Spong's lament

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
may i suggest you actually read the bible and then take out the adjectives in your statement, for you are reminiscent of a rabid animal, frothing at the mouth with all sorts of baseless assertions.

The oldest known fragment from a biblical manuscript is the 'Rylands Library Papyrus P52', dated to about 150 CE. It contains lines from John 18:31-33 on the front and 18:37-38 on the back.

The oldest surviving fragment of Matthew dates to about 150 CE. It consists of Matthew 21, with 21:44 omitted.

The oldest surviving fragment of Luke (1-6) is dated to between 175 CE and 250 CE.

The oldest copy of Mark is contained in the 'Papyrus 45', dated to about 250 CE.

So the earliest known manuscript fragments that we have were copied about 120 years after Jesus' death. The earliest fragmentary copies we have from Mark and Luke were created as much as 220 years after Jesus' death. The earliest complete copy of the New Testament that we have (the Codex Sinaiticus) dates to the 4th century. Interestingly, it contains both the 'Epistle of Barnabas' and the 'Shepherd of Hermas', neither of which is now considered to be canonical. Obviously someone in the 4th century thought they were.

That's a span of more than a century where you have no manuscript copies whatsoever. Who can say what changes were made to Jesus' words during that time? It would be like someone trying to write a biography of George Washington if the earliest fragmentary manuscripts they had access to were from 1919.

It should also be noted that in the oldest of the Gospel accounts - Mark - we find an accounting of Jesus that probably comes closest to describing Jesus as a person. John is the youngest account and goes to great lengths to portray Jesus as God incarnate.

The Q source might have been written as its own witness and been lost at whatever point, but it is certainly a part of the oral tradition that you're talking about. I think there's a great deal of merit in what you're saying.

Originally posted by rwingett
The oldest known fragment from a biblical manuscript is the 'Rylands Library Papyrus P52', dated to about 150 CE. It contains lines from John 18:31-33 on the front and 18:37-38 on the back.

The oldest surviving fragment of Matthew dates to about 150 CE. It consists of Matthew 21, with 21:44 omitted.

The oldest surviving fragment of Luke (1-6) is dat ashington if the earliest fragmentary manuscripts they had access to were from 1919.

it ceases to amaze how little you know of the apostles and their activity. the whole basis for your argument rests on the premise that the teaching of first century Christianity and of the Christ are to be found in the gospel accounts written after the death of Christ and the apostles, its nonsense and betrays a real lack of knowledge concerning the methods and resources of first century Christianity which you obviously have not taken the effort to try to understand, perhaps being prejudiced in your rage, who can tell?

when however you actually examine the teachings themselves you will find that Jesus himself for example when he gave his Sermon on the Mount, he made 21 quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures. That discourse contains three quotations from Exodus, two from Leviticus, one from Numbers, six from Deuteronomy, one from Second Kings, four from Psalms, three from Isaiah, and one from Jeremiah. but you wouldn't know that, right.

Peters first inspired letter contains 34 quotations from ten books in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. In his second letter, Peter quotes six times from three books. Matthews Gospel has 122 quotations from Genesis to Malachi. In the 27 books of the Greek Scriptures, there are 320 direct quotations from Genesis to Malachi as well as hundreds of other references to the Hebrew scriptures.

In harmony with the precedent set by Jesus and followed by his apostles and the first century Christians, when we make a topical study of a scriptural subject, we consider the entire canonical work to be inspired, therefore your argument is baseless.

i thank God for having preserved the integrity of scripture, whence we can make a comparison of the extant manuscripts and compare it with what we are in possession of today, and guess what, the integrity of scripture remains despite the almost ludicrous attempts to discredit., doing so would lead us to believe that the texts we now possess have remained largely unchanged in essence of teaching for almost 2000 years but that they did not in there infancy????

perhaps you best read this before commenting,

http://sahidic.warpco.com/

Originally posted by Badwater
It should also be noted that in the oldest of the Gospel accounts - Mark - we find an accounting of Jesus that probably comes closest to describing Jesus as a person. John is the youngest account and goes to great lengths to portray Jesus as God incarnate.

