Mr anony:
Lol, I wonder what you mean by minor and major. Bear in mind that Matthew and Mark for instance are 90% similar. I think you should really do the experiment with your friends. The results would interest you very much.

Gospel of Matthew was copied from Mark as such many of the words and sentences are reported verbatim. Both were written for different audiences, while Mark was written for a Gentile audience Matthew according to scholars was written mostly for a hellinized Jewish audience. . .Mark's Gospel is noted for its geographical errors, some of which the author of Matthew corrected. In Mark, Jesus went across the Sea of Galilee to the land of the Gerasenes*, a town far away from the Sea and across a river, and healed the demon-possessed man. This location was changed in Matthew to 'Gadarenes'. (* Note: the KJV Bible has changed the text in Mark to 'Gadarenes' in conformance with Matthew, but some other English translations, such as the New American Bible (NAB), have kept the original text.)

Lol, "many" is a very vague word. If I said "most Nigerians are civilians", telling me that many Nigerians are soldiers does not refute my claim at all. 1 million military Nigerians counts as many but it is still less than 1% of the Nigerian population. So of course many people wrote about people they knew but this is not what I said. Here is what I said:

"almost all the ancient history you know was written by people who never met those they wrote about."

All you have to do to prove me wrong is provide examples of ancient historical characters (excluding Church history) from before the time of Christ up until around the end of the Roman empire written by people who actually knew these characters. I'll wager that I can provide two characters for every one character you produce.

Examples. . .Josephus wrote about Emperor Vespasian, Tacitus wrote about Nero. . .

I'll even push further to argue that based on your contentions, you are equally discounting the works of modern historians working today because almost all of them definitely weren't born and don't personally know the people they are writing about. In fact according to your argument, we must also reject any modern day historian that writes anything about events that happened in 1800 for instance.

We must not believe anything any modern day historian writes about people raising up from the dead, human beings growing wings and flying all because he/she claimed the event happened in 1743. . .Why believe anything based on hear say?. . .Even historian clearly admit that ancient history is very difficult to verify because at that time there was nothing between fact and fiction. . .Now we know what fiction is and if the story of Jesus were to be written now it will be considered as fiction, the story of Jesus as reported in the bible is pure fiction. . .

According to your argument criticizing the New testament writers for writing in Greek and not Hebrew, How about those modern day historians who are currently writing African history in English? Should we discredit their work too?

I was just trying to show you that the gospels were not even written by people who knew Jesus or ever meet him. . .The gospels were written very long after he died by greek speaking christians, no of which ever identified himself. . .

Let us play fair with the evidence here and stop being irrational. If you are going to apply some lofty unreasonable standard to one text, then please apply the exact same same standard to all other texts.

Sure, I have stated that even historians have said that ancient history is very hard to trust. . .Even the ancient encyclopedia of history begins in its early pages by stating that most evidence are limited when it comes to ancient history and it admits that many ancient stories are reconstructions or intelligent guesses. . .It also says that a lot are biased accounts as well. . .

Lol, it says it right there in the text. Did you miss it?

Mark 11:1-3 And when they drew near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, He sent out two of His disciples and said to them, "Go into the village in front of you, and immediately as you enter it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat. Untie it and bring it. If anyone says to you, 'Why are you doing this?' say, 'The Lord has need of it and will send it back here immediately.

Doesn't say he was going to the mount of olives. . .

That burden of proof is yours to bear and not mine. You are the one who was claiming that Mark did not know which cities came first on the way from Jordan to Jerusalem. It is up to you to tell us how you knew that he was trying to tell us which city came first especially with the verse and the map I've shown you. Don't shift try to shift your burden to me

From the map you can see that they are two cities far from each other, they can not be visited at once, the listing of the cities together is what scholars say is the problem because they are far away from each other. . .

Apparently, not all ran away...

John 18:12 So the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus and bound him.
John 18:13 First they led him to Annas, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year.
John 18:14 It was Caiaphas who had advised the Jews that it would be expedient that one man should die for the people.
John 18:15 Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest,
John 18:16 but Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the servant girl who kept watch at the door, and brought Peter in.

Apparently it doesn't say that any of them was present when Jesus was with Pilate. . .It does not even mention John any where. . .

I hope you know that in order to claim that a story is embellished, you must be able to demonstrate that the extra added details are actually false either by providing and defending what the truth ought to be or by showing logical incompatibility in the account. Failure to do that and you cannot make that claim.

From one man in the first gospel to two angles in the last isn't an embellishment, eh?. . .If Mark says its a man and John says its two angles then its obvious that they are not saying the same thing. . .Both of them were writing a story and the guy that wrote last many years after the first decided to add to what the first writer wrote down. . .Its not as if both of them were eye witness to the events they wrote. . .


.

Lol, interesting. So your modus operandi is to start by claiming that there is no eyewitness because you find nobody that claimed to witness the event. But then when shown one: someone clearly claiming to have witnessed the event you claim that it is an interpolation. How exactly do you know this? or is it just something that stems from your anti-bible bias? So far all I have seen from you is "it is false because I say so".

You have made the claim that it is an interpolation and therefore have inherited the burden of proof. If you fail to conclusively show that it is an interpolation. I'll just have to disregard your comment as an empty rant.

The writer of John does NOT claim any where to be an eye witness. . If you can read which I believe you can then the verse is very clear. . .The claim is NOT from the author. . .Here it is once again. . ."This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down". We know that his testimony is true.

We [/b]know that [b]his testimony is true?. . .Who are the we?. . . Obviously NOT the writer, its just some one making a claim saying that this are the testimony of the writer and him/they know its true. . .No where does the writer himself claim that he was an eye witness. . .It does not say that I am John a disciple of Jesus and I witness these things. . .Show me where the writer made such a claim in the book or i'll just accept that you have gone down the road of being a deceptive apologist. . .The gospel of John was written very late to be of any value. . .Most of its stories are different from the others and it paints Jesus in a different light from the others. . .No where does the author himself claim to know Jesus or has ever meet him. . .Show me if you disagree. . .

I listed a few names of historical characters for you. Look them up on wikipedia and you will see that the writings of Luke are cited among the sources for their life stories. That puts an end to your claim that Luke is not studied in historical circles.

The writing of Luke alone is NOT the historical source for Pontious Pilate for example, Josephus and others also wrote about him. . .The fact that Abraham Lincoln was mentioned in the novel titled "Gone with the wind" does not mean that gone with the wind is a historical book. . .Even wikipedia says that scholars are in disagreement over the portrayal of Pilate in the gospel accounts. . .It says. . ."Pilate's reluctance to execute Jesus in the gospels has been seen as reflecting the authors' agenda.[30][31] It has thus been argued that gospel accounts place the blame on the Jews, not on Rome, in line with the authors' alleged goal of making peace with the Roman Empire and vilifying the Jews."

About Luke not naming himself in his work, I have explained how that doesn't change anything about the authenticity of his story. You can argue about the authenticity of the author but that is an entirely different argument from the authenticity of his story. For instance, did you know that the earliest copy of Josephus works that we have is dated at least 700 years after Josephus is supposed to have died? Also by the way, Josephus wrote in Greek to Jews about Jewish history. (I hope you realize that this firmly refutes your contention that the writers of the New testament were not writing to a Hebrew audience)

Most of Luke's story are pure fiction. . . .He wrote about things that can never happen in reality as such his stories have non basis to be trusted as true. . .His stories are NOT authentic because he talks about things that only happen in the pages of fictitious story books. . .As such his writings lack credibility. . .Why believe in anonymous stories without an author in the first place?. . .

As for Josephus your statement about him writing for Jews about Jewish history is false. . .From wikipedia it says. . .The Jews were thought to lack great historical figures and a credible history of their people. They were also accused of harboring hostility toward non-Jews, and were thought to be generally lacking in loyalty, respect for authority, and charity.[4] With these harsh accusations against the Jews fluttering about the Roman empire, Josephus, formerly Joseph ben Matthias, s[b]et out to provide a Hellenized version of the Jewish history[/b]. Such a work is often called an "apologia," as it pleads the case of a group of people or set of beliefs to a larger audience.

Clearly he wasn't writing for any Jewish audience. . .The writers of the NT gospels were NOT writing to any Jewish audience because they were NOT Jews, they were Greek speaking gentiles who wrote their stories in Greek to various Greek speaking audience. . .Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic not Greek. . .

in his most famous work The Republic coupled with the fact that the earliest copy of the republic that we have is dated at least 1000 years(one complete millennium) after Plato's death yet it is unthinkable for anyone to say that Plato didn't write The Republic. Let play fair with the evidence here.

. . .

It is very possible that Plato did not write the republic at all. . .I told you that even historians admit that many ancient writings are reconstructions. . .The tradition through which we get most ancient history are not reliable. . .Stories are mostly transmitted though the oral tradition which is very unreliable. . .Christians do not have any record or documents that date to the first century CE in support of their New Testament. Most of the documents that make up the New Testament are traced back to either the mid second century or later(many are later) e.g. Chester Beaty Papyrus 1(P45)[3rd Century], Chester Beaty Papyrus II(P46)[A.D.200], Chester Beaty Papyrus III(late 3rd century), Bodmer Papyrus II(P66)[A.D.200] and Bodmer Papyrus XIV-XV(P75)[early 3rd century). Christians claim that the gospels were written several decades after Jesus. As a matter of fact, today we know that the OLDEST text we have is dated more than 100 years after Jesus(125 to 150 CE to be more precise). It is not even a complete text. It is nothing more than a horribly worn out fragment labelled p52. “Th oldest fragment(P52), found in a mummy cartonage, contains a small portion of John 18 and is dated ca. 125.” [2]

If you want to criticize the gospel texts, then be ready to criticize every other text with the same standard let us see how well they do. Don't use a double standard and claim "interpolations" and "embellishments" especially when you haven't provided an ounce of proof anywhere

I have given you proof of interpolation and embellishments already, you have not shown them to be false all you have stated is that you do not like the examples I have shown and that is not at all. . .The part in the gospel of John is clearly some one else talking and the story of the man that changed into two angles at the tomb is an embellishment of the first story by the last writer. .

The bold is false because it would mean we'll have to throw a lot of classical writings down the toilet.
Secondly, I hope you know that the Church fathers you are talking about, some of them were actual contemporaries of the apostles or at most 1 generation apart; especially the ones who gave these books their names.

In the same way we know about Socrates from Plato, Plato from Aristotle and so on. So do we know about Christ from His disciple John, and John from his disciple Polycarp and so on.
(note that at each stage of the chain, these guys had contemporaries like Paul, Ignatius, Clement e.t.c. all corresponding in a very rich chain network of information - in fact it is said that one can build up the entire New testament just by the citations in the writings of the early church fathers). If you apply one measure to one thing, be sure to apply the same measure to another. No double standards here.

