# Luke's editorial fatigue.



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 12, 2019)

Luke has many clear signs that he had a copy of Mark in front of him. One of the most interesting finds, is his omission of a page or block from Mark. One could say that his copy of Mark was in error, or Luke's dog ate it. But for sure, Luke did have a copy, was copying... and was adding to it. Notice the content leading up to Mark 6:46. Then from there to Mark 8:27, Luke omits this block and connects the sentence of Mark 6:46 to the ending of Mark 8:27 making a sentence that is disjointed, having no continuity. Void of this particular content anywhere else. Luke 9:18, "once when Jesus was praying in private [having sent them on] ----------and the disciples were with him [Lk's poor attempt to connect what he does not understand, because he was missing context] he asked them, who do the people say I am?". Sorry luke, your busted.


----------



## lagrangedave (Mar 12, 2019)

He was a Greek Gentile doctor.....maybe only Jews got it right.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 12, 2019)

Matthew has the same sort of things proving he was copying. Today, it's called plagiarism. But in that day, it's someone who wants to preserve what he has read, from Mark, and add the oral traditions in with it. With Mark first, not even an eyewitness, then Matthew copying from Mark, adding the bulk of the red letter words of Jesus,  then Luke trying to fix the problems he realized Matthew created, like genealogy, Luke also copying, from Matthew and Mark,  adding to it. Not having any real knowledge, but working from oral and what little written they had to go by


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 22, 2019)

I find this interesting.... and don't know what to think of it. This is Luke's introduction. 

 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. 

Luke says that "many" have written.... thus, * before him.* point 1. He then tells us it was handed down, to "us" from eyewitnesses. point 2, that he is getting his info 2nd hand , third or more. Then he tells us that he has investigated these things. My real point to all this; the detail that Luke goes into, the exact words of John's mother, Mary's song, details of things said. Not to mention Jesus's red letter words, lets leave them out of it. But there is no way that Luke could investigate specific things that Elizabeth told Mary. If you get your info 2nd hand and you tell someone, you don't have specifics, you have an overview of the story, without specifics, that comes across as a paraphrasing. Luke also makes no mention to being carried along by the spirit. He specifically shows that he, decides to write this "because". 
   So, I ponder it and don't know what to think of it. Often in these old writings, whether they made it into the canon or not, they sometimes are "planted". What I mean is that someone wrote the writing and acted as though it came from antiquity. This has happened lots of times and lots have been discovered, and the plot behind them. Some of our NT even suspect. But as I ponder over Luke, he brings no doctrine to the table...... only a ignorant idea of what the Son of God meant. He and Matthew introduced the literal conception of a woman with God. Their lack of knowledge caused them to change the entire meaning of the son of God. Yet, we see in their writings, that they did not believe that son of God equals God. Their writing started this evolving process, but yet they clearly saw Jesus as a man, who had a God. So, this in my mind rules out a planted Luke, because no motive exists, only ignorance. So why did Luke write this. Do we really think that he did all this for Theophilus? No. Luke had no intention for this to be read by 1 person. Luke's a deceptive guy. This is my take. He realizes it will go much further, but offers the guise that he did it for Theophilus. It's like facebook, A husband wishing his wife Happy Anniversary, on face book. In other words, so others will see. A guise of wanting affirmation from others. Was Luke after affirmation.... or wanted to spread the word? Is it possible that lots of writings existed, mini stories, like a scrap book, and he just organized them all? That's a real possibility. I see it 2 ways. He either organized and compiled all the writings, including Mark, likely some oral, larger writings as well as very small, chapter type stuff, or, he was a liar. His detail, of things said has to be accounted for. Either he copied it, thus we blame that from which he copied, or he's just lying, making up details as he writes. There is no way that anyone knows what Elizabeth said, or what Zechariah, or what Mary said. It's ok to me that the story be told as to how they think it happened, but the details, that's just plain lying. For those whom would think that the Holy Spirit wrote it, I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that. I see to much proof that Luke was copying. The HS would have no need to plagerize.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 22, 2019)

It's apparent that Matthew, Mark and Luke are all connected. But seemingly, John, stands alone. I suppose verifying that would make an interesting study. John's stories are very independent  of the others. Some content overlaps, but as I recall, not that much. This is how they all should have been.  It's like John's book was written in a different location, where Luke would not have had access to it. The story that comes to mind is actually in Acts and John. The debut of the Holy Spirit on mankind. Acts goes into great detail in keeping with the promise of go to Jerusalem in 40 days, and the mindset of the Spirit of God descending on Solomon's temple, the timing of Pentacost, etc. And then gives us detail of the fire coming down, the speaking in tounges, even the comments of the observers, etc. Yet John... he just tells us that Jesus breathed on them the HS. And that a few days after his arising, in a back room, no connection to pentacost. The debut of the Holy Spirit on mankind.... Hmmm, you would think that Acts has it right.... One would think it did have a point in time, a day like no other. So, what do you think in regards to John's story of how the HS came to the disciples?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 22, 2019)

