can you proove there isn't a deity?

[1robin]

Yet man ONLY wrote the bible and edited it over and over again to mirror the ever changing cultures that used these text.

You do not seem to be familiar with biblical textual scholarship. Even the bible's detractors (like Ehrman) admit the bible is the most textually accurate work in ancient history of any kind. Using his numbers (not theologians) the entire biblical textual tradition contains about 5% error and by his own admission does not contain any error in essential doctrine.
That isnt even up for debate here. It is established fact he Bible is extremely textually preserved. The numbers given by good scholarship are 5% error as stated by credible critics and .05% as given by sympathetic theologians. To make your claim even close to true you would need far more significant error rates than this. The only people that produce bogus error rates that justify your claims are modern redactionists and revisionists and are notoriously biased and unreliable, and for some reason German much of the time.

The reason we can establish error rates with such precision is that no other work in ancient history and many of more modern history have even a fraction of a fraction of *** rich a textual tradition as the Bible. For example Ceaser's Gallic wars are taught as reliable fact in colleges around the world yet have two extant copies from 1000 years later. If the originals are missing you need sevarl things to have accurate ideas what the accuracy rates are for extant copies.

1. Very early copies. There exists pre-Pauline traditions that go back to within months or years of Christ's death. There exist copies of everything in abundance before the third century.
2. The copies must come from times to early for myth to develop. Complex myths have a significant development stage. All extant copies of the Bible are too early for mythologizing of the stories.
3. You must have independent lines of transmission. The bible was never strictly controlled as the Quran was. It was copied in profusion by cultures all over the ANE and beyond.
4. You must have parallel lines of transmission. See the above.
5. You must have prolific copying. The Bible has to the extent of several orders of magnitude more early copies than any other work of ancient history.
6. There are secondary desirable conditions that further the certainty that the bible excels at.
7. A bonus is to have had lost very early copies that were only found much later. The dead sea scrolls for example were lost early on and only recently found. They show a 99.5% accuracy and these even came from a fringe group and should by any expectation have been far more different from the texts we have today that what their almost word for word comparisons showed. The dead sea scrolls end all debates about significant bible corruption.

However lets say for the heck of it there are corruptions. It is the very prolific nature of the biblical tradition that makes any errors that have occurred well known. That is why even the minor changes that have occurred (less than 5%) all known and indicated in every major bible version for hundreds of years.

In summary the bible hands down beats every other work of antiquity many times over, exceeds every expectation of a work of that period, and is so well established the errors it has are well known and therefor not any problem what so ever. Your conclusion bear no comparison with reality.

Even given it's extreme and unprecedented accuracy, that says nothing about whether the words are from God or man. To debate that I would submit perhaps the greatest expert on testimony and evidence in human history and perhaps the second greatest. Simon Greenleaf, and Lord Lyndhurst make a far stronger argument for the divinity of inspiration concerning the Bible than I could. Look up the testimony of the evangelists by Greenleaf.

I view it as reality that the religious wont admit due to their own biased opinions.

First of all what you claimed bares no relationship to reality to begin with. Second Christians have spent thousands of years attempting to accurately evaluate the accuracy of scripture and are remarkably candid about it. It was mostly Christians who found the errors that do exist. However if you do not trust them then use credible scholars from the opposite side like Ehrman and you will arrive at the same conclusion. The bible has errors but is astronomically more accurate than any other similar work and since virtually all errors are known they pose no problem what ever.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You do not seem to be familiar with biblical textual scholarship. Even the bible's detractors (like Ehrman) admit the bible is the most textually accurate work in ancient history of any kind. Using his numbers (not theologians) the entire biblical textual tradition contains about 5% error and by his own admission does not contain any error in essential doctrine.

Actually the Bible contains 93.6% errors in essential doctrine, at least the King James Verson.

Modern versions have knocked that down to 92.8% doctrinal errors.

 

[1robin]

It is obvious that you fail to understand simple metaphorical text, which is why I am dubious as to how you can even claim to understand what is written in the Bible.

There is no metaphorical texts of any kind in the Bible about right hand paths to God. There exist many (non-metaphorical) left handed and right handed paths associated with philosophy and other theologies so you MUST state before hand your are being metaphorical when using a metaphorical use of a word with significant literal meanings. It is not my fault you did not do so.