The early church father to me are the real founders of christianity, not Jesus or Paul. . . I believe they were the ones that even wrote the gospels themselves so why won't they claim to be disciples of some of the disciples of Jesus Just to give themselves legitimacy?. . .Papias for example talks about some logia written in Hebrew by Matthew. . .All we know about the new testement and the writings themselves we got from them, they are the reason why we have 4 gospels and the number of books in the NT. . .As a afore mentioned. .Christians do not have any record or documents that date to the first century CE in support of their New Testament. Most of the documents that make up the New Testament are traced back to either the mid second century or later(many are later) e.g. Chester Beaty Papyrus 1(P45)[3rd Century], Chester Beaty Papyrus II(P46)[A.D.200], Chester Beaty Papyrus III(late 3rd century), Bodmer Papyrus II(P66)[A.D.200] and Bodmer Papyrus XIV-XV(P75)[early 3rd century)

I notice that now you are beginning to play down the authenticity of ancient history just to keep your attack alive. Your argument that the bible is not divinely inspired only makes me laugh at this point because now you have seen that to deny the gospel truth will lead you into the dangerous waters of denying history itself, you cannot possibly make that claim anymore.
The New Testament account has passed the test of what will normally pass as historically true. By any measures you use to fault it, we must apply the same measures to other historical accounts and see if they pass. If they don't pass, then we must declare them false as well.

Historically true does not mean actual truth or truth in reality. . . Ancient history is not reliable and that remains a fact. . .The new testament are pure work of fiction because they report things that do not happen in reality only in the pages of ancient story books. . .The story of god men or men who claim to be the Messiah were so common at that time. At that time where was so many stories similar to that of Jesus that when one of the early church fathers(Justin Martyr) was asked about it, his only reply was that Satan invented the stories and made them come before the Jesus story just to confuse people about the real story of Jesus. . .Nothing new in the Jesus story. . .Many people were said to have died and resurrected claiming to be the son of god long before the Jesus story was ever written. . .But one fact about them all is that they are all work of ancient fiction. . .

It is only after you have successfully proven that the gospels and epistles have failed as a historical truth that you can make the claim that it cannot possibly be divinely inspired. Until then, you have no basis upon which to make that claim.

Historical truth of historical fiction?. . .I repeat stories existed about figure claiming to be son of god who lived, died and resurrected long before the stories about Jesus. . .Even the early church fathers like Justin Martyr acknowledge that. . .I bet those other stories were also divinely inspired as well. . .

And by "worse" you mean? Please be sure to name the other books it is worse than and in what sense it is worse other than merely your subjective opinion.

by worse, i mean no authorship. . .contradictory accounts etc. . .

But the people Christ is referring to here are Jews. Can't you see how this destroys your claim that Jesus came exclusively for the Jews and didn't want non-Jews to be saved?

How does it destroy my claim?According the the stories he was always addressing the Jews. . .Can you show me where Jesus himself claimed that he came to save all of humanity in the gospels?. . .

Mr Troll: Nice back and forth so far. I must say I'm very impressed by both parties. Anony more so. Anyway, I'd like to make some input based on this quote herein...

By the standards Mazaje has been using, it is quite possible to fault other historical accounts. He himself has said it that most historians do not consider orally passed down history as absolute fact(something like that I think).
Now there's a subtle yet very important difference between other ancient historical accounts and the bible. If today it is proven for example, that plato was in fact not a real person but just a figment of Aristotles imagination then all the works supposedly accredited to him might have to be counted as false, BUT that still doesn't change the fact that they are great writings, philosophical truths etc and heck! Nobody has ever considered them to be inviolable truths, nations have not gone to war because of their belief in such historical accounts, people do not hinge their whole existence here on earth to a promise made in those writings. I hope you do see the point I'm making, that as far as ancient history is concerned especially those recorded based on hear say, it is very dangerous to base your whole life existence on the claims of men 2000 yrs ago whom by modern day standards cannot be absolutely verified to be historically accurate, let alone divinely inspired.
My half cent

The problem is that Christians do not have any record or documents that date to the first century CE in support of their New Testament. Most of the documents that make up the New Testament are traced back to either the mid second century or later(many are later) e.g. Chester Beaty Papyrus 1(P45)[3rd Century], Chester Beaty Papyrus II(P46)[A.D.200], Chester Beaty Papyrus III(late 3rd century), Bodmer Papyrus II(P66)[A.D.200] and Bodmer Papyrus XIV-XV(P75)[early 3rd century). . To argue that these things are true and inspired word from some divine source is simply asinine. . .

ozo_emeka: You really need to stop drinking from those lead Cups.. LMAO

Lol...shut your pie hole, fisherman.

mazaje:
Gospel of Matthew was copied from Mark as such many of the words and sentences are reported verbatim. Both were written for different audiences, while Mark was written for a Gentile audience Matthew according to scholars was written mostly for a hellinized Jewish audience. . .Mark's Gospel is noted for its geographical errors, some of which the author of Matthew corrected. In Mark, Jesus went across the Sea of Galilee to the land of the Gerasenes*, a town far away from the Sea and across a river, and healed the demon-possessed man. This location was changed in Matthew to 'Gadarenes'. (* Note: the KJV Bible has changed the text in Mark to 'Gadarenes' in conformance with Matthew, but some other English translations, such as the New American Bible (NAB), have kept the original text.)

This is a very poor response to prove that Mark made an geographical error, you must show that Gadarenes and Gerasenes are two distinct places that cannot possibly be the same place i.e. you must show that they are not mispellings of the same region or that one is a subregion of the other. Only when you properly show this can your claim stand

Examples. . .Josephus wrote about Emperor Vespasian, Tacitus wrote about Nero. . .

Yeah but Josephus and Tacitus also wrote about Augustus who they both never knew. Secondly, the earliest copy of Josephus we have is dated in the the 9th century AD while the earliest copies of Tacitus annals are dated at around 850 AD (interestingly in fact, there are those who actually hold that Tacitus writings were faked by medieval writers)
As I said to you whatever tests you put up, the New Testament trumps them by far.

We must not believe anything any modern day historian writes about people raising up from the dead, human beings growing wings and flying all because he/she claimed the event happened in 1743. . .Why believe anything based on hear say?. . .Even historian clearly admit that ancient history is very difficult to verify because at that time there was nothing between fact and fiction. . .Now we know what fiction is and if the story of Jesus were to be written now it will be considered as fiction, the story of Jesus as reported in the bible is pure fiction. . .

I think this is the main root of your problem and why you are willing to throw all history under the bus. It is simply the fact that you don't believe in miracles nothing more.

I was just trying to show you that the gospels were not even written by people who knew Jesus or ever meet him. . .The gospels were written very long after he died by greek speaking christians, no of which ever identified himself. . .

And I have just shown you that that hardly counts as a good counter argument and I really don't know what you mean by "long after his death" especially since we have writings that show that Christ's resurrection was being preached within as little as 5 years after His death (See 1Corinthians 15:1-7).

Sure, I have stated that even historians have said that ancient history is very hard to trust. . .Even the ancient encyclopedia of history begins in its early pages by stating that most evidence are limited when it comes to ancient history and it admits that many ancient stories are reconstructions or intelligent guesses. . .It also says that a lot are biased accounts as well. . .

Too bad for you because it is the same way historians investigate that news reporters and police detectives also carry out their investigations. I marvel at the extent you are willing to go to hold unto your unbelief.

Doesn't say he was going to the mount of olives. . .

Shifting goal posts now are we?

From the map you can see that they are two cities far from each other, they can not be visited at once, the listing of the cities together is what scholars say is the problem because they are far away from each other. . .

No one said anything about any intention to visit the villages at once. What I said is that the villages were named as the places near Mount Olives. If you cannot see from the map that the towns named in the verse are around mount Olives, then I'm afraid you are blind.

Apparently it doesn't say that any of them was present when Jesus was with Pilate. . .It does not even mention John any where. . .

Arguing from silence now are we?

From one man in the first gospel to two angles in the last isn't an embellishment, eh?. . .If Mark says its a man and John says its two angles then its obvious that they are not saying the same thing. . .Both of them were writing a story and the guy that wrote last many years after the first decided to add to what the first writer wrote down. . .Its not as if both of them were eye witness to the events they wrote. . .

Lol...as I said, you don't know what embellishments are. Here's an article to help you more fairly evaluate the discovery of the early tomb.
http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2011/06/examining-a-bible-contradiction-who-discovered-the-empty-tomb/

By the way, you have been making the claim that the Gospel writers copied each other, this claim is not a scholarly consensus so how do you know this to be true? Remember you said that History scholars do not speak fact rather they rely on "intelligent guesses". How come you rely on scholar's intelligent guesses only when it helps your anti-Christian bias and reject it when it doesn't? You cannot have it both ways you know. You can't eat your cake and have it, my friend.

The writer of John does NOT claim any where to be an eye witness. . If you can read which I believe you can then the verse is very clear. . .The claim is NOT from the author. . .Here it is once again. . ."This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down". We know that his testimony is true.

We [/b]know that [b]his testimony is true?. . .Who are the we?. . . Obviously NOT the writer, its just some one making a claim saying that this are the testimony of the writer and him/they know its true. . .No where does the writer himself claim that he was an eye witness. . .It does not say that I am John a disciple of Jesus and I witness these things. . .Show me where the writer made such a claim in the book or i'll just accept that you have gone down the road of being a deceptive apologist. . .The gospel of John was written very late to be of any value. . .Most of its stories are different from the others and it paints Jesus in a different light from the others. . .No where does the author himself claim to know Jesus or has ever meet him. . .Show me if you disagree. . .

Lol, first of all, that's a poor excuse for an "interpolation". The same writer could just as easily have been switching from singular to plural in the same way I will in this following sentence.

"I believe Mazaje's claims are false unless he can provide us with proof". Is the last part of my sentence an interpolation? or is it merely me referring to my audience and myself as 'us'?

Secondly, you have claimed that John was written very late to be of any value. Interestingly the oldest gospel fragment actually comes from the Gospel of John (P52) and it is dated at about 125 AD. I wonder how you know that it was "written too late to be of any value"? When were Josephus works written again?

Thirdly, You claim John paints Christ in a different light than the others, care to show proof of this?

Fourthly, I have shown you that the gospel of John is an eyewitness testimony. Any further demand is unnecessary unless you can prove that it isn't.

The writing of Luke alone is NOT the historical source for Pontious Pilate for example, Josephus and others also wrote about him. . .The fact that Abraham Lincoln was mentioned in the novel titled "Gone with the wind" does not mean that gone with the wind is a historical book. . .Even wikipedia says that scholars are in disagreement over the portrayal of Pilate in the gospel accounts. . .It says. . ."Pilate's reluctance to execute Jesus in the gospels has been seen as reflecting the authors' agenda.[30][31] It has thus been argued that gospel accounts place the blame on the Jews, not on Rome, in line with the authors' alleged goal of making peace with the Roman Empire and vilifying the Jews."

Lololol, very interesting. So we are now comparing Luke to Gone with the Wind abi? Let me remind you that you have already conceded that the main character of Luke, Jesus Christ was a real person who existed and was executed by Pilate so your bringing up Gone with the wind is simply dishonest because Scarlet O'hara was never a real person.
The only way you can make a fair comparison is if you are ready to change your claim to Jesus Christ Himself did not exist and I'll like to see your argument for that.

