A Cumulative Case for Christianity

[epronovost]

Look at this table of the earliest extant manuscripts from Wikipedia. Let's just do the first line. Eleven large fragments of Matthew from Egypt.

Eleven fragments from Egypt which according to the table are from a 150 years time span starting from around 150 AD to 300. So basically from almost 70 years after your date for the first writting of Matthew. These are enormous time spans for fragments. None of those fragments are from the first century. None of those fragments. All found in Egypt this was a major intellectual center at the time as was Rome, Syria and Greece. Their location is not  an issue. In fact, If you look just at Matthew you will realise that all early fragments are from Egypt except one which comes from an unknown place and was simply bought in Egypt in 1924. In fact all of those early fragments seem to come from Egypt and specifically from the same two cities too. Then look at their date of production. Almost all of them are 3rd centuries. A handful few are second centuries. Where the hell would you get the idea that the Gospels were written a century before? It seems to all point out to the first writting of the Gospels in Egypt from the mid 2nd century mostly from prior oral tradition and maybe a few other fragments of texts.

And even then, we can't say that those fragments are part of full books or just stand alone chapters of a sort. To give you a point of comparison, Alexandre Dumas didn't wrote the Three Musketers as a full novel. He wrote it as an episodic adventure in the newspaper of the time and it's only later that those episodic chapter were collated together in a novel format. Even individual Gospels lend themselves easily to this format where each chapter can operate as a standalone document too.

But here's the thing, the next oldest fragment will be from a different region (let's say Syria) and not a descendent of these fragments here found in Egypt. So, what does that tell the textual critic scholars?

Here's your biggest mistake. I checked individually all of the fragments for the four Gospel from the list you provided. ALL of them come from Egypt. NONE were from Syria or anywhere else. Same things for Acts. The idea that there are fragments dating back from the 2nd and 3rd century found outside of Egypt is false for these five books. I also did so for Revelation and it's the same things. Those fragments all are from Egypt and many were actually found together. If your argument is that there is some small fragments in various part of the Roman empire around the 2nd century which proves that there was an older Ur text then this argument, while very sound, is not supported by the evidence which shows that all the early fragments of the NT, not just the Gospels, come from a singular region: Egypt and about half of them were found together in a single Egyptian city. This does not hint at the idea that these Egyptian artefacts are copies from older books written potentially in Palestine, Syria or Rome where the early Christians of the 1st century lived until the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. It stands to reason that Christianity was born after this event and emerged mostly from the population that fled the war torn and ravaged Palestine to Egypt. It would also explain why Jewish customs and politics is a bit mangled in the Gospel narrative or that they can't even agree on who Joseph's father was. They had no access to the genealogical records of Joseph nor were those writting those texts or dictating them Jews of the mid 1st century.

I would also like to note that many of your earliest fragments date back from the late 3rd and early 4th century which is very, very late. They are, of course, from Egypt. This makes sense Egypt was the place to go to find good scribes at a bargain and also a whole lot of Christians. Alexandria and Damascus were far bigger centers of Christianity than Rome prior to the 5th century.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact we do not find fragments from the 2nd or 3rd century spread out in the various provinces of the Roman Empire and only in a single province: Egypt suggest that there were no or almost diffusion of Christian texts outside of those province and while there is numerous evidence for a Christian population well outside Egypt at the time. There were Christian in almost all the major urban centers of the Roman Empire though they were most numerous in Egypt, Asia Minor and Syria. If there was written NT texts in the late 1st century, they seem to have only existed in Egypt and were not widely diffused until the 4th or 5th century or later as we find no fragments of NT texts outside of Egypt prior to the mid to late 4th century, when Christianity was embraced by Rome.

[Minimalist]

Whoever wrote "Matthew"claims 


Yes no one in Syria ever wrote about him.  Thousands came be be healed by him but no one wrote about him.  His crucifixion was a huge thing but no one took note of it.   That's how mythical stories play out.

Wasn’t there zombies climbing out of the ground that day too?

Only according to Matty.  Even the other three assholes apparently thought that was a bridge too far!

[epronovost]

Wasn’t there zombies climbing out of the ground that day too?

Only according to Matty.  Even the other three assholes apparently thought that was a bridge too far!

