Inspired Plagiarism?

see me after class

Advertisements


Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship

Tags: , , , , ,

115 replies

  1. The historical facts of how many copies and times that Abraham Lincoln edited and changed the wording in his famous “Gettysburg Address” are very helpful in comparing with the Synoptic gospels. Jesus probably repeated a lot of teachings, in fact we know He did (take up your cross and follow me; “repent”, etc. ) so reading the facts about the Gettysburg address is helpful when we consider history and how the gospels took shape from oral preaching in 30 AD to 45 to 60s when they were written (45 AD to 62 AD)

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-gospels-and-gettysburg-address.html

    Like

  2. I did not say Jesus edited or changed His words. The Synoptic writers wrote many pieces and copies over the years from 30-60 AD, eventually becoming what we have today.

    My point is that Jesus in those 3 and 1/2 years of ministry repeated Himself a lot in teachings and sermons and those that wrote it down could have written down a lot more copies of His words and actions from say 30 AD (after resurrection) to 50 and 60 AD, that eventually became what we have today, Matthew, Mark, Luke, (and John is more different because it reflects the more private settings with Peter, John, James and/or Andrew) rather than the more public and more repeated ministry in Galilee, etc.), the Synoptics being written from 45 to 62 AD, based on how Luke ends the book of Acts)

    It is easy to image that Matthew, Mark and Luke made many copies, and many bits and pieces that were not complete, that they used in the process of eventually becoming what we have today.

    This is not contradictory to the doctrine of inerrancy or inspiration, because God uses people and history and human process to bring about His written word. (2 Peter 1:19-21)

    They did not fall into a trance and wrote the NT documents like some kind of robot, etc. rather God used normal human means of the process of thinking and writing it down.

    That is why the Christian doctrine of inspiration is not dictation (like Islam seems to be), nor is it the inspiration of the person who writes, rather the final product, the writing is inspired / God-breathed.

    The Writing/Scripture is God-breathed, not the person.

    Like

    • Given the differences between the gospels, there are only 2 reasonable possibilities:

      1. Jesus changed his words.
      2. The authors changed his words.

      Like

    • No; the authors Matthew, Mark, and Luke, wrote bits and pieces down over 2 or 3 decades and what survives for us today (that is extant) are the final copies, which are “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16)

      Like

    • You have no proof for this. I doubt, for example, that Luke would have written down “bits and pieces” while he was writing an account for Theophilus.

      Like

    • It is logical and reasonable and fits with ancient history records, and understandable, after reading all the details about how Abraham Lincoln wrote several copies (9 including the News paper reports at the time).

      Like

    • What you call logical and reasonable looks like nothing but ad hoc tinkering to me.

      Like

    • 2 Timothy 3:16 is referring to the OT isn’t it?

      Like

    • verse 15 is referring to the OT; and then in verse 16, he expands to “All Scripture”, which includes all the NT in principle.
      Most of the NT was written by the time wrote 2 Timothy, his last letter, before he was executed by Nero in 68 AD.
      And Paul put the gospels on the same par as Scripture when he wrote in 1 Timothy 5:17-18 and quoted from both Law (Deuteronomy) and Gospels (Luke 10:7 and Matthew 10:10) – he put both of them on par as holy Scripture.

      Like

    • I think that is very far stretched Ken.
      Let’s say Paul wrote the two Timothies (even though it is doubted).
      Nowhere in 2 Timothy 3:16 is there a sign of an expansion.
      Matthew, Luke and specially John are written well after Paul’s writings of these two documents!
      This is not even disputable.
      2 Timothy 3:16 only says that all the books of the OT are good for teaching in the sense that non of them or anything written withing them should be neglected. Of course! Since he couldn’t have been referring to the gospels which didn’t exist yet! Nothing whatsoever about some Gospels floating around the first centuries! If those gospels didn’t exist yet then it’s completely unreasonable to suggest that Paul somehow ‘expands’ to them. What a stretch Ken!

      1 Timothy 5:17 shows NO SIGNS of references to Luke 10:7 or Matthew 10:10 whatsoever! You yourself mentioned Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 24:15)! It is most likely taken from there. It is even mentioned in Leviticus 19:13.
      Well it’s not really mentioned like that in any of the above verses but rather “paraphrased” (if we were to put it kindly).

      Liked by 2 people

    • All Scholars agree that 1 Timothy 5:18 quotes both Deuteronomy and Luke 10:7 and Matthew 10:10. “the laborer is worthy of his wages”. So, I Tim. 5:18 puts law and gospel together as Scripture and all Paul’s letters are considered Scripture. Verse 16 expands verse 15 of 2 Timothy 3:15-16 – so in principle, it includes all of the NT.

      Like

    • Can you quote some of those scholars cus I find it conjecture to assume that he is quoting Luke and Matthew. Why both even? Doesn’t make any sense. If Deuteronomy and Leviticus has it mentioned that it is only logical to assume that it’s taken from there.
      Still hanging on the “expansion” card he? Well if it makes you feel better, then go for it I guess.

      Liked by 1 person

    • William Hendrickson, Commentary on 1 Timothy, page 118.
      George Knight III, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, p. 234 (and cites other scholars who agree that he is quoting Luke – Bouma, Hendrickson, Simpson, Spicq) Matthew uses different wording, but the meaning is the same principle.
      The apostle put law and gospel with each other as Scripture.

      Like

    • This is another example of the great leaps of logic that Christians take. First, let’s be clear. When Ken says “all scholars”, he means Christian scholars.