What is written in the bible has been studied more exhaustively than any other work of any kind in any time period. What it says has been pretty well established for over a thousand years. However I made my own study long before I knew the conclusions of traditional scholarship. My conclusions or interpretations on all major doctrines lined up almost exactly with protestant orthodoxy and with most of traditional catholic beliefs. So my interpretations are pretty well vetted.

 

[1robin]

That's how the rabble used to taunt Jesus, so I've heard. The Holy Spirit -- for whatever reason -- just wouldn't let them appreciate Jesus' parables. It's a mystery.

No it is not, however it is exactly the same type of rambling nonsense a person only interested in entertainment would produce.

Oh, my. It is not possible that a teacher could make a bad test for a student, eh?

It is possible, it is almost vanishingly unlikely that it occurred in your experience as you claimed.

Whatever you need to believe, I guess you should believe it.

Since I need to believe the truth, then I am doing just that.

I'm here to help you grow, but I often become bored of jogging in place as I wait for you, so I admit that I do work at creating entertainment for us and our audience. It's only polite.

I have no idea what it is your here for, but it most certainly cannot help me grow in any category I can think of. What you are creating would not be entertaining for most. I do not see how it is entertaining for you but that is the only explanation left.

The whole world is against you, isn't it. Please know that I often weep for you as you cry out God's Truth in the wilderness, all alone like that.

That has nothing to do with anything I said. I never said anything about me. I said you quote from the very same book you disparage because you think you gain credibility by association. What does that have to do with me or everyone? It must be one strange and incoherent world you live in.

 

[1robin]

Actually the Bible contains 93.6% errors in essential doctrine, at least the King James Verson.

Modern versions have knocked that down to 92.8% doctrinal errors.

No it does not. You made those crap numbers out of thin air. However the by far worst of it is that you thought all that was worth while. If this line of garbage is adhered to I will drop you again, for a time. There is no excuse for this mess. As The great Merlin said "When you lie you murder some part of the world".

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It is possible, it is almost vanishingly unlikely that it occurred in your experience as you claimed.

Oh, my. So you figure that Jesus actually met the prodigal son, the ten virgins, the Good Samaritan? He never told a parable unless he had experienced the actual events themselves?

You know, I'm pretty sure you are the only person in the world who believes that. Not that it means you are wrong, of course. Surely such a thing as that is beyond possible. Still, I'm just saying.

Since I need to believe the truth, then I am doing just that.

But I am the only person in this room who actually knows the truth. That should be clear to everyone.

I have no idea what it is your here for, but it most certainly cannot help me grow in any category I can think of.

Yes. I know. He cannot grow who believes himself unhelpable in the growth department. But you never know. People sometimes come to recognize their own needs and weaknesses.

That has nothing to do with anything I said.

Sure it does. You talked of "you guys who rail against the bible constantly."

And you are always talking about "your side."

But I have never seen you actually agree, long-term, with anyone here, including any conservative Christian.

So I conclude that you see yourself as the prophet crying out God's Truth in the wilderness.

Which is a fun image for me, I've gotta say.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No it does not. You made those crap numbers out of thin air.

Yeah, man. That was my point. It's easy to make up crap numbers out of the air. I've been trying to help you understand that for some time now.

If this line of garbage is adhered to I will drop you again, for a time. There is no excuse for this mess.

You will never leave me. Please stop teasing me about that.

As The great Merlin said "When you lie you murder some part of the world".

Merlin was a liar. Don't trust guys who wear funny hats.

 

[1robin]

Yeah, man. That was my point. It's easy to make up crap numbers out of the air. I've been trying to help you understand that for some time now.

I agree and know it is because your side constantly does it. I used published numbers from a bible critic. No numbers on the face of the earth are less crap than what I used.

 

[Runewolf1973]

There is no metaphorical texts of any kind in the Bible about right hand paths to God. There exist many (non-metaphorical) left handed and right handed paths associated with philosophy and other theologies so you MUST state before hand your are being metaphorical when using a metaphorical use of a word with significant literal meanings. It is not my fault you did not do so.

Apparently you missed this...

Sorry, I have a very metaphorical way of writing things like this.