This does puzzles me a lot though. That there were multiple versions of the Jesus narrative around is logical and consistent with any sort of folkloric story or myth making more or less based or inspired by real events. What I wondered is why the hell would you, when selecting a canon, take 4 different version or vision of the same story and cobble them up together instead of picking the one you liked the most and maybe adding in bits and pieces of the others. Why put two different genealogy of Jesus where they don't even agree on Jesus' paternal grandfather and where I believe the numbers of the generation seperating Jesus from David is not the same (I think there is a difference of about 6 generations) and one even makes the genealogy of Jesus to fucking Adam (and curiously is only about 80 steps to it).

[Minimalist]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

As a matter of fact it is EVIDENCE of absence... it is merely not conclusive proof of absence and never can be.  It will always be subject to the next find that comes out of the ground.  The problem for clowns like Stevie is that in 1500 years and with all the finds that have been made nothing has ever come close to substantiating his claims.

I find that evidence compelling but still allow that a future find could overturn it....but so far, NADA.

The really funny thing is that xhristards are aware of that fact and will take any opportunity to try to cobble up some forgery to make themselves feel better about their Holy Horseshit.

In 2012 a reputable xtian scholar, Dan Wallace - as opposed to a moron like Stevie - claimed during a debate at Oxford with Bart Ehrman that he had received information of the discovery of a first century CE fragment of the Gmark.  Ehrman had heard nothing of it and neither had anyone else.

As with so much other xtian horseshit it turned out to be a fraud and, in a show of integrity rarely seen among jesus freaks, Wallace made a public apology to Ehrman and others.  Here it is.

https://biblicalscholarship.wordpress.co...t-century/

In my debate with Bart, I mentioned that I had it on good authority that this was definitely a first-century fragment of Mark. A representative for who I understood was the owner of FCM urged me to make the announcement at the debate, which they realized would make this go viral. However, the information I received and was assured to have been vetted was incorrect. It was my fault for being naïve enough to trust that the data I got was unquestionable, as it was presented to me. So, I must first apologize to Bart Ehrman, and to everyone else, for giving misleading information about this discovery. While I am sorry for publicly announcing inaccurate facts, at no time in the public statements (either in the debate or on my blogsite) did I knowingly do this. But I should have been more careful about trusting any sources without my personal verification, a lesson I have since learned.

The lesson is here is never trust a xhristard when they talk about their holy horseshit.

[Rhythmcs]

Only according to Matty.  Even the other three assholes apparently thought that was a bridge too far!

This does puzzles me a lot though. That there were multiple versions of the Jesus narrative around is logical and consistent with any sort of folkloric story or myth making more or less based or inspired by real events. What I wondered is why the hell would you, when selecting a canon, take 4 different version or vision of the same story and cobble them up together instead of picking the one you liked the most and maybe adding in bits and pieces of the others. Why put two different genealogy of Jesus where they don't even agree on Jesus' paternal grandfather and where I believe the numbers of the generation seperating Jesus from David is not the same (I think there is a difference of about 6 generations) and one even makes the genealogy of Jesus to fucking Adam (and curiously is only about 80 steps to it).

Pressure from an existing audience or market that you intend to serve. That's the explanation for the versions that made it -and- the ones that didn't.

The two different genealogies, for example, represent two important then-current constituencies that had to be pandered to.

[Minimalist]

What I wondered is why the hell would you, when selecting a canon, take 4 different version or vision of the same story and cobble them up together instead of picking the one you liked the most and maybe adding in bits and pieces of the others.

Great question, Epy.

Consider this:

Most xtian sects, and there were scads of them, had one gospel.  Marcion, who even xtians credit with writing the first canon, had a book with 1 gospel (the gospel of the lord) and ten letters of this paul character.  Marcionism spread far and wide in the east with just that one book.  We do not have any extant copies of Marcion's work but much of it was preserved in the attempts of later jesus freak writers to discredit him and so they preserved large parts in their rebuttals.  This is much the same as Origen who preserved much in Contra Celsus which gives us so many pithy quotes about jesus and his gang of fools.