      Second, since the MAJORITY of scholars do not believe that Timothy was written by Paul, then it is irrelevant whether Timothy quotes Luke or any other gospel. It was a later forgery, so what difference does it make?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Even those that believe that 1 Timothy was not written by the apostle Paul, recognize that the second part of 1 Tim. 5:18 is a quote from Luke 10:7

      Like

    • Which is irrelevant since the letter was a later forgery. All it proves is that the author MAY have known the gospel of Luke (or an oral tradition), but since the author was not Paul, it is irrelevat

      Like

    • except that it is not a forgery and the apostle Paul did write the pastoral epistles, 1 Timothy and Titus between 62-66 AD, after he was let out of house arrest at the end of Acts; and 2 Timothy around 67 AD, before he was executed by Nero.

      Conservative scholarship that defends that view is also valid.

      So it is relevant; and you have been refuted.

      Like

    • But we do have extant copies. We just don’t have the originals. But everything we have are copies. (5,000 + Greek manuscripts

      Like

    • You have manuscripts which were not produced by the authors or within their lifetimes. So no, you don’t have extant manuscripts. With Lincoln, we have the ACTUAL documents written by him. There is no comparison.

      Like

    • LOL, there you go again, being a whiny brat. Conservative scholars simply assume that Paul was the author based largely on hearsay. The fact is that there is no good reason to believe Paul was the author. So, you didn’t refute anything and got refuted yourself.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. It fits with ancient historiography standards, since most things from that era rot and disintegrate, and there was no video tape or Mp3 recording, etc.

    Like

    • I think the gospels don’t meet “ancient historiography standards”. If you had ancient sources that were as contradictory as the gospels, you would reject them as historically suspect. But because these are part of your “scripture”, you turn a blind eye to their weaknesses as historical documents.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. “It is logical and reasonable and fits with ancient history records, and understandable, after reading all the details about how Abraham Lincoln wrote several copies (9 including the News paper reports at the time).”

    Lincoln made changes to his speech given the circumstances. That is not a good comparison to make with the gospels. You are essentially saying that the gospels went through an editing process. Of course I agree, but you are unwittingly exposing the weaknesses in your gospels.

    Liked by 3 people

    • The comparison is not with content of the writing (Lincoln editing his speech) vs. inspiration of NT; the comparison is between extant artifacts of history – the fact that there are 9 copies of what Lincoln actually did (write, change wording, but basically the same meaning) is parallel with Jesus in history repeating His content of preaching a lot in 3 and 1/2 years, and different people writing different accounts of those events, some the same event, some the same basic content of teachings, sermons, but said in different words at different times. What we have extant (in existence today in the 4 gospels) – the reason why some stuff is repeated and uses different words or leaves out some detail, but is not contradictory, is because sermons and lessons have lots of repeated ideas and principles, but a human is not a robot and does not say his teaching in the exact words every time. The Synoptics are similar to the 9 copies of the Gettysburg address, with some differences, additions, things left out, etc. but basically the same content; whereas the Gospel of John would be compared to writing another book on Lincoln’s other events with his family and friends (real history), without having the Gettysburg Address in it; and then publishing something later with 10 chapters, (9 of the Gettysburg address; one of the other events with friends and family).

      3 Synoptics Gospels as records of historical events of Jesus’ life and minister —– with Lincoln’s 9 extant copies of Gettysbury Address.

      1 Gospel of John as historical record of Jesus’ more private ministry with John, Peter, James, Mary and Martha, Lazarus, etc. —- compared to publishing other events in Lincoln’s life and not having Gettysburg Address in the book.

      Later combining them into one volume. 10 chapters about Lincoln in one book, compared to 4 Gospels.

      Like

    • Lincoln wrote all those copies. That does not compare with the gospels, which were written by different authors at different times. That disqualifies the gospels automatically.

      Like

    • Plus you have NO EXTANT copies of the gospels, whereas Lincoln’s copies are well attested. Another reason why the gospels are disqualified as legitimate historical documents.

      Like

  5. Vague babble about contradictions proves morning.

    Like

  6. Proves morning. Tecnical hitch.

    Like

  7. Spelling prompter fooled me twice.

    Like

  8. What I meant to say was that vaguely pontificating about contradictions proves nothing.

    The title of this post is somewhat misleading.

    If the gospels agree we have plagiarism according to the Muslims. If they don’t agree this also will be used by the Muslims as a witness against their credibility. So it’s a no win situation.

    Like

    • LOL, what’s the matter Iggy? Nervous or something?

      Your gospels do indeed have a two-fold problem:

      1. Similarities between the gospels show that there was some copying being done.
      2. Despite #1, we also find major differences in the gospels, which means that the authors took some liberties with the material they were copying and added their own “twist” to the story.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. “1. Similarities between the gospels show that there was some copying being done.”

    No, it means that the accounts are from different eyewitnesses of the same events.

    “2. Despite #1, we also find major differences in the gospels, which means that the authors took some liberties with the material they were copying and added their own “twist” to the story.”

    No, it just means the purpose of the writers varies which affects the content.

    Like

    • No and no to both. You are simply resorting to special pleading.

      What “purpose” would require the authors to edit the stories? For example, did Jesus say “I am” in response to the high priest or did he say “You say so”? The two answers are not the same. Stop trying to be a mental gymnast for once. You are not very good at it.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. You are still pontificating in abstract generalities because you are afraid to get down to nuts and bolts. You feel safer parroting the scholars like a dumbo.

    Like

    • LOL, as opposed to a dummy like you who thinks his personal opinions mean diddly squat! Educated people see through your lies, Iggy. We have brains to think, even if you don’t. Don’t blame me for the failures of your religion!