Most of Luke's story are pure fiction. . . .He wrote about things that can never happen in reality as such his stories have non basis to be trusted as true. . .His stories are NOT authentic because he talks about things that only happen in the pages of fictitious story books. . .As such his writings lack credibility. . .Why believe in anonymous stories without an author in the first place?. . .

Another poor argument. All you have done here is say "Luke is fiction because I say so"

As for Josephus your statement about him writing for Jews about Jewish history is false. . .From wikipedia it says. . .The Jews were thought to lack great historical figures and a credible history of their people. They were also accused of harboring hostility toward non-Jews, and were thought to be generally lacking in loyalty, respect for authority, and charity.[4] With these harsh accusations against the Jews fluttering about the Roman empire, Josephus, formerly Joseph ben Matthias, set out to provide a Hellenized version of the Jewish history. Such a work is often called an "apologia," as it pleads the case of a group of people or set of beliefs to a larger audience.

Interesting. So Josephus was for all intents and purposes a Jewish apologist, yet you trust his history. How do you know he didn't twist some facts to make Jews look good? Why are you so reluctant to apply the same standards of criticism to your sources?

Clearly he wasn't writing for any Jewish audience. . .The writers of the NT gospels were NOT writing to any Jewish audience because they were NOT Jews, they were Greek speaking gentiles who wrote their stories in Greek to various Greek speaking audience. . .Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic not Greek. . .

This is also untrue. We have reason to believe that Jesus and His disciples spoke Greek as well as they spoke Hebrew in much the same way I suppose you speak both English and Hausa fluently. How do you suppose Jesus conversed with The Roman centurion, the Syrophonecian woman and Pontius Pilate. How do you suppose Peter spoke with Cornelius, Lydia and other Greek members of the early church? With interpreters? Please come up with valid points and stop grasping.

I'll concede that Josephus was not primarily writing to Jews, but I'll maintain that in the same way the language in which his antiquities were written does not make them any less reliable and the same applies to the New Testament writers

It is very possible that Plato did not write the republic at all. . .I told you that even historians admit that many ancient writings are reconstructions. . .The tradition through which we get most ancient history are not reliable. . .Stories are mostly transmitted though the oral tradition which is very unreliable. . .Christians do not have any record or documents that date to the first century CE in support of their New Testament. Most of the documents that make up the New Testament are traced back to either the mid second century or later(many are later) e.g. Chester Beaty Papyrus 1(P45)[3rd Century], Chester Beaty Papyrus II(P46)[A.D.200], Chester Beaty Papyrus III(late 3rd century), Bodmer Papyrus II(P66)[A.D.200] and Bodmer Papyrus XIV-XV(P75)[early 3rd century). Christians claim that the gospels were written several decades after Jesus. As a matter of fact, today we know that the OLDEST text we have is dated more than 100 years after Jesus(125 to 150 CE to be more precise). It is not even a complete text. It is nothing more than a horribly worn out fragment labelled p52. “Th oldest fragment(P52), found in a mummy cartonage, contains a small portion of John 18 and is dated ca. 125.” [2]

And here you have thrown history under the bus again. The earliest copy of a text does not translate into "therefore it isn't true" or therefore that is when the original text was written. Even if I were to grant a 100 year gap between Christ and the earliest manuscripts of Christ that we have, He still does far better than Tacitus and Josephus writings whose earliest manuscripts show up at some 700 years after they have passed away. apart from that, you have a rich web of correspondence amongst His disciples and the early church fathers after His death and this rich web of information continues all the way down to the present day.

I have given you proof of interpolation and embellishments already, you have not shown them to be false all you have stated is that you do not like the examples I have shown and that is not at all. . .The part in the gospel of John is clearly some one else talking and the story of the man that changed into two angles at the tomb is an embellishment of the first story by the last writer. .

I have addressed this above.

The early church father to me are the real founders of christianity, not Jesus or Paul. . . I believe they were the ones that even wrote the gospels themselves so why won't they claim to be disciples of some of the disciples of Jesus Just to give themselves legitimacy?. . .Papias for example talks about some logia written in Hebrew by Matthew. . .All we know about the new testement and the writings themselves we got from them, they are the reason why we have 4 gospels and the number of books in the NT. . .As a afore mentioned. .Christians do not have any record or documents that date to the first century CE in support of their New Testament. Most of the documents that make up the New Testament are traced back to either the mid second century or later(many are later) e.g. Chester Beaty Papyrus 1(P45)[3rd Century], Chester Beaty Papyrus II(P46)[A.D.200], Chester Beaty Papyrus III(late 3rd century), Bodmer Papyrus II(P66)[A.D.200] and Bodmer Papyrus XIV-XV(P75)[early 3rd century)

Lol, this is just weird logic. Which of the early church fathers are you referring to? could you name them? because these guys corresponded a lot with each other and the earlier ones with the apostles. They wrote letters to and from one another quoting the New testament in their writings and glorifying Christ.

By the way, think about it carefully, if they wanted to claim to be disciples of the disciples of Christ in order to gain legitimacy, wouldn't this mean that there was already a community existing who knew Jesus and His disciples and held them in respect? For instance if I claim that I am the brother of GEJ in order to gain legitimacy, there must already have been a GEJ that people know and respect before it can even make any sense for me to make that claim.

So even by making the weird claim you are making here, you are at the same time conceding that Christ and his apostles were great, mighty and famous enough for men in faraway Rome and Alexandria and Smyrna (by the way, the church fathers were from diverse countries) to claim to be strongly linked to Jewish fishermen from faraway Judea.

You logic as weird as it is still proves that the fame of Christ which you claim is an unknown was spread far and wide all over the empire. Could it be because He rose from the dead and His disciples travelled about preaching the message?

Even if you want to hold to your conspiracy theory, you still have to explain why men scattered all over the Roman empire who hardly met each other in person all suddenly decided to claim to be disciples of some unknown Jewish fishermen so as to gain a reputation amongst a community of people who already held these fishermen in the highest regard. Really?
Or maybe you want to tell me that while Clement was in Rome working on his scam, Ignatius was 1300 miles away in Antioch inventing the exact same scam, and Papias too was in faraway Heirapolis also working on the exact same scam as well. Dude please don't make me laugh

Historically true does not mean actual truth or truth in reality. . . Ancient history is not reliable and that remains a fact. . .The new testament are pure work of fiction because they report things that do not happen in reality only in the pages of ancient story books. . .The story of god men or men who claim to be the Messiah were so common at that time. At that time where was so many stories similar to that of Jesus that when one of the early church fathers(Justin Martyr) was asked about it, his only reply was that Satan invented the stories and made them come before the Jesus story just to confuse people about the real story of Jesus. . .Nothing new in the Jesus story. . .Many people were said to have died and resurrected claiming to be the son of god long before the Jesus story was ever written. . .But one fact about them all is that they are all work of ancient fiction. . .

Lol once again he throws history under the bus with his "historically true does not really mean true". I have asked you to provide your source for this Justin Martyr claim of yours and yet you still haven't

Historical truth of historical fiction?. . .I repeat stories existed about figure claiming to be son of god who lived, died and resurrected long before the stories about Jesus. . .Even the early church fathers like Justin Martyr acknowledge that. . .I bet those other stories were also divinely inspired as well. . .

Please provide some of these stories as well as the source for this Justin Martyr claim.

by worse, i mean no authorship. . .contradictory accounts etc. . .

Lol which ones in particular do you have in mind, let us test them side by side with the bible accounts.

How does it destroy my claim?According the the stories he was always addressing the Jews. . .Can you show me where Jesus himself claimed that he came to save all of humanity in the gospels?. . .

Did you miss the part in your bible where Christ went out of His way to preach to Samaritan Gentiles? Did you miss the part where Christ commands His disciples to go into the world and preach the gospel to every creature?

Did you miss john 6:51?
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Please my friend bring up reasonable objections worth discussing.

Mr anony:
This is a very poor response to prove that Mark made an geographical error, you must show that Gadarenes and Gerasenes are two distinct places that cannot possibly be the same place i.e. you must show that they are not mispellings of the same region or that one is a subregion of the other. Only when you properly show this can your claim stand

I clearly said that Mark got the spelling(geography) wrongly and Matthew corrected it. . .

Yeah but Josephus and Tacitus also wrote about Augustus who they both never knew. Secondly, the earliest copy of Josephus we have is dated in the the 9th century AD while the earliest copies of Tacitus annals are dated at around 850 AD (interestingly in fact, there are those who actually hold that Tacitus writings were faked by medieval writers)
As I said to you whatever tests you put up, the New Testament trumps them by far.

Not true, the earliest and complete new testement manuscript we have today dates to the 4th centuray and 95 percent of the complete copies of the early manuscipts of the new testament that we have today are from the 8th century. The ones from the 4th and 8th century differ from each other . . .Before then there is NO complete new testement book any where. . .We do not have the original copies of the new testament text any where. . .Even the parts listed in the letters of the early church father differ GREATLY from the new testament we have now. . .I said it is possible that Tacitus did not write the works attibuted to him. Ancient history is NOT realible as acknowledged by historians themselves. . .Most of the new testament that we have today are reconstructions. . .No one knows what the originals look like because they do not exist any where. . .

I think this is the main root of your problem and why you are willing to throw all history under the bus. It is simply the fact that you don't believe in miracles nothing more.

Miracles as reported in the bible do NOT happen in reality, if it is true then you should be able to demonstrate it. . .After all Jesus PROMISED those of you that believe in him the ability to do greater things than he did. . .If the bible is true then miracles as stated in the bible should be replicated. . .the fact that NO body on earth can replicate any of the Major things Jesus did and promised his followers says its fiction and mythology. . .If you disagree then we can put that to test right now. . .Why don't you demonstrate the "divinity of Christ" by doing what he promised you would be able to do. Demonstrate the down payment of the holy spirit. If jesus is the same yesterday today and forever whats the big deal?

And I have just shown you that that hardly counts as a good counter argument and I really don't know what you mean by "long after his death" especially since we have writings that show that Christ's resurrection was being preached within as little as 5 years after His death (See 1Corinthians 15:1-7).

This is completely false, firstly first corithtians was written very long after Jesus died and it remains a claim. . I am talking about the gospels and when they were written. . .The were written very long after Jesus died by people who never meet him or knew him any where. . .

Too bad for you because it is the same way historians investigate that news reporters and police detectives also carry out their investigations. I marvel at the extent you are willing to go to hold unto your unbelief.

I just gave you a quote from the ancient encyclopedia of history which states that ancient history is not reliable because of reasons it outlined and you are telling me too bad for me?. . .I also marvel at the extent you are willing to go to uphold your own belief. . .

Shifting goal posts now are we?


No one said anything about any intention to visit the villages at once. What I said is that the villages were named as the places near Mount Olives. If you cannot see from the map that the towns named in the verse are around mount Olives, then I'm afraid you are blind.

I won't dwell too much on this because I am just giving you the opinion of scholars. . . .

Arguing from silence now are we?

Nope, it wasn't mentioned and its very significant. . .