So when orthodox xtianity began to spread it kept running into these well-established groups with their own traditions.  Since they did not have the political power before 400 CE to force compliance with official dogma they absorbed some of these other groups and incorporated their beliefs into their own.  Changes had to be made of course to make the doctrines conform.  For example, Marcion's gospel of the lord turns out to be about 2/3 of the GLuke.  Chapter 1 and 2, which contain some of the stupidest historical errors, like the world-wide census and the genealogy of fucking mary, were tacked on to give this jesus a nativity.  Luke, most likely written for a Roman audience, knew fuckall about Matty's version which was written for Jews.  Amusingly, John ignores the whole nativity horseshit completely and reverts to the more or less original time line of mark.

This syncretism should not be evaluated in light of modern sectarian strife.  The Romans were famous for incorporating local gods into their own pantheon.  Didn't matter to them.  That is the model which early xtians had when encountering other groups.

I'll pause here to let you consider this aspect.

[Dancefortwo]

Luke wrote about 25% of the NT. 

Luke copied 75% of the text, word for word, from Mark.  And it's not just the Jesus sayings either. Complete passages were lifted right out of Mark.   When someone is an eyewitness to an event they will write it in their own words, they don't copy word for word from someone else's papers. 

 Look at this table of the earliest extant manuscripts

Those are still copies of copies of copies. They are not the originals. No one has any originals.    

I got heavily into calligraphy at one time.  There's the fantasy that these pieces of papyrus were the originals and then there's the reality that unless papyrus is stored in an air tight container it will only lasts around 20 years before it starts to crack and crumble and has to be recopied. 

I guess you didn't see my other post about the oldest piece of gospel text.  It's the Ryland Library P52.  The "P" is for "papyrus" and the 52 signifies that it's the 52nd fragment of a gospel text discovered.    It's dated around 175 CE and it's from the gospel of John.  It's the size of a credit card.  Here is the front and back of the fragment.  

P52 is the oldest copy of any piece of gospel. There is nothing earlier than this.  Your citation is wrong. 



What we have here is calligraphy from a scribe that is not professional quality.   The letters in Greek are rather sloppy and rushed.  They letters are not carefully placed. It's in a semi-longhand hybrid style that is not professional.  The ink is not high quality ink. 

there were earlier copies

Nope.  John's P52 from 175 CE is widely regarded as oldest piece of gospel we have. 

 
Here is calligraphy from the gospel of John in the Codex Vaticanus, usually dated around 300 CE.  It is the oldest complete copy of the New Testament.  A professional scribe did this work.  It is in a printed clear form of lettering instead of the hybrid longhand in P52.



The early Christians in the 1st century could not afford professional scribes so the work is more careless and rushed.  This does not bode well for accuracy in the copying process. By the time of the Codex Vaticanus there was enough money to spend on professional calligraphers. 

You'll also notice the citation on the edge that the "women taken into adultery" is missing from the gospel of John in the  Codex Vaticanus. That story did not show up until a couple of centuries later.


Edit to add.  I meant to add this.  Notice the use of scripito continua in the letters.  There are no spaces between the sentences or even the words.    It wasn't until general literacy became a thing that spaces between sentences and upper case letters were used.   That was sometime in the Carolingian period, around 800 CE.

The early christians were mostly illiterate.  In early christianity the  gospels were read orally by the few people who could actually read scripts.  They were read  in private houses, not in churches.  Churches didn't exist then.

[Inkubus]

That is a complete fantasy.  An escort of 10 soldiers were commisioned to take him from Antioch to Rome? LOLOL.  Sure they were.  From Antioch to Rome is almost 2000 miles. One has to board a ship in Syria, cross the Mediterranian Sea, most likely with stops at ports in Crete or some other island.  Then back on land with horses and onward to Rome for the execution.  What a lie.  A complete lie. 

I can't read this and not hear: Ray Winston/Beowulf.

From Syria even to Rome I fight with wild beasts, by land and sea, by night and by day, being bound amidst ten leopards, even a company of soldiers, who only grow worse when they are kindly treated." Link

Or as Humphreys refers to this bollocks: Ripping Yarns. So if this story of fearless daring-do is Polycarp's adventure then who was the geezer that escaped from the witches tower in a bread basket? 

It's all sooo confusing.

[Minimalist]

It is the oldest complete copy of the New Testament.

And yet, Vaticanus does not include 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon and Revelation strongly suggesting that all that crap was tagged on later.


It is also missing the "Woman Taken in Adultery" tale and the long ending to Mark, ending at 16.8.

But still.....obvious signs of later editing of this supposedly unchanging and inerrant horseshit.