      Like

  11. Apperantly pervy dave and his buddies are having a live ‘discussion’ on James White’s critique of the ‘mockumentary’ that this pieces of filth have made and uploaded it (during Ramadan!!!) just to mock our faith. This goes to show how DEAD crosstianity is. Look at the amount of people supporting it!
    May they burn in hell for eternity and scream in agony! All of them!

    Q 83:29-36
    Those in sin used to laugh at those who believed,
    And whenever they passed by them, used to wink at each other (in mockery);
    And when they returned to their own people, they would return jesting;
    And whenever they saw them, they would say, “Behold! These are the people truly astray!”
    But they had not been sent as keepers over them!
    But on this Day the Believers will laugh at the Unbelievers:
    On Thrones (of Dignity) they will command (a sight) (of all things).
    Will not the Unbelievers have been paid back for what they did?

    Q 3:110-118
    Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.
    They will do you no harm, barring a trifling annoyance; if they come out to fight you, they will show you their backs, and no help shall they get.
    Shame is pitched over them (Like a tent) wherever they are found, except when under a covenant (of protection) from Allah and from men; they draw on themselves wrath from Allah, and pitched over them is (the tent of) destitution. This because they rejected the Signs of Allah, and slew the prophets in defiance of right; this because they rebelled and transgressed beyond bounds.
    Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of Allah all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration.
    They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous.
    Of the good that they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those that do right.
    Those who reject Faith,- neither their possessions nor their (numerous) progeny will avail them aught against Allah: They will be companions of the Fire,-dwelling therein (for ever).
    What they spend in the life of this (material) world May be likened to a wind which brings a nipping frost: It strikes and destroys the harvest of men who have wronged their own souls: IT IS NOT ALLAH THAT HATH WRONGED THEM, BUT THEY WRONG THEMSELVES.
    O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: THEY WILL NOT FAIL TO CORRUPT YOU. THEY ONLY DESIRE YOUR RUIN: RANK HATRED HAS ALREADY APPEARED FROM THEIR MOUTHS: BUT WHAT THEIR HEARTS CONCEAL IS FAR WORSE. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom.

    LOVE the words of Allah! He describes this filths so PERFECTLY.

    Like

    • It is those Hadiths themselves by themselves that are embarrassing and silly and ridiculous.

      (rules about adult breastfeeding (sinful), how to urinate only by squatting, dipping a fly into one’s drink, that a fart cancels your salaat out and you have go back over and do it again, Muhammad’s white skin, about drinking camel urine, etc.

      Like

    • Lol, as opposed to believing that angels had sex with humans? Remember how I schooled you on that? 🙂

      Or how about believing that your savior cursed a fig tree for not having fruit out of season? Or how about a talking snake in the garden of Eden? If you want to read embarrassing and silly stories, you need not look further than your fairytale book!

      Like

    • You did not school me on that. Genesis 6:1-4 is not even about angels. It is about males who follow God who were seduced by beautiful women who did not follow God. “daughters of man” = following mankind, not following God. “sons of God” = males who follow God.
      Angels are spirits and cannot have sex. Jesus confirmed that in Matthew 22:29-31

      Yes, Jesus cursed the fig tree as a symbol of Israel and the temple because they had no fruit, only external show (leaves). He was rebuking Israel and the Pharisees for the sins going on in the temple. (dead, external, ritualistic religion – like Islam)
      So, no problem whatsoever.

      Satan tempted Eve in the form of a snake. Revelation 12:9; Revelation 20:2; 2 Cor. 11:3. What is the problem there?

      so, no problems, compared your silly stuff.

      Like

    • O boy! Kenny is on a warpath ladies and gentlemen!

      Let me just address the first two (I’m sure you’ll think by me saying this that I somehow feel threatened by the other hadiths and can’t respond to them. Sad lil kenny!):

      1) Breastfeeding:
      This hadith must come into mind right?
      A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Sahla bint Suhail came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, I see on the face of Abu Hudhaifa (signs of disgust) on entering of Salim (who is an ally) into (our house), whereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Suckle him. She said: How can I suckle him as he is a grown-up man? Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) smiled and said: I already know that he is a young man.

      This was right after the ayat about adoption being invalid was revealed. So Salim became a mahram. He was told to get ‘breastfed’ so he would become a non-mahram. The questions now remains: did he get breastfed literally like a baby gets breastfed (which is disgusting)?
      The answer is No!
      Proof:
      Sahla would pour her breast-milk into a utensil…
      Sahla did not directly suckle Salim, as he had reached puberty.
      Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, 8/271 & al-Isaba, 4/337

      And this was only a special case for Salim anyways because :

      “…suckling is only valid if it takes place in the suckling period.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 2504 & Sahih Muslim, no. 1455)
      In al-Muwatta’ (2/603)
      Maalik reported that Ibn ‘Umar said: “There is no breastfeeding except for the one who is breastfed in infancy; there is no breastfeeding for one who is GROWN UP.”

      And hence why the wives of the Prophet knew it was only a exception for Salim:
      By Allah, we do not consider this but a dispensation given by the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) for Salim. No one is to be allowed to enter (our houses) with this type of fosterage and we do not subscribe to this view.” (Sahih Muslim, no: 1454)

      So no there is no direct breastfeeding here. Go watch some more crossdressing pervy dave so you can get more brainwashed with lies.

      2) To urinate by squatting
      And your objection is? The reason why the Prophet has said is because otherwise you get urinespatter on you. But of course since you live in a secular Western world where this is considered to be something for women it is not all to surprising for a xtian (who bends backwards to secular standards) as they will prefer the moronic notion that it’s not ‘MANLY’ just so they can please the modern view rather then not getting their own piss on them. Very hygienic people.