Lol...as I said, you don't know what embellishments are. Here's an article to help you more fairly evaluate the discovery of the early tomb.
http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2011/06/examining-a-bible-contradiction-who-discovered-the-empty-tomb/

What am I to do with these piece of apologia?. . .Even the authour of the piece can be seen clearly being dishonest and making his own personal conclusions. . .For example he claims thatits "very plausible that Matthew focuses on the angel who spoke and “said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid’” while John focuses on how many angels the women saw; “and she saw two angels.” But the text is very clear, Matthew says she saw two men not angles, Marks said the ladies saw a man, Luke said they saw an angle and John said they saw two angles. . .It is NOT the same thing. . .The guy is clearly just making things up in order to explain absurdity away. . .He is such a shobby apologist. . .if this childish excuse is all you have then I really have to laugh at you. . .

By the way, you have been making the claim that the Gospel writers copied each other, this claim is not a scholarly consensus so how do you know this to be true? Remember you said that History scholars do not speak fact rather they rely on "intelligent guesses". How come you rely on scholar's intelligent guesses only when it helps your anti-Christian bias and reject it when it doesn't? You cannot have it both ways you know. You can't eat your cake and have it, my friend.

I said most of Matthew was copied from Mark and most scholars agree to that. . .Most of the words in Matthew appear verbatim in Mark. . .Word for word. . .

Lol, first of all, that's a poor excuse for an "interpolation". The same writer could just as easily have been switching from singular to plural in the same way I will in this following sentence.

"I believe Mazaje's claims are false unless he can provide us with proof". Is the last part of my sentence an interpolation? or is it merely me referring to my audience and myself as 'us'?

Is this a joke or what?. . .Even you yourself have already acknowledged the point am making. . .Its very clear that it is an interpolation. . .In your case you are writing in the first person narrative, but it the case of John it is in the third person narrative. . .You analogy falls completely flat here. . .Its really laughable. . .PLEASE read what you wrote about me and compare it to what is written in the bible. . .They are completely diametrical. . .The one is John is very differnt. Any honest reader will know that it is an interpolation. . .Here it is once again. . ."This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down". We know that his testimony is true.

We know that his testimony is true?. . .This is VERY clear to any honest reader. . .It is an interpolation and was never written by the original author. . .

Secondly, you have claimed that John was written very late to be of any value. Interestingly the oldest gospel fragment actually comes from the Gospel of John (P52) and it is dated at about 125 AD. I wonder how you know that it was "written too late to be of any value"? When were Josephus works written again?

We are going by the scholarly concensus and they date the gospel of John to about 100AD. . .Its possible that they are wrong. Josephus writtings were written in the first century but the surviving copies we have date to 700 years later, which is same with the NT. . .The earliest complete book we have of any of the NT dates from over 400 years later. . .All the earlier copies are just frangments and they differ from those that came later. . .

Thirdly, You claim John paints Christ in a different light than the others, care to show proof of this?

The first 3 gospels are called synopics. . .That alone explains it. . .

Fourthly, I have shown you that the gospel of John is an eyewitness testimony. Any further demand is unnecessary unless you can prove that it isn't.

You have NOT shown it any where. . .I have shown you that it is an interpolation. . .No where does the author claim to be an eye witness any where. . .Pls show where he claimed he was an eye witness. . .

Lololol, very interesting. So we are now comparing Luke to Gone with the Wind abi? Let me remind you that you have already conceded that the main character of Luke, Jesus Christ was a real person who existed and was executed by Pilate so your bringing up Gone with the wind is simply dishonest because Scarlet O'hara was never a real person.
The only way you can make a fair comparison is if you are ready to change your claim to Jesus Christ Himself did not exist and I'll like to see your argument for that.

Luke was writing mythology about the Jesus character. . .Just as the writers of the hadith wrote mythology about Mohammed who was a real person in history. . .

Another poor argument. All you have done here is say "Luke is fiction because I say so"

Luke is fiction just as the hadiths about the Prophet Mohammed are and other god life humans in ancient history. . .

Interesting. So Josephus was for all intents and purposes a Jewish apologist, yet you trust his history. How do you know he didn't twist some facts to make Jews look good? Why are you so reluctant to apply the same standards of criticism to your sources?

Straw man, eh?. . .I have told you many times that his claims too should not be believed if he wrote about people resurrecting from the dead or flying in the air. . .Josephus possibly wrote so many things that are ot true. .Ancient history is NOT reliable. . .Historians themselves have said that because of the oral tradition they use. . .

This is also untrue. We have reason to believe that Jesus and His disciples spoke Greek as well as they spoke Hebrew in much the same way I suppose you speak both English and Hausa fluently. How do you suppose Jesus conversed with The Roman centurion, the Syrophonecian woman and Pontius Pilate. How do you suppose Peter spoke with Cornelius, Lydia and other Greek members of the early church? With interpreters? Please come up with valid points and stop grasping.

The ancient Romans spoke Latin NOT Greek. . .Greek was NOT a language of influence at that time because the ancient Romans that dominated the area spoke Latin. . .The gospels were written in Greek in distant lands. . .Thats where the earliest copies we know were seen. . .

I'll concede that Josephus was not primarily writing to Jews, but I'll maintain that in the same way the language in which his antiquities were written does not make them any less reliable and the same applies to the New Testament writers

I'll concede this point. . .But i still maintain that the gospels were not written by people who knew Jesus or meet him any where. .

And here you have thrown history under the bus again. The earliest copy of a text does not translate into "therefore it isn't true" or therefore that is when the original text was written. Even if I were to grant a 100 year gap between Christ and the earliest manuscripts of Christ that we have, He still does far better than Tacitus and Josephus writings whose earliest manuscripts show up at some 700 years after they have passed away. apart from that, you have a rich web of correspondence amongst His disciples and the early church fathers after His death and this rich web of information continues all the way down to the present day.

Not true. . .The quotation of the gospels from the early church fathers is all over the place and differs in many ways from the gospels we have. . .We have their quotations from the second century and its all over the map. .In every instance that you have them copying the NT its very different from the text that came to us in the manuscript. . .Example is the quote from Clement of Alexandria, his quotation is very different from even the Alexandrain manuscript that came later on. . .

Lol, this is just weird logic. Which of the early church fathers are you referring to? could you name them? because these guys corresponded a lot with each other and the earlier ones with the apostles. They wrote letters to and from one another quoting the New testament in their writings and glorifying Christ.

The quoatations are all over the place and different from the manustcipts that came down to us. . .Pls cite and example and lets look at it and you will see the diference yourself. . .

By the way, think about it carefully, if they wanted to claim to be disciples of the disciples of Christ in order to gain legitimacy, wouldn't this mean that there was already a community existing who knew Jesus and His disciples and held them in respect? For instance if I claim that I am the brother of GEJ in order to gain legitimacy, there must already have been a GEJ that people know and respect before it can even make any sense for me to make that claim.

You are all over the place, I am not saying Jesus never existed, stories written about him are what are not true and fictitious, Mohammed existed but that doesn't mean he once divided the moon into two halves. . .

So even by making the weird claim you are making here, you are at the same time conceding that Christ and his apostles were great, mighty and famous enough for men in faraway Rome and Alexandria and Smyrna (by the way, the church fathers were from diverse countries) to claim to be strongly linked to Jewish fishermen from faraway Judea.

They alone know why the chose the Jesus character. . .

You logic as weird as it is still proves that the fame of Christ which you claim is an unknown was spread far and wide all over the empire. Could it be because He rose from the dead and His disciples travelled about preaching the message?

Just like Mohammed ascended into heaven on the back of a winged beast and his followers went about preaching about him as well. . .

Even if you want to hold to your conspiracy theory, you still have to explain why men scattered all over the Roman empire who hardly met each other in person all suddenly decided to claim to be disciples of some unknown Jewish fishermen so as to gain a reputation amongst a community of people who already held these fishermen in the highest regard. Really?
Or maybe you want to tell me that while Clement was in Rome working on his scam, Ignatius was 1300 miles away in Antioch inventing the exact same scam, and Papias too was in faraway Heirapolis also working on the exact same scam as well. Dude please don't make me laugh

The early church fathers do actually meet from time to time to form creeds and shape the theology of the early church. . .And they also had acess to the writings of each other. . .They were always in correspondance. . .

Lol once again he throws history under the bus with his "historically true does not really mean true". I have asked you to provide your source for this Justin Martyr claim of yours and yet you still haven't

From his second apology as a response to people who made the claim that other religious stories were similar to that of Jesus. . .

For I myself, when I discovered the wicked disguise which the evil spirits had thrown around the divine doctrines of the Christians, to turn aside others from joining them, laughed both at those who framed these falsehoods, and at the disguise itself and at popular opinion and I confess that I both boast and with all my strength strive to be found a Christian. (Chapter 13)

Please provide some of these stories as well as the source for this Justin Martyr claim.

Done that already. . .

Lol which ones in particular do you have in mind, let us test them side by side with the bible accounts.

The writing of tacitus as compared to the 4 gospel accounts. . .

Did you miss the part in your bible where Christ went out of His way to preach to Samaritan Gentiles? Did you miss the part where Christ commands His disciples to go into the world and preach the gospel to every creature?

Great commission does not appear in the earliest gospels. . .Some bible versions clearly acknowledge that. . .

Did you miss john 6:51?
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Please my friend bring up reasonable objections worth discussing.

OK. . .I concede. . .

mazaje:

I clearly said that Mark got the spelling(geography) wrongly and Matthew corrected it. . .

this right here is a classic example of the flippant dishonesty that riddles your long tomes. I might mispell "Lagos" as "Logos"... that has nothing to do with getting the geographical location of "Lagos" wrong. Clearly your argument was weak, anony took you to task and you have chosen to weasel your way out with laughable histrionics.

mazaje:

I clearly said that Mark got the spelling(geography) wrongly and Matthew corrected it. . .

I hope you do realize that spelling error (if it can be called that, for it might just as well have been a different name for the same region) is not the same as a geographical error. For if one person says "I traveled to England to see the palace of queen Elizabeth" and another says "I traveled to Britain to see the palace of queen Elizabeth". This wouldn't show a geographic error on anyone's part especially if they describe the place. The only way one can show a geographical error is if one shows that England are Britain are two distinct and different places such that it will be a contradiction to claim that the Palace of queen Elizabeth was in both places. The same applies if one says Britain and another refers to the same place as Britannia.
To show a geographical error, you must prove that Gerasenes and Gadarenes are two distinct places in that sense. Failure to do this and you cannot make the claim you are making.

Not true, the earliest and complete new testement manuscript we have today dates to the 4th centuray and 95 percent of the complete copies of the early manuscipts of the new testament that we have today are from the 8th century. The ones from the 4th and 8th century differ from each other . . .Before then there is NO complete new testement book any where. . .We do not have the original copies of the new testament text any where. . .Even the parts listed in the letters of the early church father differ GREATLY from the new testament we have now. . .I said it is possible that Tacitus did not write the works attibuted to him. Ancient history is NOT realible as acknowledged by historians themselves. . .Most of the new testament that we have today are reconstructions. . .No one knows what the originals look like because they do not exist any where. . .

