Roger Pearse wrote:
> On 29 Mar, 04:52, Darrell Stec
webpagesorcery.com>
> wrote:>> Suzanne wrote:
>>
>>> "Darrell Stec"
webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
>>>news:47b9ff2a$0$30714$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...>>
>>>>> On 17 Feb, 04:19, Darrell Stec
webpagesorcery.com>
>>>>> wrote:>>>>>> Suzanne wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Suzanne wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The word that I heard is that the council ofNiceadid not
>>>>>>>>> compose the Bible, but weeded out what doesn't belong
>>>>>>>>> in the writings that they already had. Then they put them
>>>>>>>>> all into a book and called it the Bible.
>>
>>>>>>>> Do you agree with them ?
>>>>>>>> Since you constantly use the bible to verify the bible, where
>>>>>>>> does the
>>>>>>>> bible tell you it is the right set of books?
>>>>>>>> Is the original set the correct selection?
>>>>>>> What I am saying is that they had tons of writings that
>>>>>>> were not part of the New Testament writings,
>>
>>>>>> Suzanne, I think you are simply mimicing what some other ignorant
>>>>>> fool told you or wrote. What you describe is not the case. Some of
>>>>>> the oldest and therefor most accurate manuscripts would have been
>>>>>> long gone way before Constantine's sock puppets could scrutinize
>>>>>> them. In the fifth century there were not tons of writings.
>>
>>>>> There are certainly tons of writings from the fifth century (sic)
>>>>> extant now, never mind then.
>>
>>>> Hey idiot, we are talking about the material the KJV translators had
>>>> available. Â They weren't living now.
>>
>>>>> A look at the Patrologia Graeca or
>>>>> Patrologia Latina or any collection of New Testament apocrypha will
>>>>> show that. Â The same applies to the fourth century.
>>
>>>>> "Mimicking some other ignorant fool" indeed...
>>
>>>> You certainly do. Â Ignorant fundi bible school teachers. Â Now do I
>>>> need to haul out the raking over the coals that Steven Carr got
>>>> because he quoted from your website?
>>
>>>>>> You fail to realize how scarce literate
>>>>>> scribes were and how long it took to write one book in that
>>>>>> collection.
>>
>>>>> I doubt that little Daryl has any information on this subject.
>>
>>>> I few things you don't doubt are pixie fairies in the sky creating the
>>>> world in 6 days, or some family of 8 living in an ark with all the
>>>> animals in the world for a year. Â I guess you would doubt almost
>>>> anything that is rational or true.
>
> That was a 'no', then? Smile.
>
>>>> And Roger dodger is lying here. Â He knows full well that Bart Erhart
>>>> and other scholars say exactly what I wrote.
>
> I think we can presume that little Darrell has no real idea what
> scholars think, in view of the vagueness of his comments.
>
>>>>>> Further more there was not New Testament then, just many, many
>>>>>> Christian communities with many, many varying beliefs, each with a
>>>>>> few "sacred writings" that belonged to that community. And even if
>>>>>> the books were similar in name, they did not necessarily share the
>>>>>> same content.
>>
>>>>> A look at Metzger on the Canon says otherwise. Â This is pure
>>>>> nonsense.
>>
>>>> Roger, you are so full of it. Â It is almost an indisputable fact by
>>>> the vast majority of scholars that ALL of the New Testament books were
>>>> written in Greek, yet one gospel according to Matthew was said to have
>>>> been written in the language of the Hebrews (be that Hebrew or
>>>> Aramaic) and bears little resemblance to the gospel of Matthew today.
>>
>>> Darrell, yes what we have of the New Testament, which are
>>> only copies of copies are written in Greek, as you have said.
>
> There is no record of a canon that included a Hebrew text. It is
> always amusing to hear people pontificate about a text which is not
> extant.
>
>>> was burned. So many things could have been lost. What we
>>> can say today, is just that what we have is in Greek.
>>
>>>> And you disingenuously leave out the hotly debated topic of
>>>> Orthodoxy's Luke and Marcion's.
>>
>>>> Despite what you might believe while emulating your idolEusebius,
>>>> lying for Jesus will NOT get you into heaven.
>>
>>>> And again Bart Erhart has written no less than three books on the
>>>> subject with very detailed bibliographies that name his sources and
>>>> other scholars that write the same things. Â Please stop lying.
>
> Appeal to authority noted. Somehow I don't think little Darrell
> understood whatever he read very well.
>
>>>>>> Many books had multiple errors because a good many of the scribes
>>>>>> were illiterate and were simply copyists much in the vane of an
>>>>>> artist.
>>
>>>>> Nonsense again, for antiquity.
>>
>>>> Again read Bart Erhart and others. Â (abuse)
>
> No evidence? I thought not.
>
>>>>>>> but mixed into that were false writings. They had to determine
>>>>>>> what should not belong.
>>
>>>>>> And do you know how they determined what belonged and what did not?
>>
>>>>> I do. Â I doubt little Daryl does.
>>
>>>> Of course you do. Â Everything was accepted that gave Constantine more
>>>> control by his puppet council.
>
> Evidence from ancient sources? Smile.
>
>>>>>> Do you realize that things like Nazareth, and the manger, and
>>>>>> Christ's burial tomb were largely unknown and Constantine's first
>>>>>> investigators came back empty handed. The second batch of
>>>>>> investigators knew if they came back without information, it was the
>>>>>> death penalty.
>>
>>>>> This is pure fiction.
>>
>>>> Bull. Â (insult)
>
> Produce the ancient sources that tell that fairy story of yours, then.
>
>>>>>> But let us pretend for a moment thatNiceaactually did have copies of
>>>>>> copies of the original manuscripts (impossible for a number of
>>>>>> reasons the least of which is that there wasn't actually anything
>>>>>> like an actual original or as pseudoscholars like to call them
>>>>>> autographs).
>>
>>>>> We might ask little Daryl to produce a single scholar who would
>>>>> endorse this nonsense.
>>
>>>> How about Bart Erhman,
>
> And where, little Daryl, does Bart Ehrman endorse this? Specifics,
> you little rat.
>
>>>> how about damn near every scholar that ever took part
>>>> in the Jesus Seminars.
>
> Evidence? Do you include the non-scholars who took part in that silly
> exercise?
>
>>>> You are a damn fool. Â The only people who believe
>>>> in original autographs are fundie bible school teachers
>
> You, no doubt, suppose books fall down from the skies?
>
>>>>>> And let us pretend that the Council ofNicea... and had
>>>>>> no ulterior goals in selecting the correct manuscripts but rather
>>>>>> chose according to the dictates of god. You still have one huge, big
>>>>>> problem.
>>
>>>>> That in fact none of them did this 'selecting' would seem to be a
>>>>> considerable problem.
>>
>>>> Bull. Â For what other purpose did they convene?
>
> "The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements in the Church
> of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father;
> in particular, whether Jesus was of the same substance as God the
> Father or merely of similar substance."
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
>
>>>> You are one of the very few people that post to the Internet, except
>>>> for a small core of your fundie groupies, that hold that point of
>>>> view.
>
> Name a single scholar who disagrees, with reference and quotation.
>
>>>>>> That problem is that the document created aNiceawas not available to
>>>>>> those who wrote the KJV manuscript. In fact the only documents they
>>>>>> had available to those translators were altered with a thousand year
>>>>>> of changes. And I will bet you believe heavily that the KJV or a
>>>>>> derivative of it is the holy word of god.
>>
>>>>> Lots of silliness in this. Â Educated people do not propose that
>>>>> documents cannot be transmitted by copying. Â Christians do not
>>>>> propose that copying takes place without scribal or printing errors,
>>>>> but think that these are trivial. Â The KJV translators used a late
>>>>> Byzantine text. Â Most atheists, of course, have no objective test for
>>>>> whether something is the word of god (or equivalent) except whether
>>>>> they find it convenient.
>>
>>>> Nothing can be the word of god. Â God's word would have zero errors.
>>>> And there is zero evidence of gods word.
>
> Prove all of these statements.
>
>>> Darrell, this is a strange statement for you to make that
>>> nothing can be the word of God and that it should have
>>> no mistakes. There are literally thousands and thousands
>>> of copies of the New Testament books, and by just
>>> the sheer volume of them, there is enough there to reconstruct
>>> the entire New Testament!
>
> Not quite the same thing, I think. Little Darrell was suggesting that
> the bible as we have it has 'errors' (unspecified), therefore God
> cannot have inspired it.
>
> Since this involves a statement about God (who can only be known by
> revelation), I am awaiting little Darrell's proof of *himself* being
> inspired by God. Any miracle will do; but I will be most impressed
> if the miracle creates $1m in my bank account.
>
>> Your statement has little in common with reality. Â If at some point a
>> revision was made and earlier copies were destroyed, does it matter how
>> many copies of the change were made? Â Wouldn't not they all be false?
>
> Of course.
>
>> Just what version of the bible do you suppose uses those thousands and
>> thousands of copies to arrive at a reasonable facsimile of the original?
>
> How about Nestle-Aland 27?
>
>> At best we have early fragments.
>
> The last time I looked we had 5,000 mss and fragments, far more and
> far earlier than for any other ancient literary text.
>
>> And what do they show? Â They show that most of what Christians use for a
>> bible is false.
>
> How do they do that?
>
>>So tell us without evasion, which bible version uses all the new material
>>discovered in the
>> last 50 years?
>
> Nestle-Aland 27. That's what it's *for*.
>
> Interestingly, all these discoveries make almost no difference in
> translation.