      Nothing embarrassing or silly or ridiculous about them. Only an idiot would object!
      But let’s look at your bible and the pornography it provides shall we?
      Song of Songs 7:10-12
      I belong to my lover, and his desire is for me.
      Come, my lover, let us go to the countryside, let us spend the night in the villages.
      Let us go early to the vineyards to see if the vines have budded, if their blossoms have opened, and if the pomegranates are in bloom— there I will give you my love.

      She means she wants to do BOOM BOOM BOOM with him!

      Song of Songs 4:5 “Your two breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle that browse among the lilies.”
      Daaaamn sooon! Tell us more, tell us MOOOOORE!!!!!

      Song of Songs 1:13 “My lover is to me a sachet of myrrh resting between my breasts.”
      Hallelujah!!!!!
      You go girl! Thank you YHWH for letting us read your perverted mind!

      Song of Songs 5:4 “I slept but my heart was awake. Listen! My lover is knocking: ‘Open to me, my sister, my darling, my dove, my flawless one. My head is drenched with dew, my hair with the dampness of the night.’ I have taken off my robe must I put it on again? I have washed my feet, must I soil them again? My lover thrust his hand through the latch-opening; my heart began to pound for him.”

      As Ahmed Deedat said: spicy stuff!

      Song of Songs 7:1-4, 8-9:
      I said ‘I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit.’ May your breasts be like the clusters of the vine, the fragrance of your breath like apples, and your mouth like the best wine.

      Ezekiel 23:20
      There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

      Need I say more?

      You wanna talk ridiculous?
      “He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”(Deuteronomy 23:1)

      A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD (Deuteronomy 23:2)

      1 Samuel 18:25-27.
      And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king’s enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.
      And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king’s son in law: and the days were not expired.
      Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king’s son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.

      Giving foreskins??? What kinda sick filth is this?

      Ezekiel 4:12
      And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.

      What a way to punish by ordering to eat human dung???
      Doesn’t sound embarrassing or rediclous at all!

      There are MANY, MAAAANY more BUT!
      The one that takes the winning price is the one that the crosstians have come up with and is found in the NT.
      Yes! The holy people of God (the xtians allegedly) who have a problem with the Prophet having intercourse with Aisha when she was 9 years old (whether she hit puberty or not, they don’t seem to care either) but are telling us that their God in all is Holiness, Majesty, Knowledge, Magnificence, etc etc etc was inside a womb for NINE MONTHS and got squeezed out of a vagina!
      Wooow! Just woooooooow!
      And god crucified (basically butt naked) by pagans for everyone to see (including women) hanging there with flies buzzing all around him.

      Yea we 1.8 billion Muslims can’t wait to get baptized to enter that MORONIC CULT!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ouch, ouch, ouch! Man, that has got to HURT!! Bwhahahaha!!!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Amazing how he shows his true colors after saying things like ‘we should not insult each other, yada yada yada’ and then turns around and basically defends that crossdressing pervert.
      He needs to know that I don’t turn the other cheek. If he wants go down the road of ridicule then he lost before he even began because you can’t out ridicule someone’s faith when your yourself believe in a book with filled with mostly nothing but crap!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Yep, he’s just a hypocritical crybaby. That’s why I love mocking him. What a loser…

      Like

  12. Faiz wrote:
    Plus you have NO EXTANT copies of the gospels, whereas Lincoln’s copies are well attested.

    But we do have extant copies. We just don’t have the originals. But everything we have are copies. (5,000 + Greek manuscripts.

    Everything is a copy. Your statement is stupid.

    Lincoln’s are several ORIGINALS and the newspaper accounts are eyewitness accounts – originals.

    Like

    • You’re just a buffoon trying to make a comparison when there is none instead of just admitting that the Gospels have very poor attestation. Why would I care about 5000 alleged mss when most of them were written CENTURIES afterwards? Try your childish logic on some other brainwashed Christian!

      Like

    • He needs to know that I don’t turn the other cheek.

      I already knew that. Faiz does not either.

      Like

  13. Faiz wrote:
    Plus you have NO EXTANT copies of the gospels, whereas Lincoln’s copies are well attested.

    But we do have extant copies. We just don’t have the originals. But everything we have are copies. (5,000 + Greek manuscripts.

    Everything is a copy. Your statement is stupid.

    Lincoln’s are several ORIGINALS and the newspaper accounts are eyewitness accounts – originals.

    Like

    • Lincoln’s originals and the newspaper originals are all from the same time, whereas your Gospels copies are from centuries later. So, you’re comparison is idiotic. Sorry… 😉

      Like

    • that is the difference between the reality of history of only 150 years ago vs. 2000 years ago. Big difference on the technology and ability to get back to those times.

      Your lack of understanding the reality of historical reconstruction of what is left from 2,000 years ago is what is amazing. (idiotic to compare with 150 years ago. Sorry 😉

      Like

    • Ken you do realize that about 95% of the Greek manuscripts are from the 9th century onward, right?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, but earlier stuff, discovered later, like Papyri, confirms what was already known; except for small amount of significant textual variants. So far, the message has not been changed. No major doctrine affected by textual variants.

      Like

    • Of what we have in 2nd Century, 3rd Century and 4th Century and 5th Century; they confirm the 9th century onward manuscripts. There is nothing significant affected doctrinally.
      For example, Athanasius defended the Trinity and Deity of Christ without the “commaJohannine” (1 John 5:7-8); and parts of Mark 16:9-20 are repeated / alluded to / quoted in Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, etc. and John 7:53 to 8:1-11 may be a real valid oral tradition that Papias mentioned.

      Like

    • Wow, so how does that compare to what we have of Lincoln’s documents from HIS OWN TIME? You are missing an entire century of records for your gospels! That would be like if we found “copies” of Lincoln’s Gettysburg speech that were written in the 1960s!