Lol, you are a funny guy, you have now shifted the goalposts. Of what use to us is the claim that the earliest surviving complete New Testament document is from the 4th century especially when you know that the New Testament is 27 individual books and were not exactly compiled together as one document (canon) until the 4th century. If the New testament was compiled (note I didn't say written) in the 4th Century, and the earliest surviving compilation we have is from the same 4th century it was compiled, then I really don't see the point you are trying to make. I wonder the kind of magic you are expecting. Do you seriously expect a compilation of the New Testament to show up before it was actually compiled?

Miracles as reported in the bible do NOT happen in reality, if it is true then you should be able to demonstrate it. . .After all Jesus PROMISED those of you that believe in him the ability to do greater things than he did. . .If the bible is true then miracles as stated in the bible should be replicated. . .the fact that NO body on earth can replicate any of the Major things Jesus did and promised his followers says its fiction and mythology. . .If you disagree then we can put that to test right now. . .Why don't you demonstrate the "divinity of Christ" by doing what he promised you would be able to do. Demonstrate the down payment of the holy spirit. If jesus is the same yesterday today and forever whats the big deal?

Oh miracles happen all the time. The question is do you accept them as miracles or do you just jump back to Naturalistic worldview and deny them without any attempt at investigation?

This is completely false, firstly first corithtians was written very long after Jesus died and it remains a claim. . I am talking about the gospels and when they were written. . .The were written very long after Jesus died by people who never meet him or knew him any where. . .

Lol, seriously, who told you that 1Corinthians was written long after Christ's death? (by long do you mean 5, 10, 20, 30, 50, 100, or 200 years? What exactly do you mean by "very long"
Secondly, you haven't still shown that the New testament was written "long" after Christs death by people who did not know Him. You just keep parroting the claim while I keep asking you to prove it and also tell us why you even think it is relevant.

I just gave you a quote from the ancient encyclopedia of history which states that ancient history is not reliable because of reasons it outlined and you are telling me too bad for me?. . .I also marvel at the extent you are willing to go to uphold your own belief. . .

It is the argument you are trying to make from the quote that makes me pity you. If you cannot trust history because of the nature of history itself, then you really have no case in this debate because that is exactly what we are arguing.

It is just like someone saying that the "field of science isn't fact but intelligent guesses on how the physical reality works therefore we cannot really trust it" Such a person has effectively lost any scientific case he wants to make thereafter because he has essentially thrown science under the bus and therefore cannot proceed to argue that any scientific statements he brings up are indeed true statements.

Nope, it wasn't mentioned and its very significant. . .

That's arguing from silence still. For instance if I told you that "in Logicboy's house yesterday, he told Deep Sight that thehomer likes blue shirts"
The information has been passed. The fact that I didn't start by saying that "I was in Logicboy's house and...." is not proof that I wasn't there. In fact without me saying anything about where I was, it can be naturally assumed that either I was there or I heard it from someone who was there.
To make an argument that I was not in Logicboy's house is simply arguing from silence (i.e making my silence mean whatever you want it to mean)

What am I to do with these piece of apologia?. . .Even the authour of the piece can be seen clearly being dishonest and making his own personal conclusions. . .For example he claims thatits "very plausible that Matthew focuses on the angel who spoke and “said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid’” while John focuses on how many angels the women saw; “and she saw two angels.” But the text is very clear, Matthew says she saw two men not angles, Marks said the ladies saw a man, Luke said they saw an angle and John said they saw two angles. . .It is NOT the same thing. . .The guy is clearly just making things up in order to explain absurdity away. . .He is such a shobby apologist. . .if this childish excuse is all you have then I really have to laugh at you. . .

Please read the verses again and read the article again too.

I said most of Matthew was copied from Mark and most scholars agree to that. . .Most of the words in Matthew appear verbatim in Mark. . .Word for word. . .

Point of correction, most scholars say that Matthew referenced Mark not copied Mark

Is this a joke or what?. . .Even you yourself have already acknowledged the point am making. . .Its very clear that it is an interpolation. . .In your case you are writing in the first person narrative, but it the case of John it is in the third person narrative. . .You analogy falls completely flat here. . .Its really laughable. . .PLEASE read what you wrote about me and compare it to what is written in the bible. . .They are completely diametrical. . .The one is John is very differnt. Any honest reader will know that it is an interpolation. . .Here it is once again. . ."This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down". We know that his testimony is true.

We know that his testimony is true?. . .This is VERY clear to any honest reader. . .It is an interpolation and was never written by the original author. . .

Lol, interesting sneak in the ad hominem "any honest reader who reads this can see...." Interpretation: "If you don't agree with my claim, you are dishonest."
My friend, I don't see the interpolation you are seeing. I only see an author switching from singular to plural in reference to the community he was writing to. What should he have written?

"This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. I know that his testimony is true??"

Even if I granted (though I am not) that it was an interpolation added by some mischievous chap and so we removed the problematic later part of that verse. Isn't "This is the disciple who testifies these things and who wrote them down." enough evidence of eyewitness testimony for you? Remember he was writing to a community he is familiar with who would know it was him writing by the things he said of himself. Similar to how one of my friends could choose not to write his name in a letter but refer to himself as "the guy that trashes you in chess". Or do you want him to say "I, Okeke Okafor solemnly swear..." Na court document im dey write? I keep showing you how irrational you are being.

We are going by the scholarly concensus and they date the gospel of John to about 100AD. . .Its possible that they are wrong. Josephus writtings were written in the first century but the surviving copies we have date to 700 years later, which is same with the NT. . .The earliest complete book we have of any of the NT dates from over 400 years later. . .All the earlier copies are just frangments and they differ from those that came later. . .

Lol, he has done it again, please what are we arguing? the date when the works were written or the date of the earliest surviving copies. Please don't confuse the two.

The first 3 gospels are called synopics. . .That alone explains it. . .

What exactly does that explain? How does it show that John presented a different Christ??

Luke was writing mythology about the Jesus character. . .Just as the writers of the hadith wrote mythology about Mohammed who was a real person in history. . .

Luke is fiction just as the hadiths about the Prophet Mohammed are and other god life humans in ancient history. . .

Please cite the hadiths and Luke and let's do a comparative analysis. Don't just drop words about.

Straw man, eh?. . .I have told you many times that his claims too should not be believed if he wrote about people resurrecting from the dead or flying in the air. . .Josephus possibly wrote so many things that are ot true. .Ancient history is NOT reliable. . .Historians themselves have said that because of the oral tradition they use. . .

Hahaha, Just come out and say it already. The reason you don't believe in the historicity of the NT is only because you don't believe in the resurrection simple. Because the New testament passes your tests in flying colors. You only reject it based on your Naturalistic bias nothing more.

The ancient Romans spoke Latin NOT Greek. . .Greek was NOT a language of influence at that time because the ancient Romans that dominated the area spoke Latin. . .The gospels were written in Greek in distant lands. . .Thats where the earliest copies we know were seen. . .

Wrong.
Koine Greek (Greek Ελληνιστική Κοινή, "common Greek", or κοινή διάλεκτος "the common dialect" is the popular form of Greek which emerged in post-Classical antiquity (c.300 BC – AD 300). Other names are Alexandrian, Hellenistic, Patristic, Common, Biblical or New Testament Greek. Original names were koine, Hellenic, Alexandrian and Macedonian (Macedonic);[1][2] all on the contrast to Attic dialect. Koine was the first common supra-regional dialect in Greece and came to serve as a lingua franca for the eastern Mediterranean and ancient Near East throughout the Roman period. It was also the original language of the New Testament of the Christian Bible and of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament).[3] Koine is the main ancestor of modern Greek.
http://wiki.phantis.com/index.php/Koine_Greek

I'll concede this point. . .But i still maintain that the gospels were not written by people who knew Jesus or meet him any where. .

Scores you no points. Plus the writer of John's gospel was an eyewitness.

Not true. . .The quotation of the gospels from the early church fathers is all over the place and differs in many ways from the gospels we have. . .We have their quotations from the second century and its all over the map. .In every instance that you have them copying the NT its very different from the text that came to us in the manuscript. . .Example is the quote from Clement of Alexandria, his quotation is very different from even the Alexandrain manuscript that came later on. . .

Where is the quote you are talking about?

The quoatations are all over the place and different from the manustcipts that came down to us. . .Pls cite and example and lets look at it and you will see the diference yourself. . .

Here's an example for you.

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." "the only begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father ..."(Iraneaus quoting John 1:18 in Against Heresies III:11:6),

You are all over the place, I am not saying Jesus never existed, stories written about him are what are not true and fictitious, Mohammed existed but that doesn't mean he once divided the moon into two halves. . .

I never said that you said that Christ didn't exist. I have also asked you to present the hadiths for comparison

They alone know why the chose the Jesus character. . .

And with this you have shown that you don't know what you are talking about. If you accuse the Church Fathers of conspiracy and deception, you have implied that you know they had malicious motives for their actions. To now turn around and deny knowledge of their motives, you immediately debunk your own theory.

Just like Mohammed ascended into heaven on the back of a winged beast and his followers went about preaching about him as well. . .

Once again, cite the sources and let us compare

The early church fathers do actually meet from time to time to form creeds and shape the theology of the early church. . .And they also had acess to the writings of each other. . .They were always in correspondance. . .

But in order for them to meet, they must already have a binding purpose which is Christ. This would mean that the gospel of Christ was already known to them beforehand. Do you think people living thousands of miles away from one another simply wake up one morning and decide to form creeds? Your conspiracy theory is failing badly sir.



.........to be continued

....continuation

From his second apology as a response to people who made the claim that other religious stories were similar to that of Jesus. . .

For I myself, when I discovered the wicked disguise which the evil spirits had thrown around the divine doctrines of the Christians, to turn aside others from joining them, laughed both at those who framed these falsehoods, and at the disguise itself and at popular opinion and I confess that I both boast and with all my strength strive to be found a Christian. (Chapter 13)

Erhm Mazaje, I think you have just quoted Justin Martyr completely out of context. Maybe you went to some website somewhere and lapped that up without even bothering to investigate it's source at all. The Second Apology of Justin Martyr was written to the Roman Senate to protest the persecution Christians were going through under Quintus Lollius Urbicus. It had nothing to do with responding to any such arguments as you claim.

Here is a link to the full document. Read it and tell us how your theory fits in
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0127.htm

Here also is the immediate surrounding context for the passage you presented. Please tell me again how it even remotely fits your thesis.