[Dancefortwo]

It is the oldest complete copy of the New Testament.

And yet, Vaticanus does not include 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon and Revelation strongly suggesting that all that crap was tagged on later.


It is also missing the "Woman Taken in Adultery" tale and the long ending to Mark, ending at 16.8.

But still.....obvious signs of later editing of this supposedly unchanging and inerrant horseshit.

Min, if you ever get a chance you should read a book by Paul Saenger called,  "Spaces Between Words: The Origin of Silent Reading" 

Here's a bit of the blurb about the book.

 This book explains how a change in writing―the introduction of word separation―led to the development of silent reading during the period from late antiquity to the fifteenth century.

Over the course of the nine centuries following Rome’s fall, the task of separating the words in continuous written text, which for half a millennium had been a function of the individual reader’s mind and voice, became instead a labor of professional readers and scribes. The separation of words (and thus silent reading) originated in manuscripts copied by Irish scribes in the seventh and eighth centuries but spread to the European continent only in the late tenth century when scholars first attempted to master a newly recovered corpus of technical, philosophical, and scientific classical texts.

Why was word separation so long in coming? The author finds the answer in ancient reading habits with their oral basis, and in the social context where reading and writing took place. The ancient world had no desire to make reading easier and swifter. For various reasons, what modern readers view as advantages―retrieval of reference information, increased ability to read “difficult” texts, greater diffusion of literacy―were not seen as advantages in the ancient world. The notion that a larger portion of the population should be autonomous and self-motivated readers was entirely foreign to the ancient world’s elitist mentality.

  

Jesus nor any of his follower would have been able to read or write.   He may have been a decent orator but he couldn't read or write for shit.   (I know you don't think he existed. I have no problem with that.)  

No politician, king, ruler, military man could be sucessful without oratory skills.  That's how they communicated to the masses, certainly not through written proclamations.  Julius Caesar was known as a brilliant orator, so was Cicaro.   Aristotle and Plato developed the skills of oral speaking  that was handed down. Philosophers were people that spoke about their ideas to small audiences.   They weren't just sitting around writing stuff down. They were speakers and orators. 

But back to silent reading. Silent reading was such a novel and unusual thing that Augustine in the 5th century found it very odd to see someone read this way. He wrote about it when he saw Ambrose reading silently:

"When Ambrose read, his eyes ran over the columns of writing and his heart searched out the meaning, but his voice and his tongue were at rest. Often when I was present—for he did not close his door to anyone and it was customary to come in unannounced—I have seen him reading silently, never in fact otherwise. I would sit for a long time in silence, not daring to disturb someone so deep in thought, and then go on my way. I asked myself why he read in this way."

So early Christians weren't sitting around in private homes handing each other scriptures to thoughtfully and quietly read.   A person who had the ability to read text without spaces between each word and no sentences would come by and do the task.     

The custom of putting you index finger over your lips as though to say "shhhhhh" was a way to teach the dicipline of reading without moving the lips.

[epronovost]

So early Christians weren't sitting around in private homes handing each other scriptures to thoughtfully and quietly read.   A person who had the ability to read text without spaces between each word and no sentences would come by and do the task.     

In my opinion, you didn't even need someone with the ability to read a text. The images we have of early Christian worship is that of communal meals and discussion very much in "last super style". There was no need for a book and nobody would bring out a book at a table filled with food that's risking damaging your precious book. Most preacher seem to be doing just that preaching the "good news" via oral tradition. The various Gospels and their slightly different stories probably stem from the fact the guy they asked to tell the story each had their slightly different version and had access to only a few written bits and pieces of story. Books are used and read to the audience as way to propagate Christianity after it's adoption by Rome and the creation of the Basilica as the place of congregation instead of some dude's home. Christianity became "a religion of books" in the 4th century. This also explains why we have so few fragments from the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

[SteveII]

Luke wrote about 25% of the NT. 

Luke copied 75% of the text, word for word, from Mark.  And it's not just the Jesus sayings either. Complete passages were lifted right out of Mark.   When someone is an eyewitness to an event they will write it in their own words, they don't copy word for word from someone else's papers. 

Thanks for the thoughtful reply and the work that went into it. I admit that I had you blocked from when I was here years ago.

