Hardcopies ready! Thankyou to all who helped.

[peshitta_enthusiast]

""Marcion did formulate the first formal canon. He also edited the Books according to his liking""

There is no reason to believe that Marcion edited books which came after him... That's virtually the same argument as diabolical mimicry. Satan cracked Yahweh's secret codes and knew what Jesus would get up to, so made his evil pagan religions COPY Jesus' life and messages, hundreds to thousands of years earlier... There's no evidence that these books existed before Marcion. Let's not put the cart before the horse. What church tradition says and what history says are two very very different things!

""BUT, though the christians at his time had no formal canon, they did already heavily used most, if not all of the 27 books""

This is an outright lie, there?s no evidence for that. Early fathers like clement wrote more like Paul as if these books don't exist. It?s not until the second half of the 2nd century where we see both the CONTENT and REFERENCFES to the NT books as we know them today (more or less - additions and changes were still made for some time which is proven). Even where content is there it only means that that idea or message was around, not that that book was around. Proto-books? Perhaps. Gospels and other NT books as we know them? No, there's not a shred of evidence to show they were around before Marcion.

""You should also see that you only percieve this in such a manner because of your (supposedly) western moralsthat are conditioned by your social and cultural environment. Not everyone what you immediately percieve as good/evil is exactly that.""

You are partially correct, good job! Just because we find something disagreeable in a religion, say, like Islam, doesn't make the religion false. If a pagan religion practices human sacrifice and orgies, again, a Christian can?t use that as evidence that the religion is false. My position is however, if you are going to say that it's good to kill baby boys and rape baby girls because god said so in the bible, then you had better be able to prove that your god/bible/religion is true. So far this hasn?t been done, hence I am outraged when crimes are done in god's name. The dao de jing never tells people to do such things as kill your relatives who stray from the faith or wipe out a whole race of people. This is partly why I rate the Eastern philosophies so highly as opposed to the ?Western? religions.

""but why would an almighty creator that himself claimed to only reveal himself to those that please him need to be proven scientifically? As i said, i have plenty of proof, some hard to refute, but at the end, you need your own proof.""

Well one reason I just gave you. If people are going to kill/die in god's name they had better be able to prove it! There's a whole bunch of other gods they could be believing in... I would like to see your proof, sincerely. But not if it's the typical "god revealed it internally" as that can't be verified and can just as well be applied to Marduk as to Yahweh. Once again, arguments for an existence of "some sort of God" (most arguments can apply to any god like Zeus, Thor, Thomas Paine?s deistic god, a pantheistic god, etc) do nothing to prove Christianity or the Bible.

I encourage you to look into modern Jewish archaeology which blows the lid on the Old Testament. As for the New Testament, I encourage you to peruse the Dead Sea scrolls and the Nag Hammadi texts. I encourage you to look into the "early ChurchES" a bit more. The sect of Christianity most of us stem from today was the literalist/orthodox sect (later the Catholics), who killed and tortured their rivals, and destroyed their texts. Not very Christ-like. Study the origins of the faith and why so many believed in Jesus in different ways, including why many didn't believe he existed at all.

That's an interesting question in itself: Why would people who lived in the time of Christ, and loved Christ and his teachings, deny that he even existed? I pose this question to scholars and debaters and I never get a satisfactory response. The only logical reason is that they are right. They'd know. They created the Christ myth. Even before Christ was meant to be around. The details came later, in the 2nd century. Hence the NT Gospels as we know them only get referenced in the latter half of the 2nd century. Actual existent manuscripts of these books of course show up much much later, so these references are important in figuring potential dates of composition.