      Like

    • “hat is the difference between the reality of history of only 150 years ago vs. 2000 years ago. Big difference on the technology and ability to get back to those times.

      Your lack of understanding the reality of historical reconstruction of what is left from 2,000 years ago is what is amazing. (idiotic to compare with 150 years ago. Sorry 😉”

      LOL, you just refuted yourself you silly goose! That’s what I have been saying! It is IDIOTIC of you to compare your pathetic gospels from 2000 years ago, which have a sparse historical record, with Lincoln’s speech from 150 years ago, which has a rich historical record!

      Like

  14. also content and aspects of Mark 16:9-20 are repeated in Matthew 28 and Luke 24 and Acts chapter 1.

    Irenaeus, around 180 AD, quoted Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies, Book 3, 10, 5

    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xi.html

    Like

    • LOL, that’s still late, stupid! Mark was the earliest gospel written, sometime in the 60s CE according to Christians. So, you’re appealing to someone who lived 120 years after! That’s would be like me quoting Lincoln now, and that would be the ONLY record of the speech. No one would regard my reconstruction to be historically reliable. It would be treated with skepticism.

      Conversely, Justin Martyr refers to variant legends about Jesus’ birth that are not found in the gospels. For example, he was born in a cave instead of in a manger. If Justin Martyr had access to the actual gospels, why did he believe in this variant? So you see, the church fathers actually do not strengthen your argument. Sorry! 😉

      Like

    • It is not late according to historical standards of that long ago. (gaps between events and extant records of events)

      Like

    • What are you talking about? Why would a document with such a poor historical record be considered completely reliable? The standard for that time is again irrelevant because it was a poor standard. If you have large gaps, there is no telling what changes a document underwent.

      Like

    • Here is Bruce Metzger referring to Justin Martyr’s non-canonical stories about Jesus:

      “In addition to echoes and quotations from the Memoirs of the apostles, Justin also makes use of various extraneous traditions, probably oral, about the life of Jesus. It perhaps was noticed…that in quoting [Matthew] Justin says the Magi came from Arabia (Dial. lxxxviii. 1). Likewise he states that Jesus was born in a cave near Bethlehem (Dial. lxxxviii. 5); that the ass colt used in the Palm Sunday entry was found ‘bound to a vine at the entrance of the village’ (1 Apol. xxxiii. 6); and that at the crucifixion mocking bystanders not only shook their heads and shot out their lips (1 Apol. xxxviii. 8) but ‘twisted their noses to each other’ (Dial. ci. 3) and cried, ‘Let him who raised the dead deliver himself’ (1 Apol. xxxviii. 8)”[32]

      “He makes use of the Synoptics much more frequently than the Fourth Gospel. Justin also alludes to various traditions bearing on the life of Jesus that came to be incorporated in apocryphal gospels. […] In any case, he does not generally attribute to them an authority comparable to that of the Memoirs of the apostles. […] Justin does not appeal to the authority of Paul, but he considers the Apocalypse of John as both a prophetic and an apostolic work.”[33]

      https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/the-history-of-the-bible-and-the-quran/

      Like

  15. Do you even know what a manger is?

    It seems you don’t.

    How do you explain why historians believe Mark was written between 60-70 AD (but conservative Biblical scholars range it from 45-65 AD); and yet there is only 1 papyrus for Mark in P-45 around 250 AD before the Unicial codices of Siniaticus and Vaticanus in the 300s ? (And yet John has P-52, dated around 120-150; and yet most date the writing of John to 80-99 AD. ?

    Like

    • Hahahaha, how many caves do you know of that have mangers? Nice try to deflect, though. 😉

      So, why did Justin Martyr believe that Jesus was born in a cave, when supposedly, he had access to the “memoirs of the apostles”. Try to answer the question instead of going off on tangents like a cowardly apologist.

      Believing that the gospel of Mark was written in the 60s is irrelevant if there is a 100 year gap to the earliest extant document mentioning the gospel. Get that through your thick head first, and we will make progress.

      Like

    • And by the way, P52 can be dated as late as the late 2nd century and even early 3rd century as well. Also, it is a tiny little fragment, so you still have very little to go by.

      Like

  16. @ Atlas Partridge on those Bible passages:

    Song of Solomon is a book about married love – monogamy (before Solomon started having more than one wife)

    it is about romantic and sexual love within marriage, so no problem.

    Much better than all the ridiculous stuff about have Houris in heaven with eternal sex, etc. That alone is proof your religion is false.

    The Ezekiel 4:12 passage is a judgment passage that because of the sins of Israel, they will eat bread that is cooked over a fire that is uses human excrement as fuel; it does not say that they would eat the excrement itself, only bread cooked over fire fueled by human excrement. a symbol of judgement on Israel’s sin.

    12 Eat the food as you would a loaf of barley bread; bake it in the sight of the people, using human excrement for fuel.” Ezekiel 4:12

    1 Samuel 18:25-27
    The passage about foreskins is admittedly brutal and graphic – it is ancient warfare and they were asking for evidence that they had killed the men of the enemy.

    Ezekiel 23:20 (like the whole chapter and also chapter 16) is for shock value against the sins of Israel – that is what sin is like when God’s people go after false gods and commit adultery. It is that sick and gross. It is suppossed to be shocking – that is how gross idolatry and sin and adultery is.

    Like

    • LOL, look at this apologist make excuses for the embarrassing and sexually explicit language in his Bible! You could easily classify those passages from the Bible as pornography.

      Like

    • At least we have good answers for our difficult texts; you don’t for yours.