What is written in the bible has been studied more exhaustively than any other work of any kind in any time period. What it says has been pretty well established for over a thousand years. However I made my own study long before I knew the conclusions of traditional scholarship. My conclusions or interpretations on all major doctrines lined up almost exactly with protestant orthodoxy and with most of traditional catholic beliefs. So my interpretations are pretty well vetted.

The only shed of religious text that I ever felt really meant anything of true value to forward mankind's understanding of what "God" is, is this...

"I am the light that shines over all things. I am everything. From me all came forth, and to me all return. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift a stone, and you will find me there." The Gospel of Thomas

This short little verse says it all. As far as I am concerned, that is ALL we humans ever needed to know. "God" is not a supernatural being to be worshiped, "God" is simply the fundamental forces in nature...something which science already knows to exist.

 

[truthBtold]

You do not seem to be familiar with biblical textual scholarship. Even the bible's detractors (like Ehrman) admit the bible is the most textually accurate work in ancient history of any kind. Using his numbers (not theologians) the entire biblical textual tradition contains about 5% error and by his own admission does not contain any error in essential doctrine.
That isnt even up for debate here. It is established fact he Bible is extremely textually preserved. The numbers given by good scholarship are 5% error as stated by credible critics and .05% as given by sympathetic theologians. To make your claim even close to true you would need far more significant error rates than this. The only people that produce bogus error rates that justify your claims are modern redactionists and revisionists and are notoriously biased and unreliable, and for some reason German much of the time.

The reason we can establish error rates with such precision is that no other work in ancient history and many of more modern history have even a fraction of a fraction of *** rich a textual tradition as the Bible. For example Ceaser's Gallic wars are taught as reliable fact in colleges around the world yet have two extant copies from 1000 years later. If the originals are missing you need sevarl things to have accurate ideas what the accuracy rates are for extant copies.

1. Very early copies. There exists pre-Pauline traditions that go back to within months or years of Christ's death. There exist copies of everything in abundance before the third century.
2. The copies must come from times to early for myth to develop. Complex myths have a significant development stage. All extant copies of the Bible are too early for mythologizing of the stories.
3. You must have independent lines of transmission. The bible was never strictly controlled as the Quran was. It was copied in profusion by cultures all over the ANE and beyond.
4. You must have parallel lines of transmission. See the above.
5. You must have prolific copying. The Bible has to the extent of several orders of magnitude more early copies than any other work of ancient history.
6. There are secondary desirable conditions that further the certainty that the bible excels at.
7. A bonus is to have had lost very early copies that were only found much later. The dead sea scrolls for example were lost early on and only recently found. They show a 99.5% accuracy and these even came from a fringe group and should by any expectation have been far more different from the texts we have today that what their almost word for word comparisons showed. The dead sea scrolls end all debates about significant bible corruption.

However lets say for the heck of it there are corruptions. It is the very prolific nature of the biblical tradition that makes any errors that have occurred well known. That is why even the minor changes that have occurred (less than 5%) all known and indicated in every major bible version for hundreds of years.

In summary the bible hands down beats every other work of antiquity many times over, exceeds every expectation of a work of that period, and is so well established the errors it has are well known and therefor not any problem what so ever. Your conclusion bear no comparison with reality.

Even given it's extreme and unprecedented accuracy, that says nothing about whether the words are from God or man. To debate that I would submit perhaps the greatest expert on testimony and evidence in human history and perhaps the second greatest. Simon Greenleaf, and Lord Lyndhurst make a far stronger argument for the divinity of inspiration concerning the Bible than I could. Look up the testimony of the evangelists by Greenleaf.





First of all what you claimed bares no relationship to reality to begin with. Second Christians have spent thousands of years attempting to accurately evaluate the accuracy of scripture and are remarkably candid about it. It was mostly Christians who found the errors that do exist. However if you do not trust them then use credible scholars from the opposite side like Ehrman and you will arrive at the same conclusion. The bible has errors but is astronomically more accurate than any other similar work and since virtually all errors are known they pose no problem what ever.

Speaking about paul....
Here is isaiah 28:16 (Hebrew bible)
Assuredly,
Thus said the Lord GOD:
"Behold, I will found in Zion,
Stone by stone,
A tower of precious cornerstones,
Exceedingly firm;
He who trusts need not fear.
------------------------------------

Here is Romans 9:30-33 (KJV)
But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; 33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence:and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. (KJV)

Did he not change the words?