>
>>> Your thinking about this is very, very negative. People that have
>>> studied this in great detail do not agree with your statement.
>>
>> Name some.
>
> Sure. Just deposit $1,000 in my paypal account and I'll read you the
> list of the people who edit Nestle-Aland.
>
>>>> And again Roger is lying. Â One only needs to compare major additions
>>>> and subtractions found in various manuscripts. Â Again Bart Erhart
>>>> covers the topic in detail, showing MAJOR changes that occur in
>>>> various manuscripts.
>>
>>> You only quote Erhart. Did you ever read any rebuttals of the
>>> skeptial viewpoint?
>>
>> There aren't any.
>
> ... known to you. And little Darrell does not 'quote' Erhart (sic).
> He merely claims that Ehrman agrees with him, even when he says the
> dumbest things. Ehrman, of course, is a Christian renegade with his
> knife into the bible, but even he has his limits.
>
Bullshit Roger. Show me any modern scholar that has rebutted Ehrman. You
can't because scholars can no longer keep up those lies.
>> At least not any from any scholar who can demonstrate
>> what writes Erhman is wrong. Â Besides if you actually read any of his
>> books...
>
> ...I might learn how to spell his name? Smile.
>
>> he mentions many other scholars from which he draws his material.
>
> Apparently little Darrell thinks that if enough people say something,
> it's true. But of course conservative scholars don't agree; and
> intelligent people tire of these incessant (and mostly bogus) appeals
> to authority and prefer evidence. Of this there is little.
>
Roger the Liar Pearce defines conservative scholars as those who teach
Sunday School and what he means is Fundamentalist teachers who have gone to
Bible School.
Of course your sholars would not agree. It is a good thing there are fewer
and fewer of them as the old fogies are dying off. More and more scholars
know what Ehrman says is true. It is more difficult to lie as you do and
your particular ignorant scholars do because the evidence is overwhelming.
>> The field is not one of isolation.
>
> Pardon?
>
>> You cannot stick your head in the sand like you and Roger are apt to do
>> and deny what the scholarly concensus is today.
>
> Projection noted.
>
Roger, you would be lucky to read let alone understand a tenth of what I
have learned. The minute you have learned Hebrew, Greek and Latin let us
know. The minute you have progressed past Fundamentalist Catechism 101,
let us know.
>> Quoting old scholars who did not have the wealth of material that we are
>> uncovering every day, is not the way scholars should work.
>
> Of course not. Nor is quoting people purely because you believe they
> share your religious beliefs, eh Darrell?
>
I have no religious beliefs and you know that. Again, I know you find this
difficult to wrap your little mind around but atheism is to religion as
baldness is to hair color.
> Intelligent people do more than throw around ignorant and obscurantist
> assertions. I'm still waiting for that proof of your divine
> inspiration, little Darrell!!!
>
How could I prove divine inspiration when there is no evidence of the
divine?
>
> Roger Pearse
Let us look at what a real scholar thinks of Roger the Liar Pearce's
scholarship:
News update: Â Roger Pearse has been mentioned in the book The Secrets of
Judas: The Story of The  Misunderstood Disciple And His Lost Gospel by
James M. Robinson, Editor of The Nag Hammadi Library (founding director
emeritus of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity and professor
emeritus at Claremont Graduate University. Â In the book James Robinson
quotes Stephen C. Carlson:
"Roger Pearse of the Tertullian Project had put together a history of the
discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library ("The Nag Hammadi discovery of
manuscripts," July 30, 2003). Of possible relevance to The Gospel of Judas
is this bit of information (_emphasis_ added):
The  books were divided among the 7 camel-drivers present. According
to 'Ali there were 13 (our 'codex XIII' was not included in the number, as
it was inside codex VI). Â _Thus a codex was lost more or less at the
site._ Â Seven lots were drawn up. Â Covers were removed and each consisted
of a complete codex plus part of another. Â The other drivers, ignorant of
the value and afraid of sorcery and Muhammad 'Ali, disclaimed any share,
whereon he piled them all back together."
Robinson goes on at length to correct Carlson who gained his information
from Pearse (who is ultimately to blame for his lack of reading
comprehension):
"The presentation, which is used by Carlson to suggest (boldface) {my note:
I used the underscore instead of boldface] that there is a missing Nag
Hammadi codex, is an over simplified summary of a report I made in 19790,
which actually pointed in the opposite direction. So I need to quote my
own presentation to straighten things out: "
So that's Roger, always understanding the opposite of what was really said,
just like he does when he defends Eusebius against charges of saying lying
for Jesus is OK, in spite of the fact that everyone including Roger quotes
Eusebius with saying exactly that.
It is a shame that scholars like Carlson give Pearse the respect he doesn't
deserve. Â But then Carlson himself is ultra conservative.
As one can clearly read, it is Roger's scholarship that is brought into
contention.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec darstec@
neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