      Like

    • Bwhahahaha, “good answers”? What are you smoking, you silly man-worshiper? Your book is a laughable fairy tale, full of lustful angels, talking animals and sea monsters. Trust me, you don’t have “good answers”. You just have laughable excuses.

      Like

    • What are you sniffing and snorting, you full of sinful anger man?

      Like

    • What “good answers” do you have for your book’s explicit and pornographic descriptions of people’s sexual organs?

      Like

    • I already provided good answers.

      Like

    • Um no, you provided pathetic excuses for your book’s pornography.

      Like

    • “What are you sniffing and snorting, you full of sinful anger man?”

      Was that English? Are you on LSD or something?

      I am not angry, like your sinful savior. I am joyful and laughing at your pathetic excuses!

      Like

    • “Song of Solomon is a book about married love – monogamy (before Solomon started having more than one wife)

      it is about romantic and sexual love within marriage, so no problem.”

      I couldn’t care less if it’s about a married love or not. It’s pornographic. End of story!

      “Much better than all the ridiculous stuff about have Houris in heaven with eternal sex, etc. That alone is proof your religion is false.”

      What is false about that? What ridiculous stuff? Yes we are promised clean virgins in Heaven (this is a promise if we live righteous, not depicted porn like it’s found in your book a la Emmanuelle). We get them as reward in the Heareafter while you get YHWH’s perverted mind in this world talking about (his servants talking) ‘O your breasts are like this and your lips taste like that’. Nice way to get away from the embarrassment. It’s porn, face it already! Why do you think your book was banned in different countries?

      “it does not say that they would eat the excrement itself, only bread cooked over fire fueled by human excrement”
      Except it says NON of what you said. You use the NIV translation.

      Vast majority of the translations don’t have anything with ‘fuel’ in them.
      KJV for example says;
      “and thou shalt bake it WITH dung” no fuel mentioned whatsoever.
      Ezekiel even asks YHWH to change the punishment and YHWH says ‘alright alright, use cow dung instead of human dung’.

      Even if we were to entertain ourselves with the idea that it was for fuel, well guess what: it’s still DISGUSTING! Using your own poo poo to back bread? You can try and justify it by saying it was a punishment, but that wont change the fact that it’s unfit for God to order such things.

      “1 Samuel 18:25-27
      The passage about foreskins is admittedly brutal and graphic – it is ancient warfare and they were asking for evidence that they had killed the men of the enemy.”

      And disgusting! Bud david was like ‘nooope I will do you one better! I’ll bring 200 hundred foreskins baby!!!!’. What an amazing prophet of God chosen by Jesus himself allegedly. And you don’t bring foreskins as proof! It only proves you killed men (at best), not the right men! Why not just send people so the ‘king’ has eyewitnesses?

      “Ezekiel 23:20 (like the whole chapter and also chapter 16) is for shock value against the sins of Israel – that is what sin is like when God’s people go after false gods and commit adultery. It is that sick and gross. It is supposed to be shocking – that is how gross idolatry and sin and adultery is.”

      The point is that it is UNFITTING for God to mention such things in his holy book! O it delivers the shock alright but also disgust! Another reason to reject your book.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “At least we have good answers for our difficult texts; you don’t for yours.”

      Your “answers” are laughable at best! We don’t for ours?
      Okay how about you refute my comment on “breastfeeding” and urinating while squatting.

      Like

    • Not worth my time. I am tired of this whole thing. I have more important things to do.

      Except to say that the Hadith on breastfeeding does not have that first quote (some kind of commentary) in it’s own context; so your point there is weak. It is still a very troubling Hadith, as are many others about details about menstrual cycles and bathroom details.

      if you watched the video – squatting in a modern context – he got his shoes and pants wet – so it is weird for us in the modern age. Gross.

      Like

    • Double ouch! Poor little Kendra. I wonder if he/she like to bake bread with dung?

      Like

    • Obviously, it was not a good thing; it was a judgment picture of how bad Israel’s sin is.

      Like

    • So, they were forced to eat dung? Hmmm…and yet you have a problem with Arabs in the 7th century mixing a little camel urine with milk as a medicine? They didn’t have pharmacies back then did they? They had to use what nature could provide. On the other hand, your god decided that forcing the Israelites to eat dung was a suitable punishment. I wonder why wondrous bacterial and viral infections they would have gotten from that idea!

      Like

    • “Not worth my time. I am tired of this whole thing.”
      Tired of getting owned? We get it Kenny!

      “I have more important things to do.”
      Like trying out other blogs where people are easily manipulated by your twists and lies? We get it Kenny!

      Except to say that the Hadith on breastfeeding does not have that first quote (some kind of commentary) in it’s own context; so your point there is weak. It is still a very troubling Hadith”
      Yea commentary that uses a NARRATION buahahahahaha!

      “as are many others about details about menstrual cycles and bathroom details.”
      But you were asked to address my comment on the two issues and you couldn’t! We get it Kenny!
      And what about menstrual cycles and bathroom details? You mean like removing pubic hair or armpit hair for hygiene purposes? Like pervy dave and his buddies were trying to mock? You mock the Prophet’s instructions on how to be hygienic? Poor Kenny!

      “if you watched the video – squatting in a modern context – he got his shoes and pants wet – so it is weird for us in the modern age. Gross.”
      What video? Squatting is what women do as well. So how is that gross???? What is gross is the aiming pissing contest where urine gets on the floor and clothes! Gross!

      Liked by 1 person

  17. Seems like you still don’t know what a manger is, Faiz.

    For example, he was born in a cave instead of in a manger.

    You wrote that. “instead of” means you thought a manger was some kind of building, instead of a feeding trough for animals, that can easily be inside of a cave.