 

[1robin]

Apparently you missed this...

That was not written in the same post and was not clear what part was metaphorical. I cannot assume a mundane word used literally in about a half dozen major ways is a metaphor. Even now I can't imagine a theoretical metaphorical use of right handed in connection with God that is coherent, but it is not important.

The only shed of religious text that I ever felt really meant anything of true value to forward mankind's understanding of what "God" is, is this...

"I am the light that shines over all things. I am everything. From me all came forth, and to me all return. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift a stone, and you will find me there." The Gospel of Thomas

This short little verse says it all. As far as I am concerned, that is ALL we humans ever needed to know. "God" is not a supernatural being to be worshiped, "God" is simply the fundamental forces in nature...something which science already knows to exist.

That is quite revealing. The one verse out of millions you value comes from a source known to be Gnostic and which has no known author. That means by necessity it can only come from man and has no potential of being revelation. It is also known to contradict core Christian doctrine so was believed to be an attempt to gain credibility for a gnostic group by association with Christ. Which is an all too common tactic of false teachers.

The verse it's self has no useful meaning that I can see. It appears to be typically ambiguous gnostic nonsense and of no use whatever.

No what you derive from that verse is not Gnostic nor Christian. It is pantheism or what Spinoza claimed was God. Which is in philosophic terms one of the most incoherent of theological concepts. In fact it is not technically theology at al but a weird type of philosophy. That would not be so much a problem except that Gnosticism and Christianity (the worldviews that questionable text is associated with) do not agree with pantheism.

Now, do not take my criticism of a text and apply it to you. As a Christian I am to defend truth but allow error. You have the right to believe anything you wish but with everything we have or ever will on the line I would demand a far more coherent text with a far better pedigree to base a world view on, myself.

I have noticed almost all nontheistic worldviews have a common factor. They never make themselves accountable to anyone but themselves eternally anyway. They either pick some theory that makes no direct demands on them, or pick one that makes demands so ambiguous they can interpret hem anyway they wish. Sometimes I wonder if the Bible's claim that men hate accountability and love rebellion is not the root cause of all counter faiths and lack of faith. However GOT does make for interesting debate.

 

[outhouse]

You do not seem to be familiar with biblical textual scholarship. .

Your whole post was nonsesne.

I currently study Paul at Harvard, and NT at Yale's online studies. I also have debated with a few different credible scholars and professors of NT studies as well as certain authors.

learn what your talking about please before posting inanely.

the entire biblical textual tradition contains about 5% error

You have taken the quote WAY out of context that error is just from wording differences used.

NOT historical errors.

The books factually contain mythology.

There exists pre-Pauline traditions that go back to within months or years of Christ's death.

Nonsense, Paul doesnt write for decades after jesus death, his writings are often dated from 49-57. There are NO known traditions to exist before that time, are windown is very limited beofre the temple fell.

Provide sources.

The copies must come from times to early for myth to develop.

Pathetic nonsense. :slap:

Paul never met or knew Jesus and only relied on the mythology to create his theology.

The gospels were written almost 4 decades after Jesus death, by people that would amount to his enemies. Jesus movement was for the poor Jewish peasants in Galilee, not the rich Hellenist of the Diaspora who then spread the message to all socioeconomic classes of Hellenism.

The UNKNOWN people that wrote the gospels were not EVER witness to Jesus, lived no where near his culture, and never heard a word pass his lips.



YOu sir have demonstrated a complete lack of knoweldge of credible biblical schoolarships.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

We can choose to believe in a genuine God, whom we can feel and experience, who is the light of the world. Or we can believe in a story character written about in a book.
For many Christians this is a package deal, but not everyone buys the story part.
There are millions of legends the Bible included , but only one holy spirit, which is universal to all people.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I agree and know it is because your side constantly does it. I used published numbers from a bible critic. No numbers on the face of the earth are less crap than what I used.

Oh, boy. Let me say it slowly and carefully and in short words for you, 1robin, as follows:

The claim that 'doctrinal differences' can be quantified, with actual numbers, is as absurd a claim as could exist on the face of our planet.

If your 'bible critic' actually made such a claim, please bring him here so that I may correct such a foolish way of thinking.