For I myself, too, when I was delighting in the doctrines of Plato, and heard the Christians slandered, and saw them fearless of death, and of all other-things which are counted fearful, perceived that it was impossible that they could be living in wickedness and pleasure. For what sensual or intemperate man, or who that counts it good to feast on human flesh, could welcome death that he might be deprived of his enjoyments, and would not rather continue always the present life, and attempt to escape the observation of the rulers; and much less would he denounce himself when the consequence would be death? This also the wicked demons have now caused to be done by evil men. For having put some to death on account of the accusations falsely brought against us, they also dragged to the torture our domestics, either children or weak women, and by dreadful torments forced them to admit those fabulous actions which they themselves openly perpetrate; about which we are the less concerned, because none of these actions are really ours, and we have the unbegotten and ineffable God as witness both of our thoughts and deeds. For why did we not even publicly profess that these were the things which we esteemed good, and prove that these are the divine philosophy, saying that the mysteries of Saturn are performed when we slay a man, and that when we drink our fill of blood, as it is said we do, we are doing what you do before that idol you honour, and on which you sprinkle the blood not only of irrational animals, but also of men, making a libation of the blood of the slain by the hand of the most illustrious and noble man among you? And imitating Jupiter and the other gods in sodomy and shameless intercourse with woman, might we not bring as our apology the writings of Epicurus and the poets? But because we persuade men to avoid such instruction, and all who practise them and imitate such examples, as now in this discourse we have striven to persuade you, we are assailed in every kind of way. But we are not concerned, since we know that God is a just observer of all. But would that even now some one would mount a lofty rostrum, and shout with a loud voice; "Be ashamed, be ashamed, you who charge the guiltless with those deeds which yourselves openly could commit, and ascribe things which apply to yourselves and to your gods to those who have not even the slightest sympathy with them. Be converted; become wise."

For I myself, when I discovered tile wicked disguise which the evil spirits had thrown around the divine doctrines of the Christians, to turn aside others from joining them, laughed both at those who framed these falsehoods, and at the disguise itself and at popular opinion and I confess that I both boast and with all my strength strive to be found a Christian; not because the teachings of Plato are different from those of Christ, but because they are not in all respects similar, as neither are those of the others, Stoics, and poets, and historians. For each man spoke well in proportion to the share he had of the spermatic word, seeing what was related to it. But they who contradict themselves on the more important points appear not to have possessed the heavenly wisdom, and the knowledge which cannot be spoken against. Whatever things were rightly said among all men, are the property of us Christians. For next to God, we worship and love the Word who is from the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also He became man for our sakes, that becoming a partaker of our sufferings, He might also bring us healing. For all the writers were able to see realities darkly through the sowing of the implanted word that was in them. For the seed and imitation impacted according to capacity is one thing, and quite another is the thing itself, of which there is the participation and imitation according to the grace which is from Him.

And we therefore pray you to publish this little book, appending what you think right, that our opinions may he known to others, and that these persons may have a fair chalice of being freed from erroneous notions and ignorance of good, who by their own fault have become subject to punishment; that so these things may be published to men, because it is in the nature of man to know good and evil; and by their condemning us, whom they do not understand, for actions which they say are wicked, and by delighting in the gods who did such things, and even now require similar actions from men, and by inflicting on us death or bonds or some other such punishment, as if we were guilty of these things, they condemn themselves, so that there is no need of other judges.

The writing of tacitus as compared to the 4 gospel accounts. . .

Be specific. Which writing of Tacitus in particular versus which gospel in particular? I want us to do a comparative analysis.

Great commission does not appear in the earliest gospels. . .Some bible versions clearly acknowledge that. . .

Erhm. . . .You are wrong sir. It appears in both the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus in Matthew, Luke, John and Acts. It only doesn't appear in Mark.

Mr anony:
I hope you do realize that spelling error (if it can be called that, for it might just as well have been a different name for the same region) is not the same as a geographical error. For if one person says "I traveled to England to see the palace of queen Elizabeth" and another says "I traveled to Britain to see the palace of queen Elizabeth". This wouldn't show a geographic error on anyone's part especially if they describe the place. The only way one can show a geographical error is if one shows that England are Britain are two distinct and different places such that it will be a contradiction to claim that the Palace of queen Elizabeth was in both places. The same applies if one says Britain and another refers to the same place as Britannia.
To show a geographical error, you must prove that Gerasenes and Gadarenes are two distinct places in that sense. Failure to do this and you cannot make the claim you are making.

You are just arguing blindly. . .Firstly, Mark a person that does not really know the place got the spelling wrong and Matthew a person that knows that place and corrected Marks error. . .This supports my claim that the NT authors were gentiles not Jews. . .

Lol, you are a funny guy, you have now shifted the goalposts. Of what use to us is the claim that the earliest surviving complete New Testament document is from the 4th century especially when you know that the New Testament is 27 individual books and were not exactly compiled together as one document (canon) until the 4th century. If the New testament was compiled (note I didn't say written) in the 4th Century, and the earliest surviving compilation we have is from the same 4th century it was compiled, then I really don't see the point you are trying to make. I wonder the kind of magic you are expecting. Do you seriously expect a compilation of the New Testament to show up before it was actually compiled?

I have not shifted any goals post. . .We do NOT have a complete NT manuscript any where from the first century. . .We have only tiny fragments of them from the second, 3rd and 4th century. . .We do NOT have a complete manuscripts of Mark, Luke, Mathew or John any where from the first, second or 3rd century, we only have fragments of them from the second, and 3rd centuries. . .We only have the complete manuscripts in the 4th century and only two of them survive. . .The complete manuscripts we have (about 95 percent of the complete manuscripts) come from the 8th century and the manuscripts from the 4th century greatly differ from the ones from the 8th century. . .What am i saying here? What I am saying is that the first complete manuscripts of Mark we have is from the 4th century. . .The first complete manuscripts of Mathew or any or any other book of the NT is from the 4th century. . .Fragments are NOT books, are they?. . .The books we have are reconstructions because the originals do not exist any where. . .We just have fragments of books from the second century which we are told were allegedly written in the first century. . .No body know when they were truly written. . .

Oh miracles happen all the time. The question is do you accept them as miracles or do you just jump back to Naturalistic worldview and deny them without any attempt at investigation?

LOL!. . .Repeating that miracles happen all the time means nothing. . .Jesus after all promised YOU as a believe the ability to do greater things than he did if its true then you should be able to demonstrate it. . .That you can't says it all. . .Clear cut miracles as reported in the NT do NOT happen, they happen only on the pages of ancient fictitious and mythical books. . .NOT in reality. . .All the miracle stories reported in the gospels are fictitious. . .

Lol, seriously, who told you that 1Corinthians was written long after Christ's death? (by long do you mean 5, 10, 20, 30, 50, 100, or 200 years? What exactly do you mean by "very long"
Secondly, you haven't still shown that the New testament was written "long" after Christs death by people who did not know Him. You just keep parroting the claim while I keep asking you to prove it and also tell us why you even think it is relevant.

Firstly, no one TRULY knows when the NT gospels were written, we just rely on scholarly opinion. They say that Mark is the first gospel because its short, they date it to about 70 AD because they said it mentions the destruction of the temple. But we don't know that as a fact. . .The first fragment of Mark that we have dates to 200 AD. . .No one know if the whole of Mark was written in 200 AD which is actually very possible. . .Scholars who happen to be mostly christians say that Mark was written about 40-50 years after the death of Jesus. We do not know that to be true, since the first fragment from the book of Mark was from over 200 years later. . .We do not have the original Mark any where, no one knows what it is or what it looks like. . .No one knows if the fragment we have and the reconstruction that has passed on to us by the church fathers are the same. . .No one knows. . .Even the quotation of the church fathers and the books we have now are not the same. . .

It is the argument you are trying to make from the quote that makes me pity you. If you cannot trust history because of the nature of history itself, then you really have no case in this debate because that is exactly what we are arguing.

Its you that has no case, you are the one trying to insist that the bible is true, when reality has shown that it is not. . .Ancient history is NOT reliable. The bible is pure fiction and mythology,just like any other religious document from that time period. . .

It is just like someone saying that the "field of science isn't fact but intelligent guesses on how the physical reality works therefore we cannot really trust it" Such a person has effectively lost any scientific case he wants to make thereafter because he has essentially thrown science under the bus and therefore cannot proceed to argue that any scientific statements he brings up are indeed true statements.

False, you keep making childish comparisons. . .Science can be tested. . .History can not. . .So you analogy falls flat. . .You keep insinuating about ancient history being reliable when historians themselves do not even make that claim. . .When the gospels were written fiction and reality were not separated. . .Ancient history is not reliable as acknowledged by historian, I wonder what you are on about. . .The bible does NOT pass the test of reality because most of what it reports dwell mostly in the realm of mythology and fiction. . .If the bible is true then YOU should be able to demonstrate it after all Jesus Promised YOU the ability to demonstrate its truth as long as you believe in him. . .If its true and since you are a believer then you should be able to demonstrate it. . .Period. . .The fact that NO believer on earth can demonstrate it means its false. .Simple. . .

That's arguing from silence still. For instance if I told you that "in Logicboy's house yesterday, he told Deep Sight that thehomer likes blue shirts"
The information has been passed. The fact that I didn't start by saying that "I was in Logicboy's house and...." is not proof that I wasn't there. In fact without me saying anything about where I was, it can be naturally assumed that either I was there or I heard it from someone who was there.
To make an argument that I was not in Logicboy's house is simply arguing from silence (i.e making my silence mean whatever you want it to mean)

The problem is that we just assume that the writer was an eye witness. . .The gospels were written in 3rd person narrative. . .People who witness events do not mostly write in 3rd person narrative. . .

Please read the verses again and read the article again too.

The article is a joke, the writer was just giving his opinion and trying to form his own gospel, its really laughable. . .He keeps saying things like maybe the writer of Mark only concentrated on one of the angels that spoke while the writer of John talked about the two angles. . .But the writer of Mark does not even mention an angle, he wrote that the women saw a man who told them that Jesus had risen. . .They are NOT the same. . .No matter how the guy tries to wriggle out of it. . .A man and two angles are NOT the same. . .Its reconstruction falls flat and is very ridiculous and dishonest. . .

Point of correction, most scholars say that Matthew referenced Mark not copied Mark

Nope, most scholars agree that Matthew copied Mark not referenced him. . .There is evidence that he copied because the words in Mark are found word for word in Mathew. . .Matthew was copied from Mark and the Q document that scholars talk about

Lol, interesting sneak in the ad hominem "any honest reader who reads this can see...." Interpretation: "If you don't agree with my claim, you are dishonest."
My friend, I don't see the interpolation you are seeing. I only see an author switching from singular to plural in reference to the community he was writing to. What should he have written?

"This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. I know that his testimony is true??"

Firstly, this reading is ridiculous. . .If the writer wants people to know that he wrote it and is attesting to it. . .It will never read like that. . .It will simply read, I am John the disciple of Jesus, I witnessed these things and my report is true. . .Simple. . .

Even if I granted (though I am not) that it was an interpolation added by some mischievous chap and so we removed the problematic later part of that verse. Isn't "This is the disciple who testifies these things and who wrote them down." enough evidence of eyewitness testimony for you? Remember he was writing to a community he is familiar with who would know it was him writing by the things he said of himself. Similar to how one of my friends could choose not to write his name in a letter but refer to himself as "the guy that trashes you in chess". Or do you want him to say "I, Okeke Okafor solemnly swear..." Na court document im dey write? I keep showing you how irrational you are being.

Paul that wrote his name at the beginning of some of his letters, nko?. . .Wasn't he writing to people that already knew him?. . .Firstly the author does NOT describe who he is anywhere. . .No one can know who the author was just from reading the gospel of John. . .So your claim about people knowing him or familiar with him is very false. . .No where does the writer reveal anything about himself in the story. . .He was just writing a story about Jesus. . .Every thing you have stated is your own making. . .Please show how any body can identify the writer or know anything about him just by reading the book of John. . .The whole sentence is an interpolation. . .You keep bringing false analogies. . .When writing an informal letter you must write your name. . .Even if I am sending you and email my name will appear on it to show that its me. . .A friend who trashes you in chess?. . .What is that. . .Who has ever addressed himself that way in reality. . When I was in sec school, I wrote letters to my mum and i ended it by writing my name, its standard procedure every where. . .You keep exposing yourself as a joke. . .If the writer wanted people to know him he would simply state his name. . .After all Paul still stated his name when writing to people that new him, people whom he called them by name in some of his letters. . .You have no point here. . .

Lol, he has done it again, please what are we arguing? the date when the works were written or the date of the earliest surviving copies. Please don't confuse the two.

No one knows when the complete documents were written. . .We do not have the complete writing of Mark any where in the first century. . .No church father quotes Mark any where in the first century. . .The gospels as we have them today are reconstructions. . . .We have fragments here and there and we were later presented with whole books by the church fathers. . .The originals do not exist any where. . No one knows when the originals were written or where they were written. . .

What exactly does that explain? How does it show that John presented a different Christ??

Many scholars believe that the synoptic gospels share the same point of view and are clearly linked. John is not one of them. . .

Please cite the hadiths and Luke and let's do a comparative analysis. Don't just drop words about.

What is this. .Compare the Sahih Al-Bukhari and Luke. . .Both report mythology as far as reality is concerned. . .

Hahaha, Just come out and say it already. The reason you don't believe in the historicity of the NT is only because you don't believe in the resurrection simple. Because the New testament passes your tests in flying colors. You only reject it based on your Naturalistic bias nothing more.

I reject it because, the stories were just made up to create a new religion. . .The new testament does not pass my test at all. . .How can I believe stories based on hear say by people who did not even identify themselves. . .

Wrong.
Koine Greek (Greek Ελληνιστική Κοινή, "common Greek", or κοινή διάλεκτος "the common dialect" is the popular form of Greek which emerged in post-Classical antiquity (c.300 BC – AD 300). Other names are Alexandrian, Hellenistic, Patristic, Common, Biblical or New Testament Greek. Original names were koine, Hellenic, Alexandrian and Macedonian (Macedonic);[1][2] all on the contrast to Attic dialect. Koine was the first common supra-regional dialect in Greece and came to serve as a lingua franca for the eastern Mediterranean and ancient Near East throughout the Roman period. It was also the original language of the New Testament of the Christian Bible and of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament).[3] Koine is the main ancestor of modern Greek.
http://wiki.phantis.com/index.php/Koine_Greek

OK. . .

Scores you no points. Plus the writer of John's gospel was an eyewitness.

Interpolation says the writer is an eyewitness. . .Writer does not make that claim any where. . .How do you know from the gospel alone that the writes name was John?. . .

Where is the quote you are talking about?

Here's an example for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg-dJA3SnTA

Watch this video Barth Erman cites numerous examples, its very long, but he cites many examples of how some of the quotations of the early church father differ from the manuscripts we have now. . .

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." "the only begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father ..."(Iraneaus quoting John 1:18 in Against Heresies III:11:6),

Some of their quotations are similar many others very different. . examples were given in the video above. . .


I never said that you said that Christ didn't exist. I have also asked you to present the hadiths for comparison

And with this you have shown that you don't know what you are talking about. If you accuse the Church Fathers of conspiracy and deception, you have implied that you know they had malicious motives for their actions. To now turn around and deny knowledge of their motives, you immediately debunk your own theory.

Power was their motive. . .From some of their writings we can see it clearly. . .the early church fathers took the Christian Church from being a proliferation of little localized extended families and made it instead into a worldwide hierarchical religious corporation for personal gain. . . .They wanted people to revere them and exalt them as the church elders. . .Here are some of their quotes. . .

Ignatius - Bishop of Antioch AD 110

To the Ephesians:

"Your REVEREND presbytery is tuned to the Bishop as strings to a lyre...Let us be careful not to resist the Bishop, that through our submission to the Bishop we may belong to God...We should regard the Bishop as the Lord Himself..."

To the Trallians:

"...respect the Bishop as the counterpart of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and the college of the Apostles: without those no church is recognized."

To the Smyrneans:

"Let no-one do anything that pertains to the church apart from the Bishop...it is not permitted to baptize or hold a love-feast independently of the Bishop. But whatever he approves, that is also well pleasing to God."


Clement of Rome, in his epistle to the Corinthian Church in AD 95, wrote:

"The high priest has been given his own special services, the priests have been assigned their own place, and the Levites have their special ministrations enjoined on them. The layman is bound by the ordinances of the laity."

Irenaeus - Bishop of Lyons:

"By knowledge of the truth we mean: the teaching of the Apostles: the order of the church as established from the earliest times throughout the world: the distinctive stamp of the Body of Christ preserved through the episcopal (bishops) succession: for to the Bishops the Apostles committed the care of the church which is in each place, which has come down to our time, safeguarded without any written documents."

Clearly it could be seen from their writings that perpetuating the Jesus story will give them power and make them rule over others. . .

Once again, cite the sources and let us compare

What do you want to compare?. . .The hadith from Abdullah bin Masud reads. . .We were along with God's Messenger at Mina, that moon was split up into two. One of its parts was behind the mountain and the other one was on this side of the mountain. God's Messenger said to us: Bear witness to this 039:6725. . .

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 208:
Narrated by Anas bin Malik
The people of Mecca asked Allah's Apostle to show them a miracle. So he showed them the moon split in two halves between which they saw the Hiram' mountain.
He also told me that this is confirmed in the Quran:

"The Hour has come near, and the moon has split [in two]." 54:1


Mohammed was a real historical figure, so should we believe this because his companions said so?. . .The Jesus story is NO different from the Mohammed story, they are all ancient myths whose events happened only in the pages of story books and not in reality. . .They are fictitious. . .

But in order for them to meet, they must already have a binding purpose which is Christ. This would mean that the gospel of Christ was already known to them beforehand. Do you think people living thousands of miles away from one another simply wake up one morning and decide to form creeds? Your conspiracy theory is failing badly sir.

.........to be continued

Not true. . .The church fathers gave us the gospels. . .They named the gospels, they choose only 4 out of the many other writings based on their personal reasons. . .They formed the church traditions. . .The chose the books that made it to the cannon, they presented us with this books. . .Threw others away and chose others. . .The meet and corresponded with each other regularly. . .They wrote about each other and promoted each other very strongly as well. . .They formed all the creeds. . .So i really do not know what you are talking about. . .

davidylan:

this right here is a classic example of the flippant dishonesty that riddles your long tomes. I might mispell "Lagos" as "Logos"... that has nothing to do with getting the geographical location of "Lagos" wrong. Clearly your argument was weak, anony took you to task and you have chosen to weasel your way out with laughable histrionics.

Any body that knows Lagos and is from Lagos can not misspell it at such a level. . .Mark did not not just misspell he just formed a different name. . .something that is very common with some one that does not have complete knowledge of the place. . .My position was to show that the writers of the gospels did not know Jesus or have ever meet him. .

Mr anony: ....continuation


Erhm Mazaje, I think you have just quoted Justin Martyr completely out of context. Maybe you went to some website somewhere and lapped that up without even bothering to investigate it's source at all. The Second Apology of Justin Martyr was written to the Roman Senate to protest the persecution Christians were going through under Quintus Lollius Urbicus. It had nothing to do with responding to any such arguments as you claim.

Here is a link to the full document. Read it and tell us how your theory fits in
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0127.htm

Here also is the immediate surrounding context for the passage you presented. Please tell me again how it even remotely fits your thesis.

For I myself, too, when I was delighting in the doctrines of Plato, and heard the Christians slandered, and saw them fearless of death, and of all other-things which are counted fearful, perceived that it was impossible that they could be living in wickedness and pleasure. For what sensual or intemperate man, or who that counts it good to feast on human flesh, could welcome death that he might be deprived of his enjoyments, and would not rather continue always the present life, and attempt to escape the observation of the rulers; and much less would he denounce himself when the consequence would be death? This also the wicked demons have now caused to be done by evil men. For having put some to death on account of the accusations falsely brought against us, they also dragged to the torture our domestics, either children or weak women, and by dreadful torments forced them to admit those fabulous actions which they themselves openly perpetrate; about which we are the less concerned, because none of these actions are really ours, and we have the unbegotten and ineffable God as witness both of our thoughts and deeds. For why did we not even publicly profess that these were the things which we esteemed good, and prove that these are the divine philosophy, saying that the mysteries of Saturn are performed when we slay a man, and that when we drink our fill of blood, as it is said we do, we are doing what you do before that idol you honour, and on which you sprinkle the blood not only of irrational animals, but also of men, making a libation of the blood of the slain by the hand of the most illustrious and noble man among you? And imitating Jupiter and the other gods in sodomy and shameless intercourse with woman, might we not bring as our apology the writings of Epicurus and the poets? But because we persuade men to avoid such instruction, and all who practise them and imitate such examples, as now in this discourse we have striven to persuade you, we are assailed in every kind of way. But we are not concerned, since we know that God is a just observer of all. But would that even now some one would mount a lofty rostrum, and shout with a loud voice; "Be ashamed, be ashamed, you who charge the guiltless with those deeds which yourselves openly could commit, and ascribe things which apply to yourselves and to your gods to those who have not even the slightest sympathy with them. Be converted; become wise."

For I myself, when I discovered tile wicked disguise which the evil spirits had thrown around the divine doctrines of the Christians, to turn aside others from joining them, laughed both at those who framed these falsehoods, and at the disguise itself and at popular opinion and I confess that I both boast and with all my strength strive to be found a Christian; not because the teachings of Plato are different from those of Christ, but because they are not in all respects similar, as neither are those of the others, Stoics, and poets, and historians. For each man spoke well in proportion to the share he had of the spermatic word, seeing what was related to it. But they who contradict themselves on the more important points appear not to have possessed the heavenly wisdom, and the knowledge which cannot be spoken against. Whatever things were rightly said among all men, are the property of us Christians. For next to God, we worship and love the Word who is from the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also He became man for our sakes, that becoming a partaker of our sufferings, He might also bring us healing. For all the writers were able to see realities darkly through the sowing of the implanted word that was in them. For the seed and imitation impacted according to capacity is one thing, and quite another is the thing itself, of which there is the participation and imitation according to the grace which is from Him.

And we therefore pray you to publish this little book, appending what you think right, that our opinions may he known to others, and that these persons may have a fair chalice of being freed from erroneous notions and ignorance of good, who by their own fault have become subject to punishment; that so these things may be published to men, because it is in the nature of man to know good and evil; and by their condemning us, whom they do not understand, for actions which they say are wicked, and by delighting in the gods who did such things, and even now require similar actions from men, and by inflicting on us death or bonds or some other such punishment, as if we were guilty of these things, they condemn themselves, so that there is no need of other judges.

False. . .From wikipedia it says. . .The Second apology was to expose the real reasons behind the recent persecutions of christians under Urbicus. It also tried to expose the allegations and propaganda spread against the christians. . . .The part I quoted was in response to some of the allegations. . .

Here is more from him. . .From his first apology. . .

Ch. 21

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

Similar to above, Justin Martyr compares the birth of Jesus and his status as the "Word of God' to that of Mercury, who was also born in a similar way and who was also the "Word of God." He goes on to compare the crucifixion with the lives of the sons of Jupiter, which were on par according to him. Finally concluding by comparing the birth of Jesus with Perseus, and his miracles with that of Aesculapius.

Ch. 22

And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated.

And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.

Ch 24.

In the first place [we furnish proof], because, t[b]hough we say things similar to what the Greeks say, we only are hated on account of the name of Christ[/b], and though we do no wrong, are put to death as sinners

Edited to add more quotes form Justin Martyr. . .The stories of Jesus are not uniquely christian as attested by Justin Martyr who is one of the early Church Fathers" figures in orthodox christianity who contributed to the key doctrines, beliefs, and history of the christian faith. . . . .

From first apologia. . .

Diabolical Mimicry

For having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come, and that the ungodly among men were to be punished by fire, [wicked demons] put forward many to be called sons of Jupiter, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things which were said with regard to Christ were mere marvelous tales, like the things which were said by the poets.

The devils... said that Bacchus was the son of Jupiter, and gave out that he was the discoverer of the vine, and they number wine among his mysteries; and they taught that, having been torn in pieces, he ascended into heaven. (Referring to Jesus turning water to wine as Dionysus, or Bacchus, did 600 years earlier.)

[The devils] gave out that Bellerophon, a man born of man, himself ascended to heaven on his horse Pegasus. (Reference to Jesus riding into town on an ass.)

And when [the devils] heard it said by the other prophet Isaiah, that He should be born of a virgin, and by His own means ascend into heaven, they pretended that Perseus was spoken of. (Reference to Perseus being born of a virgin before Jesus.)

And when, again, [the devils] learned that it had been foretold that He should heal every sickness, and raise the dead, they produced Aesculapius. (Reference to virtually all of the miracles of Jesus being copies of Aesculapius.)

Be specific. Which writing of Tacitus in particular versus which gospel in particular? I want us to do a comparative analysis.

The writings of Tacitus begings with standard introduction. . .Non of the gospels author even claims to be anything. . .The four gospel accounts are just a mish mash of contradictions. . .

Erhm. . . .You are wrong sir. It appears in both the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus in Matthew, Luke, John and Acts. It only doesn't appear in Mark.

False. . .It appears in the later versions of Mark. . .The earliest manuscripts of Mark does not have it. . .It was a later addition. . .

Sorry with regards to Justin Martyr here are the full quotes from his work. . .It is from his first apologia. . .I got it wrong. . .

Here is it. . .

From the first apologia. . .

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound NOTHING DIFFERENT from WHAT YOU BELIEVE regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know. (Justin Martyrs First Apology)

He is telling the roman rulers that what the christians believe in is nothing different than what the Roman pagans believe in, that Jupiter who is one of their gods also had sons, making them sons of god. Justin then goes on to mention other beliefs of these Roman pagans of people ascending into heaven just like Jesus did etc.

First apologia. . .

Diabolical Mimicry

For having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come, and that the ungodly among men were to be punished by fire, [wicked demons] put forward many to be called sons of Jupiter, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things which were said with regard to Christ were mere marvelous tales, like the things which were said by the poets.

The devils... said that Bacchus was the son of Jupiter, and gave out that he was the discoverer of the vine, and they number wine among his mysteries; and they taught that, having been torn in pieces, he ascended into heaven. (Referring to Jesus turning water to wine as Dionysus, or Bacchus, did 600 years earlier.)

[The devils] gave out that Bellerophon, a man born of man, himself ascended to heaven on his horse Pegasus. (Reference to Jesus riding into town on an ass.)

And when [the devils] heard it said by the other prophet Isaiah, that He should be born of a virgin, and by His own means ascend into heaven, they pretended that Perseus was spoken of. (Reference to Perseus being born of a virgin before Jesus.)

And when, again, [the devils] learned that it had been foretold that He should heal every sickness, and raise the dead, they produced Aesculapius. (Reference to virtually all of the miracles of Jesus being copies of Aesculapius.)

Mimicry of Baptism

And the devils, indeed, having heard this washing [baptism] published by the prophet, instigated those who enter their temples, and are about to approach them with libations and burnt-offerings, also to sprinkle themselves.


Mimicry of Eucharist

Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

These pagan religions all came first. Justin Martyr is not claiming that they copied Christianity after Jesus came, but that "wicked devils" knew ahead of time of Jesus' coming, and thus set up pre-copies of Christianity.

He makes reference to virtually every rite and doctrine found within Christianity - baptism, Eucharist, virgin birth, crucifixion, water into wine, resurrection. . . .

My point still remains that the christian story and doctrine is not uniquely christian since. . .If Jesus was bron of a virgin according to the stories written then Perseus too was also born of a virgin according to stories written about him. . .

@OP

Your video is a ridiculous attempt at discrediting Christianity, as there are several obvious unanswered questions. Moreover, I find it even more disturbing at the continuous distortion of well known facts.

1. Christianity is based solely on the faith in Christ, serving as the foundation and end of man's relationship with God, outside of which is eternal damnation.

2. Christ did NOT jump from the sky, make 12 disciples and proclaim a new religion. Instead, His coming was foretold and as a matter of fact, He was being expected. This expectation only had different connotations for different persons. They all expected a messiah but lacked the understanding to understand the implication of the coming of the messiah.

3. The coming of Christ and spread of Christianity is only a continuation of the divine plan of revealing the God head to creation. While for thousands of years as depicted in the old testament, the Father was revealed. The father in turn revealed the son through prophets, prophecies of a messiah and His eventual death and Resurrection. The son in turn revealed the spirit as the third person in the Godhead and a complete revelation of God.

4. According to the analysis in your video, what would 12 disciples gain in losing their lives, their families, income and become ostracized, considering that they made no monetary gain from the preaching of the gospels? These men could only have been motivated by a more powerful force beyond the realm of the physical, something called FAITH.

5. Read through the book of Mathew yesterday and it stuck me that Christ actually had only one message, which was that the kingdom of God and harvest of human souls had come, for which there are two destinations, heaven with God or eternal damnation in hell fire. It also stuck me that this message is lost in the prosperity gospel and atheistic debates that presently dominate the world.

So where are you headed, heaven or hell?

noetic16: @OP

Your video is a ridiculous attempt at discrediting Christianity, as there are several obvious unanswered questions. Moreover, I find it even more disturbing at the continuous distortion of well known facts.

1. Christianity is based solely on the faith in Christ, serving as the foundation and end of man's relationship with God, outside of which is eternal damnation.

2. Christ did NOT jump from the sky, make 12 disciples and proclaim a new religion. Instead, His coming was foretold and as a matter of fact, He was being expected. This expectation only had different connotations for different persons. They all expected a messiah but lacked the understanding to understand the implication of the coming of the messiah.

3. The coming of Christ and spread of Christianity is only a continuation of the divine plan of revealing the God head to creation. While for thousands of years as depicted in the old testament, the Father was revealed. The father in turn revealed the son through prophets, prophecies of a messiah and His eventual death and Resurrection. The son in turn revealed the spirit as the third person in the Godhead and a complete revelation of God.

4. According to the analysis in your video, what would 12 disciples gain in losing their lives, their families, income and become ostracized, considering that they made no monetary gain from the preaching of the gospels? These men could only have been motivated by a more powerful force beyond the realm of the physical, something called FAITH.

5. Read through the book of Mathew yesterday and it stuck me that Christ actually had only one message, which was that the kingdom of God and harvest of human souls had come, for which there are two destinations, heaven with God or eternal damnation in hell fire. It also stuck me that this message is lost in the prosperity gospel and atheistic debates that presently dominate the world.

So where are you headed, heaven or hell?

MUMU. Another programmed sheeple exposed. You dont even know when sarcasm is being used. For your info man, that video up there is purporting to show how christianity is actually genuine. Dunce

noetic16: @OP

Your video is a ridiculous attempt at discrediting Christianity, as there are several obvious unanswered questions. Moreover, I find it even more disturbing at the continuous distortion of well known facts.

1. Christianity is based solely on the faith in Christ, serving as the foundation and end of man's relationship with God, outside of which is eternal damnation.

2. Christ did NOT jump from the sky, make 12 disciples and proclaim a new religion. Instead, His coming was foretold and as a matter of fact, He was being expected. This expectation only had different connotations for different persons. They all expected a messiah but lacked the understanding to understand the implication of the coming of the messiah.

3. The coming of Christ and spread of Christianity is only a continuation of the divine plan of revealing the God head to creation. While for thousands of years as depicted in the old testament, the Father was revealed. The father in turn revealed the son through prophets, prophecies of a messiah and His eventual death and Resurrection. The son in turn revealed the spirit as the third person in the Godhead and a complete revelation of God.

4. According to the analysis in your video, what would 12 disciples gain in losing their lives, their families, income and become ostracized, considering that they made no monetary gain from the preaching of the gospels? These men could only have been motivated by a more powerful force beyond the realm of the physical, something called FAITH.

5. Read through the book of Mathew yesterday and it stuck me that Christ actually had only one message, which was that the kingdom of God and harvest of human souls had come, for which there are two destinations, heaven with God or eternal damnation in hell fire. It also stuck me that this message is lost in the prosperity gospel and atheistic debates that presently dominate the world.

So where are you headed, heaven or hell?

MUMU. Another programmed sheeple exposed. You dont even know when sarcasm is being used. For your info man, that video up there is purporting to show how christianity is actually genuine. Dunce

Mr Troll: MUMU. Another programmed sheeple exposed. You dont even know when sarcasm is being used. For your info man, that video up there is purporting to show how christianity is actually genuine. Dunce

Senior MUMU, I am unable to differentiate between sarcasm and originality on nairaland, considering the level of intellectual backwardness that I have seen displayed here by many anti-Christian bashers / atheists. None the less, my comments stand.

noetic16:

Senior MUMU, I am unable to differentiate between sarcasm and originality on nairaland, considering the level of intellectual backwardness that I have seen displayed here by many anti-Christian bashers / atheists. None the less, my comments stand.

kai! Your mumu knows no bounds!
You're unable to differentiate because you lack the intellectual capacity to do so. It has nothing to do with any nairalander. I'm sure you just saw the topic and all your thinking faculties closed up, your mumu sheeple minset kicked in and you couldn't reason anymore(that is if you do on a normal day). The OP, mr anony is a christian but I'm sure even if you knew that your mumu sheeple brain would still fail to make the connection.
Of course your comments still stand. You no be mumu again?





@Anony, see why you need to organise an entry level tutorial for your brethren?