Luke never claimed to be an eyewitness. Rather he did the research to make an orderly account. Mark seems like it was one of the accounts he mentioned in his intro to Luke. The similarities could also be that he interviewed the same people or read through things like Q (the missing documents theorized to exists because textual critics work hard at this).

 Look at this table of the earliest extant manuscripts

Those are still copies of copies of copies. They are not the originals. No one has any originals.    

I got heavily into calligraphy at one time.  There's the fantasy that these pieces of papyrus were the originals and then there's the reality that unless papyrus is stored in an air tight container it will only lasts around 20 years before it starts to crack and crumble and has to be recopied. 

I guess you didn't see my other post about the oldest piece of gospel text.  It's the Ryland Library P52.  The "P" is for "papyrus" and the 52 signifies that it's the 52nd fragment of a gospel text discovered.    It's dated around 175 CE and it's from the gospel of John.  It's the size of a credit card.  Here is the front and back of the fragment.  

P52 is the oldest copy of any piece of gospel. There is nothing earlier than this.  Your citation is wrong. 



What we have here is calligraphy from a scribe that is not professional quality.   The letters in Greek are rather sloppy and rushed.  They letters are not carefully placed. It's in a semi-longhand hybrid style that is not professional.  The ink is not high quality ink. 

there were earlier copies

Nope.  John's P52 from 175 CE is widely regarded as oldest piece of gospel we have. 

 
Here is calligraphy from the gospel of John in the Codex Vaticanus, usually dated around 300 CE.  It is the oldest complete copy of the New Testament.  A professional scribe did this work.  It is in a printed clear form of lettering instead of the hybrid longhand in P52.

You misunderstood my whole point. I never claimed that we have anywhere near the actual originals. The copies we have were obviously not originals so there had to exist earlier copies. Because of textual criticism, you can actually figure out the family trees the more data you have and actually be able to infer a lot about earlier, lost copies. That was my point.

The early Christians in the 1st century could not afford professional scribes so the work is more careless and rushed.  This does not bode well for accuracy in the copying process. By the time of the Codex Vaticanus there was enough money to spend on professional calligraphers. 

You'll also notice the citation on the edge that the "women taken into adultery" is missing from the gospel of John in the  Codex Vaticanus. That story did not show up until a couple of centuries later.

It is footnoted in all modern Bibles. If you don't come at this with a bias, it is quite fascinating. The scholars have a high degree of confidence that the New Testament contains what the original autographs did. You may argue around the edges, but the standard needed by the Christian for rational belief that we have what God intended to be in the New Testament has been more than exceeded.

Edit to add.  I meant to add this.  Notice the use of scripito continua in the letters.  There are no spaces between the sentences or even the words.    It wasn't until general literacy became a thing that spaces between sentences and upper case letters were used.   That was sometime in the Carolingian period, around 800 CE.

The early christians were mostly illiterate.  In early christianity the  gospels were read orally by the few people who could actually read scripts.  They were read  in private houses, not in churches.  Churches didn't exist then.

Your point about spacing is interesting. I think you are right about literacy and the church first meeting in homes. I also think that having important, often long, texts be part of your life, there was upward pressure on literacy rates in the Christian community--but that's my one musing and note a claim I know to be true.

[Minimalist]

Luke never claimed to be an eyewitness.

None of them claimed to be eyewitnesses.... which at least gives them a point for honesty.

[Dancefortwo]

Luke copied 75% of the text, word for word, from Mark.  And it's not just the Jesus sayings either. Complete passages were lifted right out of Mark.   When someone is an eyewitness to an event they will write it in their own words, they don't copy word for word from someone else's papers. 

Thanks for the thoughtful reply and the work that went into it. I admit that I had you blocked from when I was here years ago.

Luke never claimed to be an eyewitness. Rather he did the research to make an orderly account. Mark seems like it was one of the accounts he mentioned in his intro to Luke. The similarities could also be that he interviewed the same people or read through things like Q (the missing documents theorized to exists because textual critics work hard at this).

Those are still copies of copies of copies. They are not the originals. No one has any originals.    

I got heavily into calligraphy at one time.  There's the fantasy that these pieces of papyrus were the originals and then there's the reality that unless papyrus is stored in an air tight container it will only lasts around 20 years before it starts to crack and crumble and has to be recopied. 