 

[Runewolf1973]

That was not written in the same post and was not clear what part was metaphorical. I cannot assume a mundane word used literally in about a half dozen major ways is a metaphor. Even now I can't imagine a theoretical metaphorical use of right handed in connection with God that is coherent, but it is not important.









That is quite revealing. The one verse out of millions you value comes from a source known to be Gnostic and which has no known author. That means by necessity it can only come from man and has no potential of being revelation. It is also known to contradict core Christian doctrine so was believed to be an attempt to gain credibility for a gnostic group by association with Christ. Which is an all too common tactic of false teachers.

The verse it's self has no useful meaning that I can see. It appears to be typically ambiguous gnostic nonsense and of no use whatever.

No what you derive from that verse is not Gnostic nor Christian. It is pantheism or what Spinoza claimed was God. Which is in philosophic terms one of the most incoherent of theological concepts. In fact it is not technically theology at al but a weird type of philosophy. That would not be so much a problem except that Gnosticism and Christianity (the worldviews that questionable text is associated with) do not agree with pantheism.

Now, do not take my criticism of a text and apply it to you. As a Christian I am to defend truth but allow error. You have the right to believe anything you wish but with everything we have or ever will on the line I would demand a far more coherent text with a far better pedigree to base a world view on, myself.

I have noticed almost all nontheistic worldviews have a common factor. They never make themselves accountable to anyone but themselves eternally anyway. They either pick some theory that makes no direct demands on them, or pick one that makes demands so ambiguous they can interpret hem anyway they wish. Sometimes I wonder if the Bible's claim that men hate accountability and love rebellion is not the root cause of all counter faiths and lack of faith. However GOT does make for interesting debate.

Speaking of nonsense, the Bible may quite possibly be the biggest contributor to that this world has ever seen. Organized religion in general has caused nothing but a lot of unnecessary conflict, pain, and confusion for humankind. Historically speaking, so many more negative things came out of Christianity and organized religion than actual good things, and that is a well known fact.


---

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Gnostic explain Christianity clearly, granted ones mind can handle it(for some the concpt is to mind boggling)
Modern christinity is a degeneration of Christs teachings, that has transformed a noble religion into a borderline pagan religion,on account of blatent deity worship. God is the unknowable God in acts, a deity is very knowable.
So Acts of the apostles must be Gnostic nonsense to since it refrences the Gnostic Monad "the unknowable God"
(no offence to the Neo pagans)

 

[1robin]

Your whole post was nonsesne.

I currently study Paul at Harvard, and NT at Yale's online studies. I also have debated with a few different credible scholars and professors of NT studies as well as certain authors.

learn what your talking about please before posting inanely.

Well let's see if you can justify the claim with evidence then. So far you have claimed nothing that indicated you are familiar with biblical textual scholarship because you contradicted it. It is an absolute fact no wide spread whole sale revision is included in any accepted bible version.

You have taken the quote WAY out of context that error is just from wording differences used.

Cut out the face palm stuff please. It appears arrogant and does not belong in a civil debate. That also was not a quote it was a conclusion, to which Bart Ehrman has agreed. Not that Ehrman is the best textual scholar around or the most accurate. Just that he is credible and one of the Bible's most famous current critics. I can even give you the actual numbers from the transcript between him and White.

NOT historical errors.

I am not sure I have ever ran across a claim to a historical error that stood up to scrutiny outside scribal error. One of the most common scribal errors was to drop or add a zero to a total. Now that produced a few historical errors, and I am sure there are a few more. However I am also sure there are so few that after 15 years of study I am not aware of a single one. We have been discussing textual accuracy not historical accuracy anyway. Once textual debate has run it's course we can move on to historical comparisons if you want. Don't abandon your sinking ship yet.

The books factually contain mythology.

That is almost unknowable even if true. I will say this, my claim only applied to the Gospels. It may apply to every other book, I have no idea. The Gospels have been well established to either have been produced far too early or depended on sources far too early for myth to have developed. IF you are studying Paul you should know his source material goes back to months or years of Christ's death and contain most core doctrine in these sources. Myths take at least a few generations because you must have the real story expunged from collective memories and other reasons.

Nonsense, Paul doesnt write for decades after jesus death, his writings are often dated from 49-57. There are NO known traditions to exist before that time, are windown is very limited beofre the temple fell.

