[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

A person is going to have to learn the language that came before Koine Greek (everything comes from somewhere before it) ...

Not to study texts written in the late 1st and early 2nd century AD.

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

An original (cuneiform/papyrus) manuscript for the 66 Books of the Bible has never been found. The Book of Mark is a compilation (fragments anyone?) from two different (translations) codecs, Codex Vaticanus & Bobbiensis dated 400 A.D. (from bible researcher)

Na, und?

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

And your evidence has a big if in it --- "If MacDonald is right, this is what Mark set out to do." on John Mark's use of the OT, Homer and Paul.

No, the cumulative evidence is strong. There is no big if. Even your link supports this.

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

There is no evidence Homer existed (like I said, you're doing the same thing that you've accused me of) some say he was cult, (google it) not a man. "... Homer -- if there was such a person -- probably wrote it in 762 B.C., give or take 50 years, the researchers found." So it's good that you are questioning your multiple independent sources. Oh and btw: "Iliad" is a compilation of oral tradition going back to the 13th century B.C.

Someone or some people wrote the works attributed to Homer, and it is those works that Mark would have used.

And no, you are using tradition invented by people known to invent things (like 40 gospels). I am using evidence we have no reason to doubt. I am not doing what you are doing.

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

Oral tradition was what they had to work with --- because language was young and a written word, not yet developed. The only ones knowing how to write and read were --- the leaders, also known as high priest, pharaohs, ect. (no time machine needed, just anthropology)

No, you need to a time machine to know if the authors of the gospels used oral tradition. Otherwise you have no evidence they did. Whereas we do have the evidence Mark use the OT. All those alleged prophecies is also the evidence gospel Jesus was invented out of the OT. The more prophecies you claim to have, the more invented your Jesus becomes.

Ugg, ug and King Tut are STILL irrelevant to the source for the gospels.

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

The first translations "codex" of the works found began (debated even among those) 70A.D - 100A.D. of the Bible and it took those of that era 300 years to put a 'book' together and it was written by hand. The church fathers collected them, sending out word across regions (not by plane, probably carrier pigeon) so they could carry what they had to Africa so as to begin the compilation process.

Err, no. People copied texts and then sent them all across the Roman empire. We even have 2nd century AD Christians complaining about these texts being changed as they were copied.

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

Yea, no --- don't consider it relevant, because if you did, everything you've got on that era just might fall a part. Their government told them what their culture, religion and rituals were --- the people had 0 power, they did what they were told and worshiped what god they were told to worship and in what manner.

Also applies to YOUR ARGUMENTS, so we can dismiss everything you say. Also, the fact that you had to quote PART of what I wrote is dishonest.

Again, 'that governments lie is irrelevant to many things, including what I had for my midday meal, and the source the unknown author of mark used for his fictional allegory of Paul's teachings'.