I guess you didn't see my other post about the oldest piece of gospel text.  It's the Ryland Library P52.  The "P" is for "papyrus" and the 52 signifies that it's the 52nd fragment of a gospel text discovered.    It's dated around 175 CE and it's from the gospel of John.  It's the size of a credit card.  Here is the front and back of the fragment.  

P52 is the oldest copy of any piece of gospel. There is nothing earlier than this.  Your citation is wrong. 



What we have here is calligraphy from a scribe that is not professional quality.   The letters in Greek are rather sloppy and rushed.  They letters are not carefully placed. It's in a semi-longhand hybrid style that is not professional.  The ink is not high quality ink. 


Nope.  John's P52 from 175 CE is widely regarded as oldest piece of gospel we have. 

 
Here is calligraphy from the gospel of John in the Codex Vaticanus, usually dated around 300 CE.  It is the oldest complete copy of the New Testament.  A professional scribe did this work.  It is in a printed clear form of lettering instead of the hybrid longhand in P52.

You misunderstood my whole point. I never claimed that we have anywhere near the actual originals. The copies we have were obviously not originals so there had to exist earlier copies. Because of textual criticism, you can actually figure out the family trees the more data you have and actually be able to infer a lot about earlier, lost copies. That was my point.

The early Christians in the 1st century could not afford professional scribes so the work is more careless and rushed.  This does not bode well for accuracy in the copying process. By the time of the Codex Vaticanus there was enough money to spend on professional calligraphers. 

You'll also notice the citation on the edge that the "women taken into adultery" is missing from the gospel of John in the  Codex Vaticanus. That story did not show up until a couple of centuries later.

It is footnoted in all modern Bibles. If you don't come at this with a bias, it is quite fascinating. The scholars have a high degree of confidence that the New Testament contains what the original autographs did. You may argue around the edges, but the standard needed by the Christian for rational belief that we have what God intended to be in the New Testament has been more than exceeded.

Edit to add.  I meant to add this.  Notice the use of scripito continua in the letters.  There are no spaces between the sentences or even the words.    It wasn't until general literacy became a thing that spaces between sentences and upper case letters were used.   That was sometime in the Carolingian period, around 800 CE.

The early christians were mostly illiterate.  In early christianity the  gospels were read orally by the few people who could actually read scripts.  They were read  in private houses, not in churches.  Churches didn't exist then.

Your point about spacing is interesting. I think you are right about literacy and the church first meeting in homes. I also think that having important, often long, texts be part of your life, there was upward pressure on literacy rates in the Christian community--but that's my one musing and note a claim I know to be true.

 Rather he did the research to make an orderly account.

LOL Whoever wrote "matthew" didn't do any research.  He copied it from Mark.    He trips and stumbles all over Jesus' geneaology.

He certainly didn't research the history of the Roman census. No one in the Roman Empire was required to travel all over the place to get to their ancestorial home of 1000 years before.  The Roman Empire was thousands of miles wide and there were around 6 million Jews living all over the place. To require even Jewish people, not counting other nationalities, to return to their homes for a tax census would have caused enormous chaos and economic colapse and it would have been the most idiotic way to collect taxes.  The Romans were a lot of things but they were NOT unorganized, especially when it came to collecting money for taxes. The census was for the assessment of taxes, not a head count.  

But Luke had to figure out a way to manipulate the Jesus story so it looked like he was fulfilling a prophecy from the OT so he used the census as a plot device to get Jesus, who was born in Nazareth, over to Bethlehem and this was his convoluted solution to the problem   It's complete artifice .   

 I think you are right about literacy and the church first meeting in homes. I also think that having important, often long, texts be part of your life, there was upward pressure on literacy rates in the Christian community-

What are you even talking about.  The ILliteracy rate was upwards of 95%. Having long text made it far more difficult to read and it wasn't part of anyone's life. These stories weren't being handed out on papyrus sheets to people. They wouldn't have been able to read the words.  Reading among common folks was many hundreds of years away.

[Minimalist]

Allowing for the fact that xhristards always try to push their bullshit earlier and earlier it must be noted in this quote that Marcion's introduction of a canon was more mid-2d century than early.

Marcion’s early second-century A.D. formation of a collection of authoritative documents affirming Christian faith is chronologically significant.[7] Until Marcion’s time, the post-apostolic church does not appear to have outlined a collection, consequently, some scholars believe that Marcion initiated the contours of the New Testament canon.

