[jlisenbe]

You did not provide a link for your Aquinas fairy tale. Afterwards it was obvious why you did not do so.

[Athos]

You did not provide a link for your Aquinas fairy tale. Afterwards it was obvious why you did not do so.

We've been waiting for you to provide a link for your hideous belief that billions of humans are being sent to hell for eternal punishment. As fairy tales go, yours takes the cake.

The necessary link is not a quote from a book, but in YOUR words like mine is.

My link has a valid explanation. Your explanation is non-existent since down deep you don't really believe it. It's just a means of you getting back at all those you dislike.

You strain at the gnat of Aquinas and swallow the camel of hell. Control your hatred.

[jlisenbe]

If the words of Christ do not satisfy you then why would I believe that my words would?

[Wondergirl]

If the words of Christ do not satisfy you then why would I believe that my words would?

You have no idea what they mean nor can you put them in your own words. Bash that Bible on Athos' head, why doncha!

[jlisenbe]

You don’t accept them either. It’s not an issue of understanding. It’s an issue of obstinance.

[Wondergirl]

You don’t accept them either. It’s not an issue of understanding. It’s an issue of obstinance.

I did not say you don't accept them. More sentence twisting???

[tomder55]

I'm just wondering how a discussion about MTG's comments became another biblical discussion.

[Wondergirl]

I'm just wondering how a discussion about MTG's comments became another biblical discussion.

Hmm, guess why. Okay, I'll behave!

[jlisenbe]

Post 42.

[Wondergirl]

Post 42.

Nope. Post 41.

[jlisenbe]

Nothing about the Bible in 41.

[Athos]

If the words of Christ do not satisfy you then why would I believe that my words would?

Wow - you'll do or say anything to get out of it, even equating the words of Jesus with your words.

Of course, you have not the slightest idea what the words of Christ were. You take the word of a book several hundred years after Jesus spoke.

[jlisenbe]

even equating the words of Jesus with your words.

I haven't done that.

Of course, you have not the slightest idea what the words of Christ were. You take the word of a book several hundred years after Jesus spoke.

First of all that is not even close to being true. The general consensus of scholarship now is that the Gospels were written 35 to 60 years after the resurrection and quite possibly sooner. In addition, a large portion of the NT has manuscript evidence dating in the second century. "Over 43% of all the verses in the NT are already found in MSS within 100 years of the completion of the NT". But if you believe the words of Christ cannot be established, then what on earth do you say about the words of Plato, Homer, or Aristotle for which there is far, far less manuscript support and manuscripts dating hundreds of years after the autographs?

But if what you said was true, then no one, including you, would know what Christ said. The truth is, you don't like what He said, so you are looking for the back door.

https://bible.org/article/second-century-papyri

[Athos]

The general consensus of scholarship now is .....

"Scholars" who examined the Bible with pre-conceived notions are hardly scholarly. In any case, the general consensus is no longer what you say. For the last 200 years objective scholars (Christian and non-Christian) have shown many difficulties with the traditional acceptance of the Bible. Easy enough to research the issue - try Google.

the Gospels were written 35 to 60 years after the resurrection and quite possibly sooner.

Even if true, 35-60 years later is more than enough time for handed down stories to be changed. Try passing a simple sentence from one person to another and see what the 30th or 25th or whatever person comes up with.

The far more complex Gospel stories are subject to this difficulty. The gist of the story may remain but the details of the same events do not. That is one explanation of the differences in the Gospels when describing the same events. Why would Mark omit the all-important event of the resurrection?

a large portion of the NT has manuscript evidence dating in the second century. "Over 43% of all the verses in the NT are already found in MSS within 100 years of the completion of the NT".

That means 57% (!) is NOT found in MSS within 100 years. Your own words.

But if you believe the words of Christ cannot be established, then what on earth do you say about the words of Plato, Homer, or Aristotle for which there is far, far less manuscript support and manuscripts dating hundreds of years after the autographs?

This is a common argument comparing the New Testament with other ancient writings. It's a false comparison since the Gospels do not affect the acceptance of other ancient writings - and vice versa.

But if what you said was true, then no one, including you, would know what Christ said.

Of course, we would. The message of Christ is easily determined by the narratives and stories about him.

The truth is, you don't like what He said, so you are looking for the back door.

Of course, I like what Christ said. You're putting words in my mouth - AGAIN! Please stop doing that.

https://bible.org/article/second-century-papyri

This link supports my point. He defines "MSS" (manuscripts) as including fragments, the earliest of which are not more than a few words, hardly what is understood today by "manuscript"

[jlisenbe]

43% within a hundred years is incredible for ancient documents. You plainly have not studied this. Your absolutely silly statement about passing a sentence around a room shows you know nothing of the treatment by the ancients of oral tradition. Do your homework and come back later.

This link supports my point. He defines "MSS" (manuscripts) as including fragments,

Again, your ignorance is showing. Everyone describes fragments as manuscripts because THEY ARE. Early manuscripts are scarcely ever complete and frequently are fragmental.

The message of Christ is easily determined by the narratives and stories about him.

You mean the unreliable stories and narratives from the unreliable NT? How could anything be determined from that? You're confused.

[Athos]

43% within a hundred years is incredible for ancient documents. You plainly have not studied this. Your absolutely silly statement about passing a sentence around a room shows you know nothing of the treatment by the ancients of oral tradition. Do your homework and come back later.

Again, your ignorance is showing. Everyone describes fragments as manuscripts because THEY ARE. Early manuscripts are scarcely ever complete and frequently are fragmental.

You mean the unreliable stories and narratives from the unreliable NT? How could anything be determined from that? You're confused.

Jl - your whole reply here is a good example of how you do not or cannot give an articulate or thoughtful answer. You were unable to answer what I wrote except by calling me "ignorant, silly, not studious, confused, knowing nothing about oral tradition", etc., - that is the perfect giveaway about you. It shows a lot of pent-up frustration and anger instead of an intelligent reply.

What you call my ignorance re ancient MSS reflects your own inability to get my point about calling a "fragment" a manuscript. Then you write that "43% within a hundred years is incredible for ancient documents". What is truly incredible is your making such a claim. How many ancient documents have you studied? Which ones? Isn't 57% not included greater than 43%?

Calling me confused because of you again putting words into my mouth that I never said or even implied is so weird I can't find a name for it. All I can think of is you yelling at your own reflection in a mirror. Not a perfect analogy, but it will have to do.

Perhaps you can show that the NT is perfectly reliable? I don't want to put words in your mouth, so if I'm wrong about your position on that, let me know.

[jlisenbe]

The problem is clear. You don't know what you are talking about. You claim, for instance, the NT is unreliable. "Of course, you have not the slightest idea what the words of Christ were. You take the word of a book several hundred years after Jesus spoke." When I point out that your "several hundred years" is wildly inaccurate, you have no reply. 35 to 60 years is not "several hundred years" in any place in the universe. A hundred years for 43% of the NT is not "several hundred years" anywhere at any time. And the significance of the 43% figure is that it established clearly that the NT existed and was being actively copied and spread about in the second century.

Even worse, you then proceed to say, "The message of Christ is easily determined by the narratives and stories about him." How can you know what the message of Christ is when, according to you, the NT is not reliable? Please explain how the stories and narratives can be accurate when the words of which the stories and narratives are composed are unreliable. Wouldn't you be taking, "...the word of a book several hundred years after Jesus spoke?" How does that work if what you say is true? And if what you say is true, then why are you violating your own standard? Now don't dodge this. Answer the question. How can you know what the message of Christ is when, according to you, the NT is not reliable? You said it could be "easily determined". How can it be if, as you say, the words of the NT are not reliable? How???

your own inability to get my point about calling a "fragment" a manuscript

No one can get your point because it is 100% wrong. Ancient handwritten copies, as anyone knows who has studied this for more than ten minutes, are manuscripts. Many, many ancient manuscripts are fragmentary due to the age of the documents. It is common and your lack of knowledge concerning that tells us all we need to know.

[Athos]

The problem is clear. You don't know what you are talking about.

Here we go again. Sometimes I wonder why I bother. You begin and end as you always do - with insults. Read the following carefully.

You claim, for instance, the NT is unreliable.

I NEVER claimed that. YOU say I said it, not me. Keep reading.

"Of course, you have not the slightest idea what the words of Christ were. You take the word of a book several hundred years after Jesus spoke."

These are my words and they are quoted correctly. The clear meaning is that the exact WORDS Christ spoke are unknown unless one believes they are written down perfectly as he spoke them after the lapse of two centuries. (It's a stretch to call "two" several so I'll give you that. Mea culpa.) Then one has to explain why the Gospels each record Christ's words differently. They are obviously written from the vagaries and inexactitude of passed-down memory to fit in to the context or the lesson he is teaching.

When I point out that your "several hundred years" is wildly inaccurate, you have no reply.

I just replied. It's such a minor point (although I'm technically correct), I felt no need to make an issue of it, as you have. "Wildly inaccurate" is a wild exaggeration. Nitpick is more like it.

35 to 60 years is not "several hundred years" in any place in the universe. A hundred years for 43% of the NT is not "several hundred years" anywhere at any time.

You're extrapolating. You got that bone of two vs several and you won't stop chewing on it. Ok, chew on, but keep reading.

And the significance of the 43% figure is that it established clearly that the NT existed and was being actively copied and spread about in the second century.

I never denied the NT was being copied from the second century. If you're saying the NT was complete and accepted in the second century as it has come down to us, you're wrong. But I don't want to put words in your mouth. Maybe you're not claiming that.

Even worse, you then proceed to say, "The message of Christ is easily determined by the narratives and stories about him." How can you know what the message of Christ is when, according to you, the NT is not reliable?

Calm down. You're screaming. As I explained above, I never said the NT was not reliable. The message of Christ is easily discerned by the Gospel narratives even though his exact words are less than precise. Totally understandable even under your 35-60 years before being written down.

Please explain how the stories and narratives can be accurate when the words of which the stories and narratives are composed are unreliable.

I hope by now, if you've been reading along here, that is no longer a difficulty for you. To repeat, I never said "the words of which the stories and narratives are composed are unreliable". Read again if you still don't understand.

Wouldn't you be taking, "...the word of a book several hundred years after Jesus spoke?" How does that work if what you say is true? And if what you say is true, then why are you violating your own standard?

In your excitement, you have managed to make this a little jumbled. But I think I get what you're trying to say. Read on to the next answer.

Now don't dodge this.

Lol - "dodging" you is never necessary.

Answer the question. How can you know what the message of Christ is when, according to you, the NT is not reliable? You said it could be "easily determined". How can it be, if, as you say, the NT is not reliable? How???

Be glad to. For the 4th (?) time in this very post, I never said the NT is unreliable. Re-read above for details. (With the bolding and underlining, you really thought you had me there, didn't you? Lol.)

Ancient handwritten copies, as anyone knows who has studied this for more than ten minutes, are manuscripts. Many, many ancient manuscripts are fragmentary due to the age of the documents. It is common and your lack of knowledge concerning that tells us all we need to know.

That's not even a "nice try". As explained, I noted the term "fragment" - IN TODAY'S MEANING - implies , well, a fragment - never an entire manuscript. This is an argument over semantics and I tried to point out that the use of the word in Biblical studies is misleading when suggesting a fragment is more than it is - a very small portion of a greater whole.

It is common and your lack of knowledge ...... tells us all we need to know.

I am happy to let others here determine just who has the "lack of knowledge, telling us all we need to know". They can easily do this by examining what each of us has written on this issue.

[jlisenbe]

These are my words and they are quoted correctly. The clear meaning is that the exact WORDS Christ spoke are unknown unless one believes they are written down perfectly as he spoke them after the lapse of two centuries.

It was not two centuries. It was 35 to 60 years, and there are good reasons to believe that the Synoptic Gospels could not have been after 65 A.D. which is thirty years or so. But you are still in a box. If it the "exact" words of Christ are unknown, then how can you know the stories and narratives are accurate? Wouldn't those words be questionable as well?

As least you have had to admit, in a sort, that the NT is reliable, I guess.

Then one has to explain why the Gospels each record Christ's words differently.

Give an example that even approaches being meaningful.

They are obviously written from the vagaries and inexactitude of passed-down memory to fit in to the context or the lesson he is teaching.

First of all that is not true according to Luke. "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." Luke would not care for your characterization. Neither would John. "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." He later wrote, "1 John 1:1, NIV: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the Word of life."

But even if it was true, it certainly destroys your contention that you could "easily determine the message of Christ." You cannot determine anything from a text that is filled with errors based upon "vagaries and inexactitude".

Well, you cannot have it both ways. You claim you are not saying the NT is unreliable, and yet you say it is written from "vagaries and inexactitude". Either the words of the NT are reliable or they are not. You need to decide which camp you live in. Living in the middle is not going to work. You claim, " I never said "the words of which the stories and narratives are composed are unreliable." Well, if the words are reliable, then we can not only know what Christ did, we can even know what He said. To allege otherwise is simply foolish and is born from your resentment of what He said.

You seem to be saying that the stories and narratives you appeal to are sort of, kind of, a little bit accurate. If that is the case, then you have no idea what Jesus either taught or did. You are attempting to live in the middle. You don't discount the Bible, but neither do you believe it unless, of course, it agrees with you.

You have employed a losing strategy. At first you tried to say that the NT made no mentions of hell. When that turned out to be plainly wrong, and even worse, for your view, that Jesus Himself spoke repeatedly of hell, then you have employed the strategy that the NT is not reliable in the sense of knowing what Jesus said, but then is mystically reliable to know what He DID. It's just nonsense.

[Wondergirl]

Well, if the words are reliable, then we can not only know what Christ did, we can even know what He said.

Thank goodness Mary Magdalene was always at Jesus' side with her steno notebook, and faithfully and accurately recorded His every word.