Jesus the horse thief

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Jesus the horse thief

Post by SEG » Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:00 am

Chapabel wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:59 am
SEG wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:16 am
I reject them as they are piss poor accounts that have been fiddled with by Christians.
See what I mean. It doesn't matter what evidence is presented, you will reject it because it doesn't meet your standard. Despite there being more manuscripts and evidence for Jesus Christ than for any other ancient figure, you reject every bit of it. You demand evidence and when evidence is presented, you dismiss it.
There are about 5,700 surviving manuscripts of the New Testament. These “manuscripts” range from the tiny credit card-sized fragment from the Gospel of John to entire copies of the New Testament. Of these manuscripts, the vast majority, something like 90% or more, come from the Middle Ages, generally from the 9th century or later. The revered King James Version of the Bible wasn’t produced until the early 17th century.
Source: https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/201 ... -old-book/
That's part of the reasons why I dismiss your copies of copies of copies, error ridden, contradictory book. There's no contemporaneous evidence for Jesus, get over it.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
Chapabel
Posts: 791
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:27 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Jesus the horse thief

Post by Chapabel » Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:34 pm

SEG wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:00 am
Chapabel wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:59 am
SEG wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:16 am
I reject them as they are piss poor accounts that have been fiddled with by Christians.
See what I mean. It doesn't matter what evidence is presented, you will reject it because it doesn't meet your standard. Despite there being more manuscripts and evidence for Jesus Christ than for any other ancient figure, you reject every bit of it. You demand evidence and when evidence is presented, you dismiss it.
There are about 5,700 surviving manuscripts of the New Testament. These “manuscripts” range from the tiny credit card-sized fragment from the Gospel of John to entire copies of the New Testament. Of these manuscripts, the vast majority, something like 90% or more, come from the Middle Ages, generally from the 9th century or later. The revered King James Version of the Bible wasn’t produced until the early 17th century.
Source: https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/201 ... -old-book/
That's part of the reasons why I dismiss your copies of copies of copies, error ridden, contradictory book. There's no contemporaneous evidence for Jesus, get over it.
Well, Mr. Hemant Mehta is dead wrong on some of his facts. For instance, he claims none of the Gospel writers knew Jesus personally. Matthew and John were both disciples of Jesus and knew Him very well. Mehta also claims the NT was written by 16 authors when in fact there were only 9 at most, 8 if Paul penned Hebrews. Hemant also failed to inform his readers that while there are indeed numerous pieces and fragments scattered over a several centuries, these fragments do not contradict each other. In fact, considering the time between some of the manuscripts, it is absolutely amazing how they are virtually identical. I believe something in the neighborhood of 95% in agreement with the largest portion of the other 5% being spelling and punctuation differences. There is ZERO doctrines that contradict each other in the these tens of thousands of manuscripts. So whether you believe in a 2000, 1600, or 1200 year book, the fact that all the manuscripts are in perfect agreement and better men than Hemant Mehta have tried to dismiss the Bible during the last two millennia, the word of God is still quick and powerful. Whew, hold my mule while I shout!!

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Jesus the horse thief

Post by SEG » Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:40 pm

Chapabel wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:34 pm
Well, Mr. Hemant Mehta is dead wrong on some of his facts. For instance, he claims none of the Gospel writers knew Jesus personally. Matthew and John were both disciples of Jesus and knew Him very well.
Nope, none of the gospels were written by any eyewitness to Jesus:
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica ... he_Gospels
Strictly speaking, each Gospel is anonymous. The Gospel of John is something of an exception, although the author simply refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" and claims to be a member of Jesus' inner circle.[58] During the following centuries, each canonical gospel was attributed to an apostle or to the close associate of an apostle. Most scholars have rejected the traditional attributions.
Most scholars believe that Mark was written by a second-generation Christian, around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in year 70.
Matthew
Matthew was most likely written at Antioch, then part of Roman Syria[84] or in Northern Palestine.[85] Most scholars hold that Matthew drew heavily on Mark and added teaching from the Q document.[86] While Matthew arranged this material into compilations, such as the Sermon on the Mount, much of the material goes back to the historical Jesus.[87] According to E. P. Sanders, the infancy narrative is an invention.[88] Matthew presents Jesus' ministry as limited to the Jews, though the resurrected Jesus later commissions the disciples to preach to all the world. Geza Vermes judges that the ministry of Jesus was exclusively for Jews and that the order to proclaim the gospel to all nations was an early Christian development.

According to the majority viewpoint, this gospel is unlikely to have been written by an eyewitness.
In the majority viewpoint, it is unlikely that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John.
Chapabel wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:34 pm
Mehta also claims the NT was written by 16 authors when in fact there were only 9 at most, 8 if Paul penned Hebrews. Hemant also failed to inform his readers that while there are indeed numerous pieces and fragments scattered over a several centuries, these fragments do not contradict each other. In fact, considering the time between some of the manuscripts, it is absolutely amazing how they are virtually identical. I believe something in the neighborhood of 95% in agreement with the largest portion of the other 5% being spelling and punctuation differences. There is ZERO doctrines that contradict each other in the these tens of thousands of manuscripts. So whether you believe in a 2000, 1600, or 1200 year book, the fact that all the manuscripts are in perfect agreement and better men than Hemant Mehta have tried to dismiss the Bible during the last two millennia, the word of God is still quick and powerful. Whew, hold my mule while I shout!!
...and laden with errors, contradictions and inconsistencies
Manuscripts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_ ... anuscripts
Manuscripts also differ. Usually the differences are minor—matters of spelling and the like—but occasionally they are significant, as in the case of the Comma Johanneum, a clause in the First Epistle of John that bears explicit witness to the doctrine of the Christian Trinity, which is found written only in Latin in the 4th century at the earliest, but is not observed in any Greek manuscripts prior to 1215.[51] A similar example from the Old Testament is the difference between the Septuagint and Masoretic descriptions of the battle of David and Goliath: the Septuagint version is shorter and avoids the narrative inconsistencies of the familiar Masoretic story, notably the famous incident of Saul asking who David is as though he does not know his own harpist and shield-bearer.

There are also important differences between the Masoretic and Samaritan version of the Pentateuch in the readings of many sentences. Some distinctions seem motivated by (or reflect) actual philosophical differences between Judaism and Samaritanism. Some of these are glaringly obvious, like the inclusion of a passage in the Samaritan version of the Ten Commandments that restates the command to build an altar on Mount Gerizim, and says plainly that Mount Gerizim is the site where all future sacrifices must be offered.
...although at a few points the oldest manuscripts show important inconsistencies compared with the more recent ones: these include the endings of Mark 16, describing Jesus' post-resurrection appearances, from the Gospel of Mark; the absence from John of the story of the woman taken in adultery; and an explicit reference to the Trinity in 1 John (the Comma Johanneum).
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Post Reply