The Q source might have been written as its own witness and been lost at whatever point, but it is ...[text shortened]... ition that you're talking about. I think there's a great deal of merit in what you're saying.

i suggest you read the Sahidic Coptic text which predates most of the other manuscripts and is more extensive, and has largely remained unchanged for almost 1800 years!

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i disagree😀

religion is like chocolate, when taken moderately it is quite good.

I think religion to be more like hydroflouric acid, one drop and you are dissolved into molecules.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think religion to be more like hydroflouric acid, one drop and you are dissolved into molecules.

you never developed a taste for it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it ceases to amaze how little you know of the apostles and their activity. the whole basis for your argument rests on the premise that the teaching of first century Christianity and of the Christ are to be found in the gospel accounts written after the death of Christ and the apostles, its nonsense and betrays a real lack of knowledge concerning the ...[text shortened]... ere infancy????

perhaps you best read this before commenting,

http://sahidic.warpco.com/

another fine example of robbie debating method.

he tells you that the oldest manuscripts about the bible are several years after jesus' death and you go on raving about who quoted who and were.

he says there is a gap and anything could have happened during that time. you go on insulting him and tell him he is a heathen and he should have realized all is inspired by god and he will not permit corrupted data on the floppy's(manuscripts)

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
another fine example of robbie debating method.

he tells you that the oldest manuscripts about the bible are several years after jesus' death and you go on raving about who quoted who and were.

he says there is a gap and anything could have happened during that time. you go on insulting him and tell him he is a heathen and he should have realized all is inspired by god and he will not permit corrupted data on the floppy's(manuscripts)

lol, who said anything about debate, its simply a question of error verses established fact. even you Zahlanzi would have to undertake the most serious contortions of biblical practice and well established principles to claim that the Christian ethos was the result of nothing more than embellishment and distortion. he ignored what was actually practiced by Christ and the apostles as is evident in scripture and remains in his ignorance. it is a stance based on nothing more than conjecture, we don't have the manuscripts, we don't know what may or may not have happened, therefore embellishment must have taken place, when quite clearly the biblical account shows that the first century Christan ethos had as its basis in not only the teachings of Christ but also the Hebrew scriptures, did it not.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
lol, who said anything about debate, its simply a question of error verses established fact. even you Zahlanzi would have to undertake the most serious contortions of biblical practice and well established principles to claim that the Christian ethos was the result of nothing more than embellishment and distortion. he ignored what was actually practiced by Christ and the apostles as is evident in scripture and remains in his ignorance.

he implied possibility. and you reacted to him implying through arguments totally unrelated. the fact that jesus was awesome has nothing to do with the gap and the possibility of corrupted material. maybe the changes were minor. maybe there was no wedding in Cana but in a small village in its vicinity. maybe he didnt multiply bread and fish, maybe it was only assumed it was bread and fish.

maybe the changes were major. he didn't claim either however he just said that it is possible we don't know the whole truth about jesus's life. and you snapped. and called him ignorant. which i doubt he is.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
he implied possibility. and you reacted to him implying through arguments totally unrelated. the fact that jesus was awesome has nothing to do with the gap and the possibility of corrupted material. maybe the changes were minor. maybe there was no wedding in Cana but in a small village in its vicinity. maybe he didnt multiply bread and fish, maybe it was on hole truth about jesus's life. and you snapped. and called him ignorant. which i doubt he is.

no i did not claim that he was ignorant in a personal way, simply that he was ignorant of the methods of early Christianity as is evident from the claims he made, nor did he claim that we simply do not know, he stated categorically that the biblical truths and teachings of Christ were embellished. no my arguments are based on the understanding that the actual practice of first century Christianity was to consult the Hebrew scriptures which form an integral part of the teachings of the Greek scriptures and therefore their integrity can readily be ascertained by comparing them, as has been done with the dead sea scrolls etc. just another atheist who is prepared to give vent to practically anything that is not actually in scripture, rather than what is.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it ceases to amaze how little you know of the apostles and their activity. the whole basis for your argument rests on the premise that the teaching of first century Christianity and of the Christ are to be found in the gospel accounts written after the death of Christ and the apostles, its nonsense and betrays a real lack of knowledge concerning the ...[text shortened]... ere infancy????

