about the priority of variants.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You literally described the discovery of ancient lost Christian scriptures.
            correct.
            what am I implying about said lost christian scriptures?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >if it were a redaction, they have somehow managed to cut the middle half of a pericope out while the text remains perfectly coherent and grammatical,
            Actually it's not grammatically correct when you remove the pericope here, as a matter of fact. There is no case where a neuter noun substantive is indicated by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns. This was pointed out by a Greek scholar Eugenius Bulgarius. If you remove the pericope in 1 John 5:7-8, that is exactly what is created, which is what is known as a solecism in the text. So you are definitely wrong on this point.

            >it is very easy to see why it might be added, since it is the most overtly trinitarian verse in the Bible.
            It expands on what John 10:30 already says, "I and my Father are one." You can see Cyprian here quoting both verses side by side. That verse was being abused by the Sabellians, who were modalists. If they were already abusing John 10:30 to argue for modalism, adding 1 John 5:7-8 would not change anyone's mind. However this verse was used in disputes with the Arians later.

            By the way, the removal of this pericope is also clearly a place where an omission by parablepsis could occur, and I think that's how it originated. This is also what John Mill said about this verse. How it spreads from there is another question.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >he wants God to grab your hand from the sky every time you write notes in your Bible
    mid. wit.

    the preserved text has existed for millennia. people can write fanfics if they want but no amount of kvetching can make it so that the Bible was actually changed*

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Bible is changed
      >God does not need to hold your hand, chud. The Bible has not changed at all.
      How can you live with yourself? You say that the preserved text has existed for millennia, but which tradition is correct? Masoretic? Septuagint? Syriac Peshitta? Do you even know what any of that even means?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        the greek majority text. and the masoretic hebrew. the idea that copying texts was a "tradition" and not a trade is where you go very wrong.
        there would be thousands of New Testaments in circulation at the same exact time being carried all across the roman empire. the idea you could somehow engineer a mass forgery when everyone had nearly identical copies already* is laughable.

        when they dig up fringe religious texts like those of the essenes, that's literally all they are. it would be like in 2,000 years finding a KJV and a Book of Mormon in a Utah cave and declaring
        >WOW the ancient christians must've had additional scriptures lost to time!

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Except we have solid evidence that there were additions to the majority text like Mark 16:9-20 which isn't found in the 4th century codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus nor in the early papyri.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >also thought of the Mark ending variants
            Great minds think alike Anon

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >there would be thousands of New Testaments in circulation at the same exact time being carried all across the roman empire
          at what time? for the first centuries copies were few and far between and we know of bishops cracking down on versions they deemed incorrect.
          anyway, explain the multiple endings of Mark, stuff that could not have happened according to your theory.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He already said he thinks the manuscripts with no ending are truncated. I guess two scribes just made the exact same mistake. But he didn't touch on the short ending/long ending/both situation.

            Evan Powell has suggested John 21 is the original ending to Mark. It's hard to see how this could be true without leaving any manuscript evidence at all, and it all but assumes Johannine priority (which Powell also advanced). IIRC he surmised that the ending was transplanted to temper the anti-Petrine rhetoric of John. So, sounds like bullshit, but it is surprisingly plausible. First and foremost, Jesus said in Mark he will appear in Galilee. In Luke he appears only in Jerusalem. In John he appears only in Jerusalem, except the appearance chapter 21.
            Powell:
            >The scene in ch. 21 depicts the disciples as having gone fishing in Galilee. This is startling for two reasons. First, there is no explicit indication in John’s Gospel that the disciples were fishermen by trade. Peter’s proclamation, “I am going fishing” and the other disciples’ response “We will go with you” (21:3) would have sounded quite peculiar to readers of John’s Gospel if they were not already familiar with the Synoptic tradition that the disciples had once made their livings as fishermen. Second, the decision to go fishing is by any measure a bizarre response to the events of ch. 20. Why would the disciples go fishing in Galilee after having just experienced the resurrected Lord in Jerusalem? The discontinuity of the story is disturbing.
            Yet another oddity is that the “sons of Zebedee” are among the disciples present in 21:2. James and John, the sons of Zebedee, are prominent in the Synoptic gospels. Along with Peter, they are portrayed as the three closest and most trusted associates of Jesus. However, they are never mentioned anywhere else in the Gospel of John.
            There are other details, like Thomas being named only in John 21, elsewhere he is "the twin".

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >for the first centuries copies were few and far between and we know of bishops cracking down on versions they deemed incorrect.
            Obviously, they were "few and far between" compared to later centuries but it is crucial to avoid the error of confusing the manuscripts we possess with all that have ever existed, this is an example of survivorship bias. The office of bishop did not exist in the 1st century, and for a couple centuries after it was created these men more often had to be concerned with avoiding persecution from the Roman authorities than micro-managing bible transmission. Even when that persecution ended they would not gain sweeping powers over vast jurisdictions until the middle ages; any attempted editing would be very local. Though not everything Anon said is correct, he is very right that the multifocality of New Testament transmission rendered something like the Uthmanic revision impossible. One of the most common mistakes people make in textual criticism is thinking in terms of time, when they should be thinking of generation. If I dug up the autograph of Mark and produced a handwritten copy of it, that copy would have greater textual-critical significance than any extant manuscript, despite being thousands of years removed, and there are indeed a few examples of manuscripts being earlier in generation than manuscripts that are significantly older.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Now, imagine you and I and a few other people are copying the original of Mark. Each of our copies will have errors, but none of them will have the *same* errors. This vital principle is what enables textual criticism as a field of study to occur, as we can reconstruct the original by comparing the copies. Now suppose each of our copies are themselves copied in a bunch, again, those copies will have errors, but never the same two errors. But as this generation of copies is taken from another copy, they will all (or nearly all) have the same errors as that copy. This enables us to categorize manuscripts into groups and track the transmission of the text over time.

            The New Testament was not spread over the Roman Empire instantly by being uploaded to the internet. It spread slowly, book-by-book, author-by-author, in a decentralized grass roots way. The Christian people had the Holy Spirit, and could recognize the words of their God; as Christians visited each other's churches they realized they had books of scripture which theirs did not, and sought a copy to take home with them (this is also why uninspired books did not become recognized as scripture outside their locality, eg the Shepherd of Hermas outside the northwestern Mediterranean). Naturally, Paul's Epistle to the Romans was sent to Rome, someone had to make copies and carry it off for it to spread beyond there. This is how the New Testament spread, and oftentimes carrying these books alone could win you a gruesome death. There was simply no way for a malicious tyrant to seize control of the manuhscript tradition and edit it according to his whim, it had spread too far and was too decentralized.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The Christian people had the Holy Spirit, and could recognize the words of their God; as Christians visited each other's churches they realized they had books of scripture which theirs did not, and sought a copy to take home with them (this is also why uninspired books did not become recognized as scripture outside their locality, eg the Shepherd of Hermas outside the northwestern Mediterranean).
            This is pure sophistry, if god can put the ability to recognise what bibles are real and what aren't, why didn't he just make it so they all were written the same? And of course, why did he stop doing this?

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That's why we have church tradition Bart begome Gadolic

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What if God was amending the text through scribes to better reach the masses of the times?
    t. Agnostic

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      1) then why did he stop when there's more people now than ever?
      2) that'd concede that the bible isn't an accurate account of what happened
      3) as a non-christian this paints Christians as lying sophists snakes and hypocrites who don't care about the truth or what they're saying as long as it spreads their cult (makes them money) which obviously wouldn't make you want to join them unless you're evil

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >if you have 4 different sources, you can't try to reconcile them in any way, that'd be creating an entirely new source!
    If Ehrman moronic? Does he not know that's literally what the historians do all the time?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Lets take judas' death as an example
      One "source" says he fell headfirst on some field and his guts spilled out, the other says he hanged himself on a tree.
      Any actual historian looking at this would conclude that at least one of those has to be wrong, but christcucks insists on the narrative that somehow both are correct but just happen to have made massive omissions nobody would ever make if they were trying to be accurate.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Judas hangs himself on a tree, his body decays over time, a branch snaps, he falls, he catches another branch on the way down and rips open his stomach, falls down onto the ground with his guts and intestines spilled out.
        ez

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Exactly what I was talking about.
          Nobody would EVER read "he fell headfirst on a field and his guts spilled out" and think to himself "ah yes he means he hanged himself then the body fell from a tree, did a flip mid-air (???) landed on his head and he was so decomposed that his gut bursted"
          If that's what you were trying to say then you'd obviously write THAT and not "he fell on his head", but you're so fricking brainwashed that you somehow don't see that.

          And I don't use that word lightly, if you were capable of viewing this passage objectively (no cult conditioning) for just a split second you would see how fricking moronic you're being right now. Nobody in the history of mankind views any historical text this way.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm just fricking with you anon. But I remember WLC using an argument very similar to that in some interview I heard a long time ago

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I replied because that is literally exactly what they say

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Also who tf would hang themselves on a high branch like that and not the first one you can reach that can hold you? You're supposed to kick a chair from under you, if you're kicking a branch from under you then you'd be able to reach it with your legs and fail in your suicide

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Now please explain why any author who is trying to preserve history would make such massive omissions.
          Biblical authors weren't in correspondence with each other, so they didn't write their accounts with intentions of them complimenting each other. Their target audience at the time would only have their account to go off of. If you saw a guy hang himself then his rotten body fall off a tree, why wouldn't you mention the part where he hangs himself if you're writing a supposedly as accurate as possible account of his death?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, it's easy for you to accept that casuistry because you are desperate to believe the Biblical authors never contradict each other or themselves. It's a lot to ask for critical thinkers though.
          Here, help me out with 1 Samuel 17:50-51:
          >So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, striking down the Philistine and killing him; there was no sword in David’s hand. Then David ran and stood over the Philistine; he grasped his sword, drew it out of its sheath, and killed him; then he cut off his head with it.
          Did David kill Goliath with a sword or a sling? Maybe it's both and Goliath had a totem of undying?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        On the contrary, when sources differ historians try to identify the more likely possibility. They don't just assume all their sources are 100% accurate and cannot truly contradict each other if it isn't logically impossible that they all attest to different real events differing only in minor details. For instance, nobody reads Josephus and the Letter of Pilate to Tiberius and concludes Pilate must have been bipolar. They simply dispense with the later, inferior source.

        Neither of you has any formal historical education. Historians may prefer certain sources, but they never ever discard the ones they consider less reliable. What historians do is compare both, and harmonize them without including any blatant contradictions - which doesn't mean sentences not aligning 1:1, but portraying the event in an entirely different context. Judas dying one way or another has no bearing on the rest of the Bible, which is why nobody cared to do something about this "contradiction", despite Ehrman's persistent attempts at portraying christian scribes as evil pragmatists who changed the bible on a whim.
        This is because ancient writers did not write to appeal to the modern sensibility of gathering encyclopedic knowledge, but to focus on specific aspects of the event to make a point.
        Historians do not discard Livy because Polybius is "better".
        To further illustrate this point, let's take two chroniclers of the Latin Empire describing the coronation of Baldwin I. Robert de Clari provides a detailed description of the event, while Geoffrey of Villehardouin only mentions Baldwin being clothed in Roman clothing and the coronation taking place in Hagia Sophia.
        An actual historian will consider that de Clari wanted to put an emphasis on the legitimacy of Baldwin, who was coronated in a distinctly Byzantine fashion, while Villehardouin would rather skim over it, preferring to write on other subjects.
        The clothing and the place of coronation are the only common details both accounts have in common. A historian will consider them both equally viable, while textual critic """scholar""" will imply that Villehardouin's omissions are contradictory with de Clari's overly detailed account, and claim that we may never know who was in the right after all.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >but they never ever discard the ones they consider less reliable
          Yes they absolutely do. Take the letters of Paul and Seneca - long credited, completely abandoned today as a source for Paul or Seneca. Of course it is still a source for contemporary Christian perspectives, I meant they dispense with the inferior source for the matter in question, and certainly not that history is always a matter of identifying the one best source.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      On the contrary, when sources differ historians try to identify the more likely possibility. They don't just assume all their sources are 100% accurate and cannot truly contradict each other if it isn't logically impossible that they all attest to different real events differing only in minor details. For instance, nobody reads Josephus and the Letter of Pilate to Tiberius and concludes Pilate must have been bipolar. They simply dispense with the later, inferior source.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This is a strawman of the doctrine of preservation btw

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nobody gives a flying frick about Bart Fartman.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No, but they care a lot about Stink Winkman

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Uneducated people disgust me
    https://www.thecollegechurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/HANDOUTS-Is-Scripture-Reliable.pdf

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >i hate uneducated people
      >literally posts the academic equivalent of crayon drawings.
      >an entire page is devoted to arguing not even that jesus existed but that people knew Christianity existed two centuries after Christianity came into existence.
      >First page argues that each of the 5600 copies of the new testament are 99.5 percent consistent but simply states this without any justification
      >the last page is also just people alluding to jesus existing and being killed, surprising nobody
      you can do better than this

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You're just as stupid as Bart
        https://www.garyhabermas.com/qa/qa_index.htm

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I really don't get why trads have such a problem with Marcan priority. It's clearly true and doesn't contradict their faith. Matthean priority was something Augustine guessed centuries later and doesn't have canonical status.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Eusebius (before Augustine) said Matthew was the first written, but that its first edition was in Hebrew/Aramaic (cant remember), and then Mark was published in Greek, and then after Mark was the Greek edition of Matthew; making Mark the first Greek Gospel.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >believing Eusebius
        >on anything
        I have a bridge to sell you.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >believing anyone about anything
          it might be too late for you...

          anyways, I didn't say I believed him. just thought giving another unique and early account would be useful.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What I want to know, is why they Gospels were written in Greek.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because that was the lingua franca of the eastern Roman Empire where early Christian communities were based.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I mean why they were written in a language fishermen from Galilei couldn't speak

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The people who wrote the NT were Greek Speaking israelites. Its as simple as that

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No. NT was written by Jesus' disciples

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Because the Gospels were written 40+ years after Jesus' ministry in Galilee. Heck, by then a Roman army had been through the region and massacred the israeli population. It seems like most of the apostles are dead by the time of the composition of the Gospels, and in fact we can probably tell that they were all dead by the last recension of John, because a postscript is added about the idea that the Beloved Disciple would never die to clarify "Jesus didn't really mean that btw".

          It's actually kind of interesting that Mark portrays the disciples as dummies and idiots who at one point Jesus calls Satanic because they completely fail to get who He is.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Because the Gospels were written 40+ years after Jesus' ministry in Galilee.
            That's easily proven false because Paul quoted from Luke 10:7 in 1 Timothy 5:18, calling it scripture.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *