Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
And you should copy and paste from GMark exactly what is fictional and detail how you know that it is. Thanks.
-
Features
120 Reasons to Reject Christianity
- Thread starter kyroot
- Start date
lpetrich
Contributor
As to what the Arians believed, 
Ulfilas includes the Creed of Ulfilas:
To many of us, Arianism and Trinitarianism may seem much alike, but to Trinitarian theologians, Arianism was a terrible evil, one that should be stamped out.
Ulfilas includes the Creed of Ulfilas:So they believed in a hierarchy instead of Trinity coequality: Father > Son > Holy Spirit, with the Father having created the Son and the Son having created our Universe.
To many of us, Arianism and Trinitarianism may seem much alike, but to Trinitarian theologians, Arianism was a terrible evil, one that should be stamped out.
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 12,309
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
And vice versa. To an Arian, trinitarian theology sounds a lot like the shirk of Islam; dividing up that which should be seen as the inviolable unity of God. Where, in the other direction, trinitarians believed that in denying the equal divinity of Christ, Arians were defying a part of God himself and were in peril of falling outside of his salvific grace. How can you accept into your heart a God whom you reject a major aspect? Houses divided against themselves, etc.As to what the Arians believed,
So they believed in a hierarchy instead of Trinity coequality: Father > Son > Holy Spirit, with the Father having created the Son and the Son having created our Universe.
To many of us, Arianism and Trinitarianism may seem much alike, but to Trinitarian theologians, Arianism was a terrible evil, one that should be stamped out.
There was an ethnoreligious undercurrent to the whole thing, with some Christians coming from the strictly monotheistic background of 1st c. Judaism, and others coming from the pluralistic intellectual environment of the Greeks. The whole notion of (ineffable) father/(incarnate) son/holy spirit makes more intuitive sense to you if you already believe as did the Greeks that everyone is a composite of mind/body/spirit.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,579
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
You are proving that there were really no early Christian Church bookburnings, with your phony quotes.
If there was really any evidence for the bookburnings, from legitimate sources of the time, you would have quoted from them. You have not quoted from them because they don't exist.
Individual Christian converts in 35 or 40 AD, spontaneously burning their books on divination, has little to do with this topic. It has nothing to do with the Church banning pagan or heresy books. The divination books were about incantations and sorcery and dark magic rituals, which gained a bad reputation because they sometimes used dangerous substances and caused injuries to the participants.
No he did not issue any such edict ordering any bookburnings. You're quoting from a modern author only. There is no legitimate source for the quote you're giving here.
And all the allegations farther down (about the early Church, before 1000 or so) are just more propaganda from modern authors only, not based on original sources near the time of the alleged events.
Your source for this is the only place where this quote can be found. There is no source for the entire edict, or decree, by Constantine, or for finding this quote anywhere but at this one page. There is no other reference to it anywhere to confirm that such an edict existed.
This Website you're citing needs to explain where this Constantine quote came from.
The page in question cites Athanasius, "Defence of the Nicene Definition" 39. This is the only source given for this Decree by Constantine against Arian.
But the Decree, or quote from it, is not there -- your citation claims it's on page 39. You can see below that there is a condemnation of the Arian teachings, but no order to destroy books.
Here is page 39 of this Athanasius document:
The bolded text is the closest to anything in your quote above. There is no other source given for this Constantine Decree against Arian except the above Athanasius document, which presumably referred to the Decree. But it does not.
If there is a real source for this Decree by Constantine, condemning Arianism and ordering his books to be destroyed, then so be it. But the above quote does not have a source from any document that we can check.
Unless there is a real source for it, giving the whole document, like we have for the Athanasius document, https://www.elpenor.org/athanasius/defence-nicene-definition.asp , there is no way to verify that this quote is authentic.
E.g., the following gives the complete text of Constantine's Edict of Milan: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/edict-milan.asp
There are several sites giving this Edict, but there doesn't seem to be any giving the Decree against Arian, if there was such a Decree. If so, it doesn't seem to exist now. There is no verification that your above quote is authentic. It claims to be from the Athanasius document, but it is not. It is probably fraudulent, unless there's a real source provided for it. Your cited website does not say where it is taken from, other than falsely attributing it to Athanasius, as though he quotes from it in his document, which he does not.
Pagels is lying (about destroying the writings). There is no source for this. You must demand the source, then look it up and read the original document yourself. You cannot trust a modern debunker-crusader to quote it accurately. There is no excuse why your debunker-guru should not give you the original source for you to check. You do not have to trust this kind of modern source only, claiming an earlier source but not providing it.
Nestorius and his doctrine were condemned, but there's no legitimate source for claims that his writings were burned.
The above footnote says nothing to justify anything about bringing "fire" to these or any other writings. It is an extremely long Wall of Text which might have something relevant buried deep in it somewhere, but unless you can find it, there's no basis for citing this as evidence of any Christian bookburnings. It's mostly modern text, not from an ancient source, but it cites something from the 13th century, which is not a good source for 5th-century Church persecution of heretics, even if there is something about it from the 13th century source.
The reliance on non-sources such as this is virtual proof that there is no legitimate evidence for bookburnings by the early Church, up to 1000 AD. Somewhere after 800 or 900 and beyond, some such events began to happen. But there are no cases of anything destroyed which originated in the earlier centuries, near the origin of the Christ cults, and casting any doubt on the Gospel accounts. The bookburnings which finally happened were about heresies or dissident movements arising after 1000 AD, not about the early Church period.
There's no legitimate source given for this. The 2 notes are from a modern author, citing no ancient source, and from Gibbon, who does not say anything about this, though he too is not early enough and would have to give us his earlier source in order for it to be legitimate.
This and the following is irrelevant because it is past the early Church period. Bookburnings began somewhere during these centuries. No early writings were destroyed which were relevant to the 1st-century events, about the Jesus events, and the origin of the Christ cults and their spread.
That's a lie for which you have no source from the period.
Fear that they might be stolen or damaged or destroyed is not evidence that there were organized bookburnings taking place.
You've given no citation here quoting anything from the time of the alleged bookburnings.
Yes, after 1400 or so, there were some Church bookburnings. But none during the first few centuries. You've given nothing above showing any quotes from early when the alleged events happened. Except the one Constantine Decree, which apparently is fraudulent, unless you can show where this Decree is available for us to check.
Instead of compiling a list of examples which are all phony, why don't you give just one, based on writings from the time, showing that any books were destroyed.
All you can offer is the one quote from Acts when some of Paul's converts burned their books on divination. Other than that you have no evidence of such things from the early church period. Those quotes from modern authors are lies, about Athanasius and Constantine ordering books to be burned. You have no sources saying this which are dated from those times.
There are many documents and writings from them, and the Council of Nicea decrees, etc., and the canonical books listed by Athanasius. But there's nothing in all those documents ordering any writings to be destroyed. You've not quoted from any of them. Their writings are available, but you have not read them.
Find them and read them for yourself instead of just quoting from your modern debunker-guru-crusader-fanatics who are lying.
A wiki page is not good enough if it does not quote from the original document and we cannot check the quote to see if it's authentic, i.e., if it does not give you the reference to the relevant quote so you can read it yourself. Virtually all those writings are available online. There's no bookburning stuff in any of the original sources, but only modern church-debunker-pundits pretending to have original sources but not offering us those sources so we can read it firsthand.
If there was really any evidence for the bookburnings, from legitimate sources of the time, you would have quoted from them. You have not quoted from them because they don't exist.
Individual Christian converts in 35 or 40 AD, spontaneously burning their books on divination, has little to do with this topic. It has nothing to do with the Church banning pagan or heresy books. The divination books were about incantations and sorcery and dark magic rituals, which gained a bad reputation because they sometimes used dangerous substances and caused injuries to the participants.
No he did not issue any such edict ordering any bookburnings. You're quoting from a modern author only. There is no legitimate source for the quote you're giving here.
And all the allegations farther down (about the early Church, before 1000 or so) are just more propaganda from modern authors only, not based on original sources near the time of the alleged events.
Your source for this is the only place where this quote can be found. There is no source for the entire edict, or decree, by Constantine, or for finding this quote anywhere but at this one page. There is no other reference to it anywhere to confirm that such an edict existed.
I personally am willing to pay a $100 donation to this website if anyone can turn up the Constantine Decree against Arian which contains the above quoted text.
This Website you're citing needs to explain where this Constantine quote came from.
The page in question cites Athanasius, "Defence of the Nicene Definition" 39. This is the only source given for this Decree by Constantine against Arian.
But the Decree, or quote from it, is not there -- your citation claims it's on page 39. You can see below that there is a condemnation of the Arian teachings, but no order to destroy books.
Here is page 39 of this Athanasius document:
The bolded text is the closest to anything in your quote above. There is no other source given for this Constantine Decree against Arian except the above Athanasius document, which presumably referred to the Decree. But it does not.
If there is a real source for this Decree by Constantine, condemning Arianism and ordering his books to be destroyed, then so be it. But the above quote does not have a source from any document that we can check.
Unless there is a real source for it, giving the whole document, like we have for the Athanasius document, https://www.elpenor.org/athanasius/defence-nicene-definition.asp , there is no way to verify that this quote is authentic.
E.g., the following gives the complete text of Constantine's Edict of Milan: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/edict-milan.asp
There are several sites giving this Edict, but there doesn't seem to be any giving the Decree against Arian, if there was such a Decree. If so, it doesn't seem to exist now. There is no verification that your above quote is authentic. It claims to be from the Athanasius document, but it is not. It is probably fraudulent, unless there's a real source provided for it. Your cited website does not say where it is taken from, other than falsely attributing it to Athanasius, as though he quotes from it in his document, which he does not.
Pagels is lying (about destroying the writings). There is no source for this. You must demand the source, then look it up and read the original document yourself. You cannot trust a modern debunker-crusader to quote it accurately. There is no excuse why your debunker-guru should not give you the original source for you to check. You do not have to trust this kind of modern source only, claiming an earlier source but not providing it.
Nestorius and his doctrine were condemned, but there's no legitimate source for claims that his writings were burned.
The above footnote says nothing to justify anything about bringing "fire" to these or any other writings. It is an extremely long Wall of Text which might have something relevant buried deep in it somewhere, but unless you can find it, there's no basis for citing this as evidence of any Christian bookburnings. It's mostly modern text, not from an ancient source, but it cites something from the 13th century, which is not a good source for 5th-century Church persecution of heretics, even if there is something about it from the 13th century source.
The reliance on non-sources such as this is virtual proof that there is no legitimate evidence for bookburnings by the early Church, up to 1000 AD. Somewhere after 800 or 900 and beyond, some such events began to happen. But there are no cases of anything destroyed which originated in the earlier centuries, near the origin of the Christ cults, and casting any doubt on the Gospel accounts. The bookburnings which finally happened were about heresies or dissident movements arising after 1000 AD, not about the early Church period.
There's no legitimate source given for this. The 2 notes are from a modern author, citing no ancient source, and from Gibbon, who does not say anything about this, though he too is not early enough and would have to give us his earlier source in order for it to be legitimate.
This and the following is irrelevant because it is past the early Church period. Bookburnings began somewhere during these centuries. No early writings were destroyed which were relevant to the 1st-century events, about the Jesus events, and the origin of the Christ cults and their spread.
That's a lie for which you have no source from the period.
Some bragged about burning people. Do you think for a moment that they'd hesitate to burn anything that didn't reflect their own dogma, whatever that happened to be?
You should also read the Wiki article on the
Fear that they might be stolen or damaged or destroyed is not evidence that there were organized bookburnings taking place.
You've given no citation here quoting anything from the time of the alleged bookburnings.
Yes, after 1400 or so, there were some Church bookburnings. But none during the first few centuries. You've given nothing above showing any quotes from early when the alleged events happened. Except the one Constantine Decree, which apparently is fraudulent, unless you can show where this Decree is available for us to check.
Instead of compiling a list of examples which are all phony, why don't you give just one, based on writings from the time, showing that any books were destroyed.
All you can offer is the one quote from Acts when some of Paul's converts burned their books on divination. Other than that you have no evidence of such things from the early church period. Those quotes from modern authors are lies, about Athanasius and Constantine ordering books to be burned. You have no sources saying this which are dated from those times.
There are many documents and writings from them, and the Council of Nicea decrees, etc., and the canonical books listed by Athanasius. But there's nothing in all those documents ordering any writings to be destroyed. You've not quoted from any of them. Their writings are available, but you have not read them.
Find them and read them for yourself instead of just quoting from your modern debunker-guru-crusader-fanatics who are lying.
A wiki page is not good enough if it does not quote from the original document and we cannot check the quote to see if it's authentic, i.e., if it does not give you the reference to the relevant quote so you can read it yourself. Virtually all those writings are available online. There's no bookburning stuff in any of the original sources, but only modern church-debunker-pundits pretending to have original sources but not offering us those sources so we can read it firsthand.
Last edited:
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
When are you going to copy and paste from GMark exactly what is fictional and detail how you know that it is?
Don’t worry, we know you never will, because you can’t. It’s not possible. You know that as well, which is why you’re desperately avoiding it.
So, we know you’re full of shit and you know you’re full of shit, so what’s the point? There, I just gave you an out, so that you can further ignore having to copy and paste anything from GMark. Not that you needed it. You knew you’d just keep ignoring it and wait until someone else posted something you could rail against, etc.
Don’t worry. None of you can ever back up your rhetoric.
Don’t worry, we know you never will, because you can’t. It’s not possible. You know that as well, which is why you’re desperately avoiding it.
So, we know you’re full of shit and you know you’re full of shit, so what’s the point? There, I just gave you an out, so that you can further ignore having to copy and paste anything from GMark. Not that you needed it. You knew you’d just keep ignoring it and wait until someone else posted something you could rail against, etc.
Don’t worry. None of you can ever back up your rhetoric.
funinspace
Don't Panic
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2004
- Messages
- 4,204
- Location
- Oregon
- Gender
- Alien
- Basic Beliefs
- functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
'Legitimate' - another word Lumpy fails to grasp
Ah, poor Lumpy...sounds like the garbage you were spewing against the Mormons/Joseph Smith.
This very normative Christian site seems to have no issue with this being real history:
https://www.christianity.com/church...-600/theodosius-issued-an-edict-11629680.html
Sourcing for that Wiki link:
http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-33
Background on the Theodosian Code:
https://www.encyclopedia.com/people...te-roman-and-byzantine-biographies/theodosius
A review of the history of the Theodosian Code:
https://journals.openedition.org/mefra/1754
A more significant available translation of the Theodosian Code:
http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/Theodosian-Code.html
Ah, poor Lumpy...sounds like the garbage you were spewing against the Mormons/Joseph Smith.
This very normative Christian site seems to have no issue with this being real history:
https://www.christianity.com/church...-600/theodosius-issued-an-edict-11629680.html
Sourcing for that Wiki link:
http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-33
Background on the Theodosian Code:
https://www.encyclopedia.com/people...te-roman-and-byzantine-biographies/theodosius
A review of the history of the Theodosian Code:
https://journals.openedition.org/mefra/1754
A more significant available translation of the Theodosian Code:
http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/Theodosian-Code.html
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,579
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Your examples are evidence that there were no early Church bookburnings.
You desperately want there to be documented cases of early Church bookburnings, but you can't give us one example. Which is good evidence that they don't exist.
Nothing here or below indicates that Theodosius ordered any bookburnings, or books to be destroyed, or libraries burned.
The first link below is just a repeat of the site already given, which contains the fraudulent Constantine quote, claiming Athanasius p. 39 as a source for it. But the entire Athanasius document is available and does not contain the dubious quote or Constantine Decree against Arianism.
The last link above is very good. It prescribes harsh punishment of those disobeying the Theodosius order, and harsh suppression and banning of meetings. But no books to be destroyed -- nada -- zilch.
You're proving my point. You're not giving any quotes about bookburnings, because they don't exist. All there is are modern quotes from debunker-guru-pundits who give Jobar and others talking points, without documentation from early sources which could verify them.
We all know there was the persecution of heretics, etc. But there were no bookburnings ordered. There's no evidence from the period saying this.
If any of the above contained statements ordering bookburnings, you would quote it for us. Or if you found any statements from the time that the Church burned books, you would quote it. If you find anything, post it here for us, like Jobar above posted his false quotes. Only quote us something from a document that exists, written near the time of the events, which we can check for ourselves to verify that the quote is not fraudulent.
Again, the only Church bookburning for which there is any evidence was a library at Antioch in about 360, when a mob went wild. They were attacking a pagan temple, in which a library had recently been added, and some Greek philosophy writings were probably lost. It was not the library, but the temple which was targeted. The Christian emperor Jovian did not order the temple to be burned, but the original source from this, with some credibility, is ambiguous about the details of what happened.
The Church destroyed many pagan temples and statues and persecuted heretics. But there are no documented cases of libraries or books targeted by them, or bookburnings ordered.
You desperately want there to be documented cases of early Church bookburnings, but you can't give us one example. Which is good evidence that they don't exist.
Nothing here or below indicates that Theodosius ordered any bookburnings, or books to be destroyed, or libraries burned.
The first link below is just a repeat of the site already given, which contains the fraudulent Constantine quote, claiming Athanasius p. 39 as a source for it. But the entire Athanasius document is available and does not contain the dubious quote or Constantine Decree against Arianism.
The last link above is very good. It prescribes harsh punishment of those disobeying the Theodosius order, and harsh suppression and banning of meetings. But no books to be destroyed -- nada -- zilch.
You're proving my point. You're not giving any quotes about bookburnings, because they don't exist. All there is are modern quotes from debunker-guru-pundits who give Jobar and others talking points, without documentation from early sources which could verify them.
We all know there was the persecution of heretics, etc. But there were no bookburnings ordered. There's no evidence from the period saying this.
If any of the above contained statements ordering bookburnings, you would quote it for us. Or if you found any statements from the time that the Church burned books, you would quote it. If you find anything, post it here for us, like Jobar above posted his false quotes. Only quote us something from a document that exists, written near the time of the events, which we can check for ourselves to verify that the quote is not fraudulent.
Again, the only Church bookburning for which there is any evidence was a library at Antioch in about 360, when a mob went wild. They were attacking a pagan temple, in which a library had recently been added, and some Greek philosophy writings were probably lost. It was not the library, but the temple which was targeted. The Christian emperor Jovian did not order the temple to be burned, but the original source from this, with some credibility, is ambiguous about the details of what happened.
The Church destroyed many pagan temples and statues and persecuted heretics. But there are no documented cases of libraries or books targeted by them, or bookburnings ordered.
Last edited:
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
When will Lumpy ever copy and paste a section from GMark that he can explain is fictional?
Jobar
Zen Hedonist
"Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicaea. The burning of Arian books is illustrated below. Drawing on vellum. From MS CLXV, Biblioteca Capitolare, Vercelli, a compendium of canon law produced in northern Italy ca. 825."
Jobar
Zen Hedonist
Jobar
Zen Hedonist
Lumpy, a bit of browsing around the net shows that there are still Christians today who want to burn the books they don't like.
http://faithandheritage.com/2017/08/in-defense-of-book-burning/
(Cue up 'those aren't true Christians!' in 5, 4, 3...)
http://faithandheritage.com/2017/08/in-defense-of-book-burning/
(Cue up 'those aren't true Christians!' in 5, 4, 3...)
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
And you should copy and paste from GMark exactly what is fictional and detail how you know that it is. Thanks.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,579
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Your text above is modern, not from any early source.
This is a slight improvement over before. It looks like you're now admitting that the earlier Constantine Decree you quoted from the web page was fraudulent.
The above picture of Constantine, said to be from 825 AD, has Latin text which says nothing about bookburning. The translation given is:
"[of?] the synod of Nicaea [where the] number / of holy fathers [was] 318 [.] and all / subscribed."
"Constantine the emperor."
"Arian heretics condemned."
Not Arian books burned, but only the heretics condemned. We have to rely on the picture image, not the text, for the bookburning description.
Here's an interesting note from the publishers of this image:
This suggests that the original image could get modified. How do we know that this image is the original one discovered and has not been tampered with or photo-shopped?
All the websites about this image are statements about reproduction rights, and about it being in the public domain. There's no explanation where the date c. 825 comes from.
When was this artwork first discovered? Who dated it? Nothing is explained. Who are the art scholars who examined it and determined the date?
If it's all totally authentic, and it dates from 825, it increases the chance that Constantine burned books, although the 500-year time lapse decreases the credibility of this claim. We should have something earlier than that.
There is plenty of earlier evidence of him ordering temples and statues destroyed, of him and Athanasius condemning Arius and his works, etc. Nothing secret about that. So why nothing about bookburning other than an art piece 500 years later which shows bookburning (maybe?) but says nothing about this in the text?
This is not good evidence that there were bookburnings back in 300-400. If it can be authenticated, and if there are any other items like this, preferably 200-300 years earlier, you'd have a case. And the case is still weak as long as there is no early text anywhere saying Constantine or Theodosius ordered the destruction of books.
What's the point, even if there were evidence of bookburnings?
There is another major problem with claims that Constantine and Theodosius burned books. Which is that the only books they targeted were ones which themselves were Christian and which promoted the early Christ beliefs based on the Gospel accounts. E.g., Arius was a total believer in the miracles of Jesus we find in the Gospel accounts, and he is by far the most condemned of the heretics during these centuries.
There were no books or heresies condemned which gave any alternate gospels or which contradicted the Gospel accounts of the Jesus events. They were all condemned because of their incorrect INTERPRETATION of those events, not any denial of them, as if they promoted a different alternate "gospel" of some kind which had to be suppressed for contradicting the Gospel accounts.
So the persecution of heresies, and possible suppression of their writings, doesn't mean any evidence has been lost which would undermine the "good news" events we find in the Gospel accounts, the miracle claims, the resurrection, etc. All those events are confirmed, or are accepted as given, by all the heretical doctrines which were circulating and possibly being suppressed. Including those in any literature which might have been destroyed. So, all that was destroyed, if anything, was just further evidence supporting the Jesus events in the Gospel accounts.
So, what are you on a crusade for, with your clamor about bookburnings? Are you passionately making the case that our evidence for the miracles of Jesus is even greater than we thought, because there was so much corroborating evidence for it that got destroyed?
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Holy motherfucking shit, did you say that with a straight face, Lumpy?
You invented any entire method of literary analysis so you could insist that your favorite miracles were orally transmitted faithfully hy uninterested bystanders, until they were precisely recorded by unnamed authors at a time we can only guess at for reasons you can only pretend to know.
And you're critical of the authenticity of evidence that disputes things you have stated as indisputable facts...
That's just so precious, Lumpy. Wonderfully in character, gf course.
But you should copy and paste from GMark exactly what is fictional and detail how you know that it is. When you have time
funinspace
Don't Panic
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2004
- Messages
- 4,204
- Location
- Oregon
- Gender
- Alien
- Basic Beliefs
- functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
The Wiki link for 16.5.6 takes you back to this quote, with another source for the same information:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110819215807/http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-33
Just like you made vacuous claims against Joseph Smith and his 'miracle' stories, you now wave your hands around saying its 'dubious' and 'fraudulent' without anything to back it up with. The Chrisitanity.com website trusts this as reasonably historical. Universities publish references to it as part of history, but Lumpy knows best...its dubious because it violates the MHORC...
Lumpy style:
<HINT: If it is fraudulent, give me some argument besides your waving hands>
From the link I already provided regarding the history of the manuscripts:
https://journals.openedition.org/mefra/1754?lang=enLes
A source referencing one of the earliest copies from the 6th century:
http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=2835
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
And you should copy and paste from GMark exactly what is fictional and detail how you know that it is. Thanks.
Lion IRC
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
- Messages
- 5,075
- Basic Beliefs
- Biblical theist
Why do you keep repeating that, repeating that, repeating that, repeating that, ?
Lion IRC
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
- Messages
- 5,075
- Basic Beliefs
- Biblical theist
Bible scholars routinely categorise parts of the text as either historical or ahistorical - probably did happen / probably didn't happen. The Lumpmeister, Mr LumPro, Lumpy was (generously) conceding that it's not unreasonable, from a scholarly point of view, to do this.
He wasn't volunteering or putting himself forward as a candidate willing to dissect GMark into absolutely true or absolutely false and post it here along with incontrovertible supporting evidence.
Why should he? He doesn't claim to have incontrovertible evidence. He isn't a devotee of the historical critical method is he?
And he didn't actually say there must be some falsehoods, so don't grill him for examples of something he couldnt find in any case.
All he basically said was...if a bible skeptic proposed that one specific part of the Gospel was believed to be historically false, then he isnt automatically dismissing that out of hand in the way a bible inerrantist (like me) would.
He wasn't volunteering or putting himself forward as a candidate willing to dissect GMark into absolutely true or absolutely false and post it here along with incontrovertible supporting evidence.
Why should he? He doesn't claim to have incontrovertible evidence. He isn't a devotee of the historical critical method is he?
And he didn't actually say there must be some falsehoods, so don't grill him for examples of something he couldnt find in any case.
All he basically said was...if a bible skeptic proposed that one specific part of the Gospel was believed to be historically false, then he isnt automatically dismissing that out of hand in the way a bible inerrantist (like me) would.
DBT
Contributor
So do you believe that Genesis is a literal description of Creation, history as it is said to have happened, or a metaphor used for the purpose of teaching the virtue of obedience?
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,299
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
How the fuck do you know?
Unless you're his sock puppet, you are in no position to make any such claims.