    Like

    • Still running? When was the last time you saw a cave with a manger?

      Caves don’t have mangers, stupid. But Justin Martyr though Jesus was born in a cave. According to your gospels, the manger was not in a cave. It was in a stable, which was part of some inn. So, the contradiction remains.

      Like

    • Not hard to image that many caves were used as stables in those days. So the manger was inside a cave. No problem at all.
      It was depicted like that very well in the movie, “The Nativity Story”.

      Like

    • “She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.”

      They were in Bethlehem, not on the outskirts. So, yeah, there wouldn’t have been a cave with a manger. So the contradiction still remains.

      Like

  18. “Magi from Arabia” (Justin Martyr) vs. “Magi from the east” in Matthew 2:1-12
    Not a problem.

    “Magi from the east” in Matthew 2:1-12 was about a group of wise men, probably from the Persian Empire, which included many peoples / ethnicities – Persians, Medes (where the modern Kurds came from); Arabs (because the Myrrh spice came from the barks of trees in Yemen and Oman – even to this day, the Arabs and Persians debate over “the Arabian Gulf” or “The Persian Gulf” – the outer ares of the Arabian Peninsula were ruled by the Persian Empire in those days. Also ancient Babylonians and Assyrians (areas that later became today’s Iraq.) Iraq was always a part of the Persian Empire until much later.

    Like

    • Arabia is to the south of Bethlehem, not to the east. Moreover:

      “The term “magi” is derived from the Greek magos which in turn was derived from the Persian term for the philosopher-astrologer-priests” (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2014/01/where-did-the-wise-men-come-from.html).

      Also, given that we know that Matthew most likely copied the story from Roman sources about Nero and Tiridates and his “magi” (who came from Armenia), for Justin to say they came from Arabia suggests he was relying on some other oral tradition.

      Like

    • Yeman = the right hand. Look it up. You have to look at it from the Jewish promised land perspective. It was still part of the Persian Empire.

      Like

    • Ben – Yaman = “son of my right hand” in Hebrew. Arabic and Hebrew are cousin cognate languages.

      silly Faiz man full of anger and hate.

      Like

    • Yes, I know that Magi came from Greek
      μαγος which was derived from the Persian مغ
      which became Majous in Arabic مجوس
      – It included these Zoroastrian priests – wise men from all the ethnicities in the Persian Empire.

      Like

    • LOL, Yemen is to the south of Bethlehem. If people during Biblical times didn’t know their geography, that’s not my problem! Of course, in that time they believed the earth was flat, as the gospels show with the Jesus and Satan story. Geography wasn’t really a strong point of the Biblical authors.

      Like

    • if you turn the map facing east, you would see that Yemen is on the right hand side. I cannot help it if you refuse to do background study.

      Like

    • LOL, but it is still geographically to the south stupid. Like I said, if the Biblical were ignorant of geography, that’s not my problem!

      Like

  19. “You did not school me on that. Genesis 6:1-4 is not even about angels. It is about males who follow God who were seduced by beautiful women who did not follow God. “daughters of man” = following mankind, not following God. “sons of God” = males who follow God.
    Angels are spirits and cannot have sex. Jesus confirmed that in Matthew 22:29-31

    Yes, Jesus cursed the fig tree as a symbol of Israel and the temple because they had no fruit, only external show (leaves). He was rebuking Israel and the Pharisees for the sins going on in the temple. (dead, external, ritualistic religion – like Islam)
    So, no problem whatsoever.

    Satan tempted Eve in the form of a snake. Revelation 12:9; Revelation 20:2; 2 Cor. 11:3. What is the problem there?

    so, no problems, compared your silly stuff.”

    Oh, I am dying from laughter at the stupidity of this nutjob!

    Your early church overwhelmingly believed that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were angels! You secular idiots, who are too embarrassed by the truth, have tried to reinterpret the story. I could care less what Matthew says. Genesis was written hundreds of years before! And even Jude quoted from the Book of Enoch, which also refers to angels copulating with women. So yeah, you got school big time!

    As for your sinful savior cursing a fig tree, it just shows his ignorance. The tree was out of season! Why would it have fruit? He couldn’t find a better way to “rebuke” the children of Israel? As it stands, your savior was ignorant of nature. Ooops…

    Genesis does not say the snake was Satan, stupid. Stop lying for the Biblical Jesus, your sinful and ignorant savior. Genesis very clearly says that the snake was one of the animals of the garden. And early Jews believed that it was literally a snake, not Satan. See Josephus on this.

    So, yeah, BIG problems for your stupid religion. Your book is full of idiotic myths and fairy tales which even a 5-year old child would laugh at.

    Like

    • The hebrew words used in Genesis when talking about ‘the sons of god’ always refer to ANGELS! Not men! Matthew (or whoever wrote it) coming 13-14 centuries later with his Greek potato language wont change any of that!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Exactly! Kendra is just too embarrassed that such a stupid story is found in the Bible, so like other secular-minded Christians, he has to reinterpret the story to make it more palatable to modern readers.

      Like

  20. I hope you guys have a good and peaceful rest of the weekend. I have other things to do in life; work, life, family, etc.

    Overall, I provided good answers; but yours are not so good.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. “The hebrew words used in Genesis when talking about ‘the sons of god’ always refer to ANGELS! Not men!”

    Why, because you say so?

    John 1:12
    … But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the
    sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: …

    Matthew 5:9
    … “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. …

    Luke 20 v 36

    Jesus said; Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

    Children are either sons or daughters.

    Like

    • Hahahaha, madman also was in on the schooling when I embarrassed Ken and “defendchrist” on this issue.

