Hardcopies ready! Thankyou to all who helped.

[Andrej]

Thank you for your input. You do not have to answer me if you do not feel like it.

On evidence: An atheist need not present evidence. Atheism is not an ideology. It is simply the lack of belief in any particular personal god. If a fundie wants to claim that their god exists, that's fine. If they want to kill in that god's name, change laws in that god's name, have a say on what our children get taught in science class etc., they had better prove their position. The burden of proof always lies with the believer. My point is, though I am Christian, it is up to Christians to prove their god is real, and is the true god. So far this hasn't been done.

Atheism is not only the absence of belief in a deity (although atheists like to say that). It is much more the belief that there is no deity. That is why the burden of proof is just as heavy on the atheist as on the believer.
The mere absence of belief in deity is called agnosticism, by the way.

There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that the NT Gospels or the Pauline epistles existed BEFORE Marcion. This is very serious. Because of this FACT, we cannot just assume that Marcion copied these books from other sources and edited them. It is very possible that he created those books and/or used proto-books.

it all depends on what you accept as evidence. That, by the way, is always true if you are attempting to determine truth. Evidence comes in shades and on different levels. A myriad of mere indications can, for example, even outweigh near-concrete evidence. If it stands evidence against evidence, one has to take into account all information involved. If i do that with the evidence at hand concerning the NT, i have to inveitably come up with the conclusion that the NT books (the 27) are 1st century material. Also, it is extremely unlikely that all the NT books had proto-books. This can only possibly be true for maybe Mark and Luke. All other books do not suggest such a conclusion. Of course, i cannot sufficiently present the information involved right here.

Explaining why NT references appear late 2nd Century: Your theories unfortunately do not help the situation. The truth is, since they do not directly quote the NT books until the late 2nd century (note that they do quote the OT directly) we cannot take these quotes as evidence for the early existence of the NT books. It only means that SOME of the teachings existed (I say some because the basic messages of Christ appear first, then later, much later, the details of his life appear - oddly enough...). This is undisputed. Many of the Christ teachings even came before Jesus was supposedly around. Again, oddly enough...

As i tried to explain before: There ARE early 2nd century quotes. It would make absolutely no sense to refer to the books by name, as most christians did not even know those books. There is nothing to suggest proto-books here. Proto-books would have names too, so the absence of a named reference means nothing. It is simple logic. Also, there is not a single reference to proto-books in all of history. You said believer has to proof. You have no proof for proto-books, yet you believe. What is interesting, though, is that all of the Bible books just popped up out of nowhere in thousandfold copies all over the world within a year or so.
Fact: No evidence for proto-books.
Fact: There are onlyfew early 2ndcentury writings that survived (where do you possibly expect quoted without any text)
Fact: Ignacius and Polycarp (early 2nd century) quoted many NT books
Fact: Since nothing suggests otherwise, it is entirely feasible to conclude the NT books are 1st cetury material

On morals: Thank you for getting my point. We still have a problem though. Billions of people believe in a book that teaches them it is okay to kill their relatives if they stray from the faith, rape little girls, kill baby boys etc. I think it is fair that they be able to PROVE their beliefs true before they act on them. Fair enough? Or shall we let any psychopath do whatever he pleases (including raping our daughters, killing our parents, etc.) because he says god told him it pleased him? I for one would demand this person's evidence. Right after I and other just-minded people opened a can of whupass that is!

i do not want to fight with you on that, but personally, as a christian, i believe there are certain situations killing can be justified. Yet, your description sounds much more like islam, not the OT. Also, i said that christians do not have such a problem, as they do not (originally) have any set code of conduct. True christian faith justifies nothing except for the very best one can do, which means that which is best for all people, though first the believers (second the rest of the world, which includes one self).

Scholars: On this we do find some agreement. Scholarly consensus can be meaningless. It is the truth that matters. And thus it is evidence that matters. If most Bible Scholars believe Jesus existed, I am not impressed. Most bible scholars are religious, and the ones that aren't, were conditioned to accept certain things as true. The fact is, whether they believe something or not, it is the evidence that matters. And the evidence is lacking for Jesus/Yahweh's existence, let alone their claims. Shall we ask what Quran scholars think of the Bible? Would we expect them to deny Allah? Bible scholarship is a joke; it shouldn't be considered a real academic field. Any fundie can study at BJU and become a "Bible scholar".

Maybe i am really wrong on this, but it is my impression most unbelieving historians, archaeologians, ... believe that Jesus actually lived (or is at least based on a real living person), based on the available proof. i was actually amazed you believed it is not so, as i know hundreds of atheist that know Jesus actually lived. Also,Quran scholars have a high regard for the Bible (at least for whatthey think it originally was).

Israeli archaeology: I think you haven't really looked into this. I'm not talking about no Hittites here... I'm talking about the lack of evidence that the Israelites razed Canaanite villages and wiped them out. I'm talking the evidence that the Israelites WERE Canaanites. I'm talking the lack of evidence for Yahweh, Moses, Abraham etc. I'm talking the evidence that Yahweh was one of MANY gods, and wasn't even the highest god. I'm talking the total lack of evidence for the Exodus. Even if the Egyptians didn't want to record such embarrassing moments, do you think someone may have noticed 2 million people leaving a country of 6 million? Do you think this may have caused havoc with Egypt's economy? Do you think this would have caused massive social problems? No evidence for ANY of this. Nor is there any evidence for the 2 million people wandering around the desert for 40 years. Not even a damned chicken bone...

Again, it depends on what serves as evidence for you. Also, the Israelites originated in canaan, the Bible says so. i must say, though, that i do not know what you are refering to with all these claims. i know not that much about the different theories around. However
About egypt, the land the israelites left behind supposedly was the best in egypt. Fields that were ploughed, vacant houses, lots of space. Why would that cause problems for the economy? It just became a less populated country. Economy always adjusts (even today though it has so many more weaknesses). And i belive there is proof for the exodus, you just need a permit to dig for jewish artifacts in those muslim countries (improbable). Also, there has been evidence presented in the past.
And, yes, it is the same as with the hitites. People claiming one thing based on virtually nothing (the hittites didn't exist / there was no exodus) until the real facts appear.

God's people's truth-telling: You're kidding right? I don't want to throw around racist stereotypes, but do you think Jews have never exaggerated in their holy texts??? Should we believe the Talmud when it says that the Romans killed a BILLION Jews, when there has never been a billion Jews at one time? Should we believe the Talmud, which has a version of Jesus that existed much later than ?our Jesus?? Should we believe the OT when it says that the Exodus happened, when there is no evidence for it, and evidence that this may be based on an earlier event where Semites were DRIVEN from Egypt? Should we believe the OT when it claims that Israel defeated the Assyrians due to God?s angel that slaughtered 180-odd thousand Assyrian soldiers, when history shows us that the Assyrian King withdrew due to conflicts elsewhere and the MASSIVE TRIBUTES and CONCESSIONS showered upon him by the Jewish king? Please?

i would like a reference for that tribute payment. The Talmud is not Bible, i was referring to truth telling of the real people of God. The Talmud does not agree with the Bible. Interestingly, you have to draw from an outside source to disprove the Bible. The Bible also says they were driven from egypt. After the plagues.

The NT Church: I'm trying to say this as nicely as possible; your comments on the NT church really highlight your lack of knowledge in the subject, and echo the attitudes of the KJV-only believers. For one thing, there is no one NT. There is not a single NT canon that is agreed upon by all Christians today. Let alone thousands of years ago. Being fans of the Peshitta, this should be obvious to all of us. And of course, most early Christians didn't have the NT. Like Paul. Or Clement. Please note that the earliest Christians were around before Jesus was even said to have been born. They believed in a mythical Christ, who like Buddha and Lao Tzu, had some pretty awesome teachings. Even later Christians like Paul (if Paul even existed) and Marcion seem to refer to the teachings of Christ and don't know the details of his life (notice how Marcion's Gospel misses the first 2 chapters, just like the EARLIEST copies of Luke's gospel...). Now when the earliest Christians believed in the Christ's teachings, BEFORE the time of Christ, what does that tell you? What more does it tell you when the DETAILS of Christ's life come about more than a hundred years later? It suggests to me that this was all a myth and some people took it very seriously, and added their historical fictions over time.

Naturally, this is a matter of opinion. The NT church, to me, is the church that followed the teachings of Christ. Christ said that everyone should follow the teachings of the apostles, the apostles approved of Paul, and that is it. There is no christian reason to believe in any writings after the apostolic age to be inspired. That is why the canon ended up containing books only until John's Revelation. Yes, there were other canons, but except for Marcion's, they did not deny any NT book (though they were often unaware of some books). For reference: http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml
So, in my opinion, the canon should not contain books after the apostle's and paul's death, as they cannot verify or deny the content, and they did not declare anyone to act to that purpose, and christ only approved of the apostles. As long as the apostles lived, they were very active in approving and denying certain doctrines. This is what the NT chruch is to me. The apostolic one.
i also enjoy reading apocryphical writings, but the acceptance of the NT is, after all, a belief in something supernatural, regardless of what canon it is. You need to be a christian to determine a canon.

Marcion's omissions: You claim that Marcion's omissions are clear as day. That is a horrendous claim to make. Once again, let's not put the cart before the horse. It's an unwritten rule in Biblical scholarship that the longer texts came after the shorter ones. All of Marcion's NT books are shorter than the later copies. This suggests that his works are original, or at least, "more original". This corroborates the historical timeline wherein we find no evidence for the existence of the NT books BEFORE Marcion. Upsetting as it may be to a believer, it really looks like their Bible is a heavily edited (mostly additions) version of that heretic Marcion's NT.

In text criticism, one always has to explain why the omission or addition occured. That is the key. For marcion's texts, this will inevitably lead to the conclusion that his were omissions, especially in the light of his teachings and beliefs. There simply is no reason to make the additions insuch a fashion (other than possibly giving the impression that marcion omitted text whereas he did not, which would be ridiculous).

I encourage you. Don't just sit there at your computer, writing whatever comes to mind. Regurgitating what you read on some Christian website. Get out there and do some real research. Ask honest questions. Look at history's honest answers.

i say this with all honesty, i am quite certain it is you that did not honestly answer those questions, though it seems you tried. i have answers, i have consistency in my understanding, i do not have to hide from the truth, i am always doing "real research", i don't care what christian websites say, i ask all questions. Just because i did not answer all your claims does not mean iknow nothing of it. it is just vain to say "no it is not true" when you will just say "yes it is". Neither of us gave a lot of references, and i know of those opinions on OT research and how they are based on nothing. History, by the way, is manipulated as we speak. It was never honest.

And please realise: we can all be great Christians and great people, without spreading the lie (or at best, the unjustifiable claim) that there is/was a literal Jesus/Yahweh.

To this day, there is still no evidence that Jesus (or Yahweh) even existed. Let alone, whether their supposed claims (like belief being necessary for salvation) were true.

All depends on definition of evidence. Personal proof is real, and is in no way wrong.