perhaps you best read this before commenting,

http://sahidic.warpco.com/

What are you babbling on about? Who cares how many times Jesus allegedly quoted from the Hebrew scriptures? Who cares how many times Peter allegedly quoted from them? What difference does it make? The Hebrew scriptures obviously existed apart from the later christian attempts to hijack it. So what? I fail to see what difference it makes whether the later christian writers depicted Jesus as making ten quotes from Hebrew scripture or a thousand. The attributions are all uncertain. Just because the writers of the bible claimed Jesus quoted 'X' number of passages doesn't mean its true. The fact remains that you have no copies of christian writings that were made prior to 150 CE, a full 120 years after Jesus' death.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i suggest you read the Sahidic Coptic text which predates most of the other manuscripts and is more extensive, and has largely remained unchanged for almost 1800 years!

My point remains; perhaps you missed that.

Originally posted by rwingett
What are you babbling on about? Who cares how many times Jesus allegedly quoted from the Hebrew scriptures? Who cares how many times Peter allegedly quoted from them? What difference does it make? The Hebrew scriptures obviously existed apart from the later christian attempts to hijack it. So what? I fail to see what difference it makes whether the later ch ...[text shortened]... s of christian writings that were made prior to 150 CE, a full 120 years after Jesus' death.

what difference does it make? duh! it shows quite clearly that there was a continuity of thought, practice, scriptural and doctrinal integrity, right up until the death of the last apostles and beyond, for many of the portions of the greek scriptures (which you are trying to discredit) are directly traceble to the Hebrew scriptures. how did they get there one wonders? from embellishment and fabrication? look at your pluckety pluck attempts to evade this, Peter allegedly quotes, why dont you pick up a bible and cross reference the quotations.

despite your baseless assertions, you still have not provided one iota of evidence to your claim that the teachings of christ nor the apostles was embellished, and infact, the integrity of scripture based on teaching and practice would contradict your baseless claims.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what difference does it make? duh! it shows quite clearly that there was a continuity of thought, practice, scriptural and doctrinal integrity, right up until the death of the last apostles and beyond, for many of the portions of the greek scriptures (which you are trying to discredit) are directly traceble to the Hebrew scriptures. how did they ge ...[text shortened]... the integrity of scripture based on teaching and practice would contradict your baseless claims.

he didn't make a freakin claim you buffoon. he was suggesting a possibility.
therefore he has no proofs nor does he require proofs. he said nobody can tell for sure what changes if any occurred so how can he offer any proofs?

you however do claim that no changes have occurred, yet your proof is the presence of OT quotes. so what? those quotes are there, what of the rest of the text? what is your proof that the rest of the text didn't get changed.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
he didn't make a freakin claim you buffoon. he was suggesting a possibility.
therefore he has no proofs nor does he require proofs. he said nobody can tell for sure what changes if any occurred so how can he offer any proofs?

you however do claim that no changes have occurred, yet your proof is the presence of OT quotes. so what? those quotes are there, ...[text shortened]... what of the rest of the text? what is your proof that the rest of the text didn't get changed.

och yer bum Zahlanzi, he clearly states that Christianity is nothing but mythology, now to the reasonable person thats a positive assertion of embellishment and fabrication, therefore he requires proof. i for my part have consistently provided proof, and as for the rest of the text it would hardly make sense if the Hebrew scriptures were not there as an anchor and focal point for the other text.

it is amazing that vain attempts are made, even yet to discredit Christianity and the textual integrity of scripture, as professor Kurt Aland wrote, 'It can be determined, on the basis of 40 years of experience and with the results which have come to light in examining....manuscripts at 1,200 test places the text of the New Testament has been excellently transmitted, better than any other writing from ancient times, the possibility that manuscripts might yet be found that would change its text decisively is zero - Das Neue Testament zuverlassig uberliefert (The New Testament Reliably Transmitted), Stuttgart, 1986, page 27.

so where is the evidence, he made the assertion, where is the proof!