      You see madman, you are just another idiot. Notice that Atlas referred to the HEBREW, not the English translation! And indeed, the HEBREW phrase “bene ha-elohim” is used EXCLUSIVELY for angels. And guess what the HEBREW uses in Genesis 6? Ding, ding, ding! Yes…”bene ha-elohim”!

      Like

    • “Why, because you say so?”

      No because the HEBREW LANGUAGE says so! I am not saying anything.

      Liked by 1 person

  22. “And indeed, the HEBREW phrase “bene ha-elohim” is used EXCLUSIVELY for angels.”

    Again, says who?

    Jesus and the apostles contradict this because they state that sons of God can also be human, e.g. the peacemakers are called sons of God.

    This must also be true of sons of God in the OT otherwise Jesus and the apostles would not have used the term and given it scope to include humans thus contradicting its use in the OT.

    Like

    • Bwhahaha, says your Bible you dingbat! If your NT disagrees, then your NT is false because “scripture” cannot contradict itself.

      Go look in your Bible. Look for every occurrence of “bene hal-elohim” outside of Genesis 6 and see if it is ever used specifically for humans. Go on, madman. I’ll wait…(queue Jeopardy theme)

      Like

  23. ““Why, because you say so?”

    No because the HEBREW LANGUAGE says so! I am not saying anything.”

    Yes you are. You are saying on your own authority that the hebrew phrase can never refer to humans.

    Like

    • LOL, I swear sometimes I think that Christians have overdosed on the stupid pill.

      Look in your Bible, and then open your mouth! Doing the opposite makes you look like a fool!

      Like

    • “Yes you are. You are saying on your own authority that the hebrew phrase can never refer to humans.”
      Okey go to any other place in the bible and find me a single instance where the hebrew terms used in Genesis are understood to be humans instead of angels.

      Like

  24. Wikipedia:

    The first mention of “sons of God” in the Hebrew Bible occurs at Genesis 6:1-4. In terms of literary-historical origin, this phrase is typically associated with the Jahwist tradition.[2]

    This passage has had two interpretations in Judaism.

    Offspring of Seth: The first references to the offspring of Seth rebelling from God and mingling with the daughters of Cain are found in Christian and Rabbinic literature from the second century CE onwards e.g. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Augustine of Hippo, Julius Africanus, and the Letters attributed to St. Clement. It is also the view expressed in the modern canonical Amharic Ethiopian Orthodox Bible. In Judaism “Sons of God” usually refers to the righteous, i.e. the children of Seth.

    Angels: All of the earliest sources interpret the “sons of God” as angels. From the third century BCE onwards, references are found in the Enochic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls the (Genesis Apocryphon, the Damascus Document, 4Q180), Jubilees, the Testament of Reuben, 2 Baruch, Josephus, and the book of Jude (compare with 2 Peter 2). This is also the meaning of the only two identical occurrences of bene ha elohim in the Hebrew Bible (Job 1:6 and 2:1), and of the most closely related expressions (refer to the list above). In the Septuagint, the interpretive reading “angels” is found in Codex Alexandrinus, one of four main witnesses to the Greek text.

    Rabbinic Judaism traditionally adheres to the first interpretation, with some exceptions, and modern Jewish translations may translate bnei elohim as “sons of rulers” rather than “sons of God”. Regardless, the second interpretation (sons of angels or other divine beings) is nonexistent in modern Judaism. This is reflected by the rejection of Enoch and other Apocrypha supporting the second interpretation from the Hebrew Bible Canon.

    Like

    • “Angels: All of the earliest sources interpret the “sons of God” as angels. From the third century BCE onwards, references are found in the Enochic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls the (Genesis Apocryphon, the Damascus Document, 4Q180), Jubilees, the Testament of Reuben, 2 Baruch, Josephus, and the book of Jude (compare with 2 Peter 2). This is also the meaning of the only two identical occurrences of bene ha elohim in the Hebrew Bible (Job 1:6 and 2:1), and of the most closely related expressions (refer to the list above). In the Septuagint, the interpretive reading “angels” is found in Codex Alexandrinus, one of four main witnesses to the Greek text.”

      EXACTLY!

      Like

    • Isn’t is funny that Christians prefer the rabbinic interpretation in this case, but in most other cases, they discard the rabbinic interpretations. Talk about bias!

      Regardless, as stated above, the earliest sources (including the earliest church fathers) interpreted “sons of God” to mean angels. Modern Christians are embarrassed by this and favor the other interpretation purely on preference.

      Like

    • “Isn’t is funny that Christians prefer the rabbinic interpretation in this case, but in most other cases, they discard the rabbinic interpretations. Talk about bias!”

      Yea and what happened to SOLA SCRIPTURA?

      Like

  25. Doctrine is not decided by apocryphal writings nor by the supposed age of any given text.

    The bible is a unit and the jewish writers of the NT, including Jesus himself, were obviously familiar with the concept of human beings being denoted as sons of God because they referred to men as such.

    Also the fact that the two occurrences in Job refer to angels doesn’t rule out the use of such a term to include human beings. It is not a problem that is solved by counting.

    Obviously you are using your bias to create a non-existent rule.

    Like

    • Oh you people are a riot! Bias is part and parcel of your religion!

      Thus far, none of you dunces has provided any reason for why the sons of God in Genesis 6 were humans and not angels. I know the embarrassment causes you to prefer the interpretation that they were humans, but other than your preference, there is no support for such a claim.

      By the way, Jude is not “apocryphal”. It is part of your scripture, and it clearly quoted from the book of Enoch, which considered the sons of God to be angels.

      Like

  26. Jesus said the angels do not have sexual desires.

    The rest is the product of a fertile pagan imagination.

    Like

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: