Atheism As A REJECTION OF--Not Disbelief In--An Evil God (disciples, churches, gospels)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I once cited one instance (among innumerable) for why I gave up the Christian god, as I had determined--after this research I previously spoke of--that Yahweh was a pagan false god. Part of what led me to this conclusion was the fact that there is ample evidence that the gospel texts were altered to change parts of the narrative early Christian leaders didn't like. EscMike vociferously denies this. But no better glaring example that this is factual can be found than a comparison between Mark 16:8 and Matthew 28:8
Look up the places in which the OT is quoted in the NT sometime and actually compare the NT version to the OT version. You will see some interesting ... alterations. Paul was especially prone to tweaking what he was quoting to make it better support his argument.
I once cited one instance (among innumerable) for why I gave up the Christian god, as I had determined--after this research I previously spoke of--that Yahweh was a pagan false god. Part of what led me to this conclusion was the fact that there is ample evidence that the gospel texts were altered to change parts of the narrative early Christian leaders didn't like. EscMike vociferously denies this. But no better glaring example that this is factual can be found than a comparison between Mark 16:8 and Matthew 28:8
If the text is being altered in order to make it more accurate, then what's the problem?
What I have repeated ad nauseum yet you continue to either purposefully ignore or not comprehend is that the Apostles and disciples were already going around establishing churches and teaching doctrine - including the Resurrection - for a full generation or more before the Gospel accounts were written down.
If Mark wrote something down, and an eyewitness or a disciple of an eyewitness read it and realized it wasn't quite accurate, why could he not alter it?
Yes. I take some comfort in the same way, or as a theist might put it...
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
courage to change the things I can,
and wisdom to know the difference."
Yep, I understand you believe in a god; point being, even those of us who do not - must accept ‘it is what it is’. It simply requires common sense to know the difference. That said, it does not appear as though the OP is taking much comfort in his belief; but rather, much frustration (which was my original point).
If the text is being altered in order to make it more accurate, then what's the problem?
What I have repeated ad nauseum yet you continue to either purposefully ignore or not comprehend is that the Apostles and disciples were already going around establishing churches and teaching doctrine - including the Resurrection - for a full generation or more before the Gospel accounts were written down.
If Mark wrote something down, and an eyewitness or a disciple of an eyewitness read it and realized it wasn't quite accurate, why could he not alter it?
Who told you it's a fact the text was being altered to make it more accurate? And how do you know the bold is truthful when we haven't anything outside the NT, an extremely biased document in favor of Christianity, to verify your claim? Mike you come out with these bold pronouncements with absolutely no historical evidence to back your claims. And I have repeated that to you ad nauseum.
If Mark wrote something down, and an eyewitness or a disciple of an eyewitness read it and realized it wasn't quite accurate, why could he not alter it?
Them's fightin' words to a Biblical inerrantist. To them, the whole process of inspiration would mean that every "jot and tittle" is god-breathed and it would be sacrilege of the highest order to "alter" it.
But aside from that, we are then left with figuring out which is the accurate / fixed version, for any two accounts that disagree. After all, how would be know that the later account (assuming the dating is accurate) was not trying to undermine the earlier one?
If the scriptures are miraculously inspired, could they not simply agree to begin with? It would sure save a lot of trouble later.
Who told you it's a fact the text was being altered to make it more accurate?
I'm just trying to explain to you that "altering the text" is not the scary bogeyman you think it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
And how do you know the bold is truthful when we haven't anything outside the NT, an extremely biased document in favor of Christianity, to verify your claim? Mike you come out with these bold pronouncements with absolutely no historical evidence to back your claims. And I have repeated that to you ad nauseum.
There you go again bringing up the NT. I'm not talking about it at all. I'm talking about the decades between the Resurrection of Christ and the Gospels being written down.
During that time, you have disciples traveling around and establishing churches, teaching doctrine, devising liturgies. These churches still exist today.
But aside from that, we are then left with figuring out which is the accurate / fixed version, for any two accounts that disagree. After all, how would be know that the later account (assuming the dating is accurate) was not trying to undermine the earlier one?
We have the Church which has already defined what Scripture is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
If the scriptures are miraculously inspired, could they not simply agree to begin with? It would sure save a lot of trouble later.
What trouble? The Church compiled the documents over the course of centuries and definitively pronounced once and for all what is Scripture and what isn't around the end of the 4th century. The books could have been altered to make them more correct all the way up until then.
What trouble? The Church compiled the documents over the course of centuries and definitively pronounced once and for all what is Scripture and what isn't around the end of the 4th century. The books could have been altered to make them more correct all the way up until then.
The bother of having two conflicting accounts in the final canon of scripture and having to argue either about which one is right or why they don't disagree despite clearly appearing to ;-)
Whole books have been written for example trying to "harmonize the gospels". Seems like a lot of needless effort when clarity and concordance over such important information would have been ever so helpful -- not to mention, being much more impressive.
I'm just trying to explain to you that "altering the text" is not the scary bogeyman you think it is.
There you go again bringing up the NT. I'm not talking about it at all. I'm talking about the decades between the Resurrection of Christ and the Gospels being written down.
During that time, you have disciples traveling around and establishing churches, teaching doctrine, devising liturgies. These churches still exist today.
Where do you think they came from?
The issue is not altering the text; the issue is your claiming the text was altered to make it more accurate. My question was, "Who told you the specific reason that Matthew verse was altered was to make the Mark text more accurate?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