Tertullian says as much and he was no fan of Marcion.  So it does not appear as if xhristards were even thinking about writing this shit down before Marcion came along?  Why would they?  Most of the competition they faced was from the so-called Mystery Cults and it is fairly easy to see that jesusism was just one more of them.

The Mystery Cults functioned by a series of masters and apprentices.... and there is every reason to suspect that the various scattered xtian groups operated exactly the same way because, as you say, no one could read this shit and certainly ignorant Judaean peasants could not read Greek!

[Cavebear]

There is no "cumulative case" for christianity. No new information increases the idea of it being accurate. From the beginning of the scientific era (oh, generally 1400 to present day), all evidence diminishes biblical and other theistic claims. There is little in any theism that can withstand modern secular understanding of reality.

[Minimalist]

There is no "cumulative case" for christianity. 

Well.....their lies certainly pile up!

[pattylt]

There is no "cumulative case" for christianity.  No new information increases the idea of it being accurate.  From the beginning of the scientific era (oh, generally 1400 to present day), all evidence diminishes biblical and other theistic claims.  There is little in any theism that can withstand modern secular understanding of reality.

One of Christianity’s problems that grows year by year is the failure to return and finish his work.  It’s been almost 2000 years and….nothing.

[Minimalist]

Yes indeed, my dear....

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Matt.  16:28 

Another one that jesus fucked up.

[Bucky Ball]

Stevie is STILL unable to state which Logic he uses, and how it is he knows that logic applies to the gods or to ANY environment other than inside this universe.
His case is a massive fail. I'll work on each bad step, and post it later.
Not to worry though. Sean Carroll asked WL Craig the same question in their debate about 10 years ago. Craig is still unable to answer.

Stevie is boasting that he can reason himself to faith.
That is not Paul's position.
"For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, it is not from works, so that no-one may boast. For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, so that in them we might walk. (Eph 2:8-10).

A Cumulative Case for The Witches of Salem.

Bucky's Resurrection Challenge.
I present to you a series of events that occurred in what is now, one of the United States of America.

The Governor of the state in question became involved.
A court was established.
Witnesses were carefully examined and cross-examined, by the best experts of the day.
Evidence was gathered.
Many people confessed in public to the officials of the court.
The entire proceeding was documented with thousands of sworn affidavits, court documents, interviews and related proceedings.
Sufficient evidence was established by intelligent men and women of good faith, that the declarations of the witnesses were true, and that these declarations should in all reasonableness result in the established legal consequences that reasonable good adult men and women thought were perfectly legitimate.

What evidence did they have that the assertions concerning what they said they saw and were convinced of were really true ?

1. Hundreds if not thousands of people were involved in concluding that what they said they saw and concluded was actually true.
2. The witnesses provided sworn testimony in court, sworn affidavits which we can look at today, and affirmed they were completely utterly convinced that what they were saying was totally completely true.
3. The witnesses came from all social strata, and every diverse background, including the most highly educated of the day.
4. These witnesses included judges, magistrates, the governor of the state, and family members of those about whom the assertions were made.
5. Many involved had much to lose if the assertions were to be found true. The consequences would impact many in very personal ways, if found to be true, thus had no conflict of interest, or reasin to lie. Many could lose beloved spouses and family members and friends about whom they cared a great deal.
6. The proceedings were thorough, exhaustive investigations. They deliberately gathered evidence. They made every effort to sort out truth from fallacy. They went to every possible length to actually discern the facts.
7. There are numerous artifacts from the time, and many documents from the proceedings we can review in person today.
8. These proceedings happened, not 2000 years ago, but a mere few hundred years ago. The literacy rate was far far higher than in ancient Israel.
9. For claimed events from 2000 years ago, there are no actual original documents of any kind. None at all. Only copies from centuries later.
10. For the events in question we have sworn documented court testimony, not just word of mouth transmission.
11. A truck full of documents from the proceedings exist at the University of Virginia Library. You can go see the testimony of the eye-witnesses for yourself, today.
12. By any measure or method, the quantity and quality of the evidence for the events in question FAR FAR FAR outweigh the quality of the evidence for the events in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.
13. Anyone who claims they have good evidence to support belief in Jesus, his death, and resurrection, or any miracle thought to have happened today, IF they are in any way a consistent, honest, logical and a reasonably thoughtful person, they MUST also accept :

That of the 250 people accused, 19 women in Salem Massachusetts, including Sarah Goode, and Rebekah Nurse, The Witches of Salem, really were actually witches, and were justly condemned and executed for performing demon magic.