Years ago, I left the baptist church, and visited around to a more pentacostal side of the spectrum. I did not like how, the baptist tried to suppress what the bible clearly taught. It did teach healing, speaking in tongues, etc. And the baptist clearly tried to ignore it although they claimed every single word..... I, on my own, before leaving, noticed that "pentacost sunday", is a major day in the Christian's world, yet, no where had I ever even seen the baptist acknowledge it. *It's the debut of the HS on mankind*. Seriously, they have never mentioned it. This comes from their mindset of shunning those who actually believe the whole bible. They fear that to mention it, would validate their pentacostal holly roller rivals. So, I left, and found a church that was going to have a pentacost sunday service. LOL, by getting on the phone and calling those I found in the phone book, before the internet.  It's the 50th day after the sabbath of passover week. Our next one is June 9th, I think I recall. However, I did find a church that acknowledges it, they, I found, to be no more legit than any other, they simply wanted to believe the entire book. Their speaking in tongues was merely acting. No healings, etc. Not to my surprise, hey, but, they did not try to suppress this important day in church history because of denomination rivalry.  Baptist claim to believe the entire book, but we all know they pick and choose what they want to believe. To the baptist... in your defense, just say, why would I want to speak in tongues, the greater gift is love, which you don't have anymore than they do speaking in tongues.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 22, 2019)

Good posts as usual 1gr8


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 24, 2019)

I was looking over Mark. Mark's gospel lacks detail. It lacks specifics. It comes across as  2nd hand should. Like a paraphrase. The only type of thing that he could not have known is stuff like, what comments Pilate made, questions he asked Jesus. This sort of thing, or the comment made from a recipient of a miracle. These, considering it's a story, in my mind, have the liberty to speculate. Or tell it as it was told to them. Luke's gospel on the other hand, looks as though he is just making stuff up. He goes way beyond speculating and inserts long specifics. He takes a sentence that Mark says and turns it into great detail. For example, Mark just mentions that after Jesus's baptism, that he was tempted in the desert for 40 days. Luke tells us about the specifics of how the devil tempted him, what he said, what Jesus said. Mark mentions John the Baptist briefly. A few sentences. Luke goes into pages about John. Mentioning John's story, his father not being able to speak could very well be a well known handed down story. But specifics, like Mary's song, that's purely just made up as Luke went along


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 24, 2019)

I just discovered another editorial fatigue instance. Luke, using Mark as a guideline to work from, copying, adding to it, Briefly mentions the calling of the disciples as did Mark that he was copying from. Surprisingly, he did not embellish the story as he usually does. The same exact 2 paragraphs as Mark.  This is Mk 3:13-19 Lk 6 14-16.  Jesus goes up on a mountainside, appoints 12, gives them authority, and names them. Each one. However, Luke forgets that in Ch 5, he has already gave us a story of calling his first disciple, Peter, with the story of such a large number of fish that their nets began to break.  So, Mark's story has no continuity here in Luke. And would have been told differently by Luke, if he had not have been copying.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> I was looking over Mark. Mark's gospel lacks detail. It lacks specifics. It comes across as  2nd hand should. Like a paraphrase. The only type of thing that he could not have known is stuff like, what comments Pilate made, questions he asked Jesus. This sort of thing, or the comment made from a recipient of a miracle. These, considering it's a story, in my mind, have the liberty to speculate. Or tell it as it was told to them. Luke's gospel on the other hand, looks as though he is just making stuff up. He goes way beyond speculating and inserts long specifics. He takes a sentence that Mark says and turns it into great detail. For example, Mark just mentions that after Jesus's baptism, that he was tempted in the desert for 40 days. Luke tells us about the specifics of how the devil tempted him, what he said, what Jesus said. Mark mentions John the Baptist briefly. A few sentences. Luke goes into pages about John. Mentioning John's story, his father not being able to speak could very well be a well known handed down story. But specifics, like Mary's song, that's purely just made up as Luke went along


 Very few people take the time to see what the gospels really are.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 25, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> Luke has many clear signs that he had a copy of Mark in front of him. One of the most interesting finds, is his omission of a page or block from Mark. One could say that his copy of Mark was in error, or Luke's dog ate it. But for sure, Luke did have a copy, was copying... and was adding to it. Notice the content leading up to Mark 6:46. Then from there to Mark 8:27, Luke omits this block and connects the sentence of Mark 6:46 to the ending of Mark 8:27 making a sentence that is disjointed, having no continuity. Void of this particular content anywhere else. Luke 9:18, "once when Jesus was praying in private [having sent them on] ----------and the disciples were with him [Lk's poor attempt to connect what he does not understand, because he was missing context] he asked them, who do the people say I am?". Sorry luke, your busted.


So if you, I, and two other men gave an account (our story) about a guy we all hunt with in the same club.......all 4 stories can’t differ at all because that appears that they're inaccurate, and if they resemble one another in some aspects they’re copied, but if they’re copied, they have to be exact wording or they’re fatigued????


----------



## bullethead (Mar 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> So if you, I, and two other men gave an account (our story) about a guy we all hunt with in the same club.......all 4 stories can’t differ at all because that appears that they're inaccurate, and if they resemble one another in some aspects they’re copied, but if they’re copied, they have to be exact wording or they’re fatigued????


Spotlite,  your analogy isn't even close.
Luke, Mark, Matt writing what they did is the equivalent of YOU writing about Jesus based off of what you know, or think you know based off of stories and previous writings....
None of them were there to see it in person.  They did not stand next to Jesus to hear his conversations.  They did not witness any of his preaching,  actions or deeds.

If you want your analogy to be accurate , it would be the equivalent of you, 1gr8 and two other men writing stories about a guy in MY hunting club...THIRTY to EIGHTY years later based off of what I  had shared in here!!!!

Oh and don't forget...a god was supposed to be involved in the others,  so I am always surprised that defenders of the writings make the same excuses for their god as they do for just some regular old human beings.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 25, 2019)

Y


Spotlite said:


> So if you, I, and two other men gave an account (our story) about a guy we all hunt with in the same club.......all 4 stories can’t differ at all because that appears that they're inaccurate, and if they resemble one another in some aspects they’re copied, but if they’re copied, they have to be exact wording or they’re fatigued????



You do realize you are speaking to someone who thinks he and he alone is disproving something that was recorded 2000 years before he was born.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Y
> 
> 
> You do realize you are speaking to someone who thinks he and he alone is disproving something that was recorded 2000 years before he was born.


Absolutely


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite,  your analogy isn't even close.
> Luke, Mark, Matt writing what they did is the equivalent of YOU writing about Jesus based off of what you know, or think you know based off of stories and previous writings....
> None of them were there to see it in person.  They did not stand next to Jesus to hear his conversations.  They did not witness any of his preaching,  actions or deeds.
> 
> ...


Ok then just apply it lets you and I and two more fells that are not all in the club st the same time....

We tell our accounts of what we’ve heard /read from others, etc.

Our stories must line up exactly or we are all liars, wrong, fatigued, etc....Guess that happens slot more than we admit.......especially if we repeat anything. But after all, it is our storie according to us.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 25, 2019)

It's not that content overlaps. We expect them to have much of the same content, even if they were eyewitnesses.. But we also expect them to have different content even if they were eyewitnesses, like John. However, they were not eyewitnesses. So this gets tricky. If Matthew, Mark and Luke all hang out with the same eyewitness, then stories will be much the same, and different. However..... Editorial fatigue is when someone is copying/plagerizing and become fatigued, getting tired, and unknowingly leave signs, proof that they were copying. This has nothing to do with them having the same.... or different content. And everything to do with the proof left behind. However, another angle is the order of events interestingly stick to the same sequence. This is not likely. If we all tell the story of something we all were involved in, our stories will not keep the same order. They will not keep the same context from beginning to end. They will vary in stories, and in the order of the stories. Back to the point. Editorial fatigue is so interesting. It's like finding the DNA to solve a cold case. I gave several instances, just a few of as many as 15. The responses reveal that either the specific points are being ignored or that editorial fatigue has not been understood.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 25, 2019)

Our rules of writings and even use of words have changed dramatically over the years, I’m sure. I just don’t see building a legit case against a story that’s according to......what will it prove / disprove and based on what?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 25, 2019)

Qe 


Spotlite said:


> Ok then just apply it lets you and I and two more fells that are not all in the club st the same time....
> 
> We tell our accounts of what we’ve heard /read from others, etc.
> 
> Our stories must line up exactly or we are all liars, wrong, fatigued, etc....Guess that happens slot more than we admit.......especially if we repeat anything. But after all, it is our storie according to us.


We can tell a similar story without using the same words. We can tell different details about the same events. We can word it differently but get the same point across. We do not have a god involved to guide us do we??
In many of the cases regarding the gospels they did the equivalent of a copy paste but did not highlight it all and did a 3/4 or 7/8 copy and paste and totally ended a paragraph early. They tell of one or two people conversations in detail without being the one or two people involved.

Spotlite, How are you going to tell your readers about your hunting buddy's (Jesus) conversation with a talking bear(Satan)?
Or his conversation with a Mtn Biker that he happened upon while still hunting an old logging road?
Better yet, how are you going to do it accurately when the stories are about your Grand Paps hunting buddy who died 40 years prior, who you have never met??


----------



## bullethead (Mar 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Our rules of writings and even use of words have changed dramatically over the years, I’m sure. I just don’t see building a legit case against a story that’s according to......what will it prove / disprove and based on what?


You have to check the content within. If it is factual and accurate and can be backed up outside of the works or Embellished and Found Nowhere Else outside of the writings itself...


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg
You do realize you are speaking to someone who thinks he and he alone is disproving something that was recorded 2000 years before he was born.[/QUOTE] I don't disprove anything.  If a person becomes obsessed with Michael Jordan, 300 years from now.... and writes about him..... and embellishes the story.... and possibly gets some facts wrong........even if he copies from some old sports illustrated magazines...... it does not mean that Michael Jordan was not the most popular, talented ball player of his time. Quite the opposite, because we will have other writings about Michael Jordan. If someone writes about specifics that Michael Jordan said.... or comments his mother said...... I'll call bull. But make no mistake about my post, Michael Jordan was not a mythological figure


----------



## bullethead (Mar 25, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> SemperFiDawg
> I don't disprove anything.  If a person becomes obsessed with Michael Jordan, 300 years from now.... and writes about him..... and embellishes the story.... and possibly gets some facts wrong........even if he copies from some old sports illustrated magazines...... it does not mean that Michael Jordan was not the most popular, talented ball player of his time. Quite the opposite, because we will have other writings about Michael Jordan. If someone writes about specifics that Michael Jordan said.... or comments his mother said...... I'll call bull. But make no mistake about my post, Michael Jordan was not a mythological figure


I am positive that you hit on a point dead center.
Obsessed Fans/Obsessed Followers.
2000 years ago people believed in Gods that have personal involvement in their lives,  sorcery,  magic powers, spells, and Individual humans who they thought were a step closer to the mythological realm. Jesus and many others like him were the rock stars and professional athletes and celebs  who even like today had an entourage and fans that are star struck and can not only find no wrong in their actions but embellish them.
Jesus may have walked out into the water and decades later he walked on it. He may have spent time with a Leper and decades later he healed him. The fan club members of all sorts of supposedly religious leaders do not write negatively.

Micheal Jordan has sports writers who praise him and some who also write negatively. In 300 years if the Council of Chicago decided to get together and gather all of the writings and put together the favorable ones while destroying the negative ones...well.... A dunk from from foul line becomes a dunk from half court. A 50pt game becomes a 150pt game. 6 championships becomes 60...and his fans will believe it. Meanwhile, the stories that show he didn't do those things are no longer around to give an alternative version but even more importantly those incredible feats are found nowhere else either by the contemporary writers of the time. You just have the Bulls Program saying it happened, Bulls fans believing it and the accomplishments recorded nowhere else...almost as if it never happened the way it was written.
Air Jordan, man that Michael could fly!!! How will that be taken 2000 years from now?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I am positive that you hit on a point dead center.
> Obsessed Fans/Obsessed Followers.
> 2000 years ago people believed in Gods that have personal involvement in their lives,  sorcery,  magic powers, spells, and Individual humans who they thought were a step closer to the mythological realm. Jesus and many others like him were the rock stars and professional athletes and celebs  who even like today had an entourage and fans that are star struck and can not only find no wrong in their actions but embellish them.
> Jesus may have walked out into the water and decades later he walked on it. He may have spent time with a Leper and decades later he healed him. The fan club members of all sorts of supposedly religious leaders do not write negatively.
> ...


He could fly. You mean you don't believe it?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I am positive that you hit on a point dead center.
> Obsessed Fans/Obsessed Followers.
> 2000 years ago people believed in Gods that have personal involvement in their lives,  sorcery,  magic