Actually your dates are a little earlier than mine. However I was not talking about Paul's words. I was talking about creeds, Hymns, and doctrines Paul adopted from earlier sources. I am the worst grammar student on earth but you had 4 badly misspelled words in two sentences.

Provide sources.

There is no way you are studying Paul and are unaware of these well known sources. Are you asking for sources concerning the sources, or are you asking for the early sources themselves. I am typing as fast as possible because I am leaving. See DR James White or even William Lane Craig's historicity debates. If you are still uncertain remind me tomorrow and I will look them up myself. One of the most recognized is from a early creedal statement and another is derived from a very early hymn. I can't believe you are unfamiliar wit them.

Pathetic nonsense. :slap:

Your gong to have to stop the arrogant color commentary if you wish to discuss anything with me. This is a serious subject and deserves serious debate. That was a fundamental criteria used in all historical text evaluations. I am starting to believe you exaggerated your competence quite a bit. It is one of the first questions asked on ancient theological texts.

Paul never met or knew Jesus and only relied on the mythology to create his theology.

Good grief. Paul met Christ on the way to Damascus, but what does that have to do with anything? Paul relied on the earliest of oral traditions. Even if you exaggeratedly believe the other Gospels from much later could have possibly included myth there is no way Paul's sources had anyway to include myth. Myths take a long time to form and never mature until several generations have past because eyewitnesses could undue the lie. There is not one single record of anyone of the tens of thousands that witnessed Christ that ever claimed "I was there and X did not happen". Myth is impossible due to time problems but even if possible has no evidence anyway. I forget which Gospel records it but it says many writings of these things existed extremely early and were used to compile the Gospels. So even my far too early dates are not early enough. Besides that the actual literary classification of the Gospels is historical biography not mythology or legend. They are said by those who know to by archetype historical biographies and sincere testimony by any standard. Those include Simon Greenleaf, Lord Lyndhurst, forensic coroners, in fact here are a few.

The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."

Sir Edward Clarke, K. C. to the Rev. E. L. Macassey:
"As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."

Many more here: Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2

The gospels were written almost 4 decades after Jesus death, by people that would amount to his enemies. Jesus movement was for the poor Jewish peasants in Galilee, not the rich Hellenist of the Diaspora who then spread the message to all socioeconomic classes of Hellenism.

Where on God's green earth do you get that the apostles were Christ's enemies? I know it did not come from Yale or Harvard. It is getting hard to take you seriously.

The UNKNOWN people that wrote the gospels were not EVER witness to Jesus, lived no where near his culture, and never heard a word pass his lips.

And here we have tactic 101 of the biased. Amplify even a slight uncertainty into a level at which dismissal is possible. Over 100 NT scholars worked on the Living bible. In its forward it covers authorship. Only one book
(ironically the most textually accurate book) Hebrews has any serious doubts about authorship. Outside this I will grant the Pentateuch required more than Moses to construct but that is about all the ambiguity I can grant. The others are all less than certainty but have no reason to seriously doubt or even care.

YOu sir have demonstrated a complete lack of knoweldge of credible biblical schoolarships.

Yep it is very hard to take you seriously. You can't even spell scholarship on a word processor. I doubt you can evaluate it.

 

[1robin]

Gnostic explain Christianity clearly, granted ones mind can handle it(for some the concpt is to mind boggling)
Modern christinity is a degeneration of Christs teachings, that has transformed a noble religion into a borderline pagan religion,on account of blatent deity worship. God is the unknowable God in acts, a deity is very knowable.
So Acts of the apostles must be Gnostic nonsense to since it refrences the Gnostic Monad "the unknowable God"
(no offence to the Neo pagans)

Gnosticism is the polar opposite of Christianity. The actual name has a definition that makes it completely incompatible with Christ or revelation. It's origins are very well known, it's motivations are very well known, it's teachings are very well known, all three are generally rejected as having any truthful basis.

 

[outhouse]

Well let's see if you can justify the claim with evidence then. So far you have claimed nothing that indicated you are familiar with biblical textual scholarship because you contradicted it. It is an absolute fact no wide spread whole sale revision is included in any accepted bible version.



Cut out the face palm stuff please. It appears arrogant and does not belong in a civil debate. That also was not a quote it was a conclusion, to which Bart Ehrman has agreed. Not that Ehrman is the best textual scholar around or the most accurate. Just that he is credible and one of the Bible's most famous current critics. I can even give you the actual numbers from the transcript between him and White.

I am not sure I have ever ran across a claim to a historical error that stood up to scrutiny outside scribal error. One of the most common scribal errors was to drop or add a zero to a total. Now that produced a few historical errors, and I am sure there are a few more. However I am also sure there are so few that after 15 years of study I am not aware of a single one. We have been discussing textual accuracy not historical accuracy anyway. Once textual debate has run it's course we can move on to historical comparisons if you want. Don't abandon your sinking ship yet.

That is almost unknowable even if true. I will say this, my claim only applied to the Gospels. It may apply to every other book, I have no idea. The Gospels have been well established to either have been produced far too early or depended on sources far too early for myth to have developed. IF you are studying Paul you should know his source material goes back to months or years of Christ's death and contain most core doctrine in these sources. Myths take at least a few generations because you must have the real story expunged from collective memories and other reasons.



Actually your dates are a little earlier than mine. However I was not talking about Paul's words. I was talking about creeds, Hymns, and doctrines Paul adopted from earlier sources. I am the worst grammar student on earth but you had 4 badly misspelled words in two sentences.

There is no way you are studying Paul and are unaware of these well known sources. Are you asking for sources concerning the sources, or are you asking for the early sources themselves. I am typing as fast as possible because I am leaving. See DR James White or even William Lane Craig's historicity debates. If you are still uncertain remind me tomorrow and I will look them up myself. One of the most recognized is from a early creedal statement and another is derived from a very early hymn. I can't believe you are unfamiliar wit them.



Your gong to have to stop the arrogant color commentary if you wish to discuss anything with me. This is a serious subject and deserves serious debate. That was a fundamental criteria used in all historical text evaluations. I am starting to believe you exaggerated your competence quite a bit. It is one of the first questions asked on ancient theological texts.

Good grief. Paul met Christ on the way to Damascus, but what does that have to do with anything? Paul relied on the earliest of oral traditions. Even if you exaggeratedly believe the other Gospels from much later could have possibly included myth there is no way Paul's sources had anyway to include myth. Myths take a long time to form and never mature until several generations have past because eyewitnesses could undue the lie. There is not one single record of anyone of the tens of thousands that witnessed Christ that ever claimed "I was there and X did not happen". Myth is impossible due to time problems but even if possible has no evidence anyway. I forget which Gospel records it but it says many writings of these things existed extremely early and were used to compile the Gospels. So even my far too early dates are not early enough. Besides that the actual literary classification of the Gospels is historical biography not mythology or legend. They are said by those who know to by archetype historical biographies and sincere testimony by any standard. Those include Simon Greenleaf, Lord Lyndhurst, forensic coroners, in fact here are a few.

The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."

Sir Edward Clarke, K. C. to the Rev. E. L. Macassey:
"As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."

Many more here: Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2



Where on God's green earth do you get that the apostles were Christ's enemies? I know it did not come from Yale or Harvard. It is getting hard to take you seriously.

And here we have tactic 101 of the biased. Amplify even a slight uncertainty into a level at which dismissal is possible. Over 100 NT scholars worked on the Living bible. In its forward it covers authorship. Only one book
(ironically the most textually accurate book) Hebrews has any serious doubts about authorship. Outside this I will grant the Pentateuch required more than Moses to construct but that is about all the ambiguity I can grant. The others are all less than certainty but have no reason to seriously doubt or even care.


Yep it is very hard to take you seriously. You can't even spell scholarship on a word processor. I doubt you can evaluate it.

Your whole post is nonsense and has nothing ta all to do with REAL biblical scholarships


You have in no way refuted what I posted. You have shown apologetic bias though.


It is not a fact Jesus rose on the thrid day. That has no historicity.

Only Acts claims Paul met Jesus, Paul himslef makes no such claim :slap:



Learn real history, that is what scholarships address. Not apologetics like you.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Actually the Bible contains 93.6% errors in essential doctrine, at least the King James Verson

You didn't get the memo? A new analysis revealed that 1.2% of those errors were not in fact errors, but an additional 2.74% of errors in essential doctrine were discovered.