The evidence that the witches of Salem really were witches is FAR FAR better than anything Stevie-Weavie has for his cult.

The end of the Gospel of Matthew : The eleven disciples at the Great Commissioning says "When they saw him "they worshiped but they doubted" One of the common features of most all the (supposed) post resurrection sightings, was that Jesus was not recognized, including the story of the Road to Emmaus, in which he was not recognized AT ALL.

Just yet another of an incompetent fundy preacher who knows nothing about what he's blabbing on about.
If 500 people actually did rise with him, why is it NO ONE in Jerusalem, religious or secular, report all the zombies walking around Jerusalem ?
LOL.
He *claims* he comes here for "discussions". The fact is this pedantic, patronizing, arrogant asshole "elder" is here to preach, and because he's insecure and *needs* others to accept his bullshit.

[Bucky Ball]

"The Second Epistle of Peter is an epistle of the New Testament, and it identifies the author as "Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ". The epistle is traditionally attributed to Peter the Apostle, but most scholars consider the epistle pseudepigraphical (i.e., authored by one or more of Peter's followers in Ancient Rome, using Peter as a pseudonym) Scholars estimate the date of authorship anywhere from 60 to 150 AD. The original text was written in Koine Greek."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter

There was no "original Christianity". There are today 35,000 sects.
You can actually "watch" as Christians cooked up their cult.
The proceedings of the Councils where they argued about what to make into orthodoxy, are on Fordham's web site.
Jesus didn't get the main job of a messiah done.

[Minimalist]

Still better than the "Gospel of Peter" with its walking, talking, giant cross!

[35] But in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers were safeguarding it two by two in every watch, there was a loud voice in heaven; [36] and they saw that the heavens were opened and that two males who had much radiance had come down from there and come near the sepulcher. [37] But that stone which had been thrust against the door, having rolled by itself, went a distance off the side; and the sepulcher opened, and both the young men entered. [38] And so those soldiers, having seen, awakened the centurion and the elders (for they too were present, safeguarding). [39] And while they were relating what they had seen, again they see three males who have come out from they sepulcher, with the two supporting the other one, and a cross following them, [40] and the head of the two reaching unto heaven, but that of the one being led out by a hand by them going beyond the heavens. [41] And they were hearing a voice from the heavens saying, 'Have you made proclamation to the fallen-asleep?' [42] And an obeisance was heard from the cross, 'Yes.'

Stupid as this may seem the reason this piece of horseshit didn't make the grade for inclusion was that a bishop, Serapion of Antioch, decided it had been written by a docetist!

Fucking xhristers are so fussy about which horseshit they think is real!

[Rahn127]

I'm going to assert without any evidence that there are about a billion intelligent alien civilizations out in the universe. Each one has had a good thousand or more gods that they have believed in over the course of thousands of years. Do you what the cumulative inference is from that idea ?

We can infer that intelligent species are able to create stories about fictional beings that we call gods.

None of those billions upon billions of gods exist.

Our story about a fictional god is no different than theirs.

[SteveII]

There is no "cumulative case" for christianity.  No new information increases the idea of it being accurate.  From the beginning of the scientific era (oh, generally 1400 to present day), all evidence diminishes biblical and other theistic claims.  There is little in any theism that can withstand modern secular understanding of reality.

There is a cumulative case in that there are multiples lines of reasoning (just definitionally).

New information is evidence if the claim is that people will experience something. New people, new experiences, new evidence. To deny it is as evidence is question-begging, if you can't prove it.

What evidence diminishes biblical and other theistic claims since the 1400? You are not getting your message out...there are probably more Christians living today then there were in all the years prior to 1400.

[Cavebear]

I'm going to assert without any evidence that there are about a billion intelligent alien civilizations out in the universe. Each one has had a good thousand or more gods that they have believed in over the course of thousands of years. Do you what the cumulative inference is from that idea ?

We can infer that intelligent species are able to create stories about fictional beings that we call gods.

None of those billions upon billions of gods exist.

Our story about a fictional god is no different than theirs.

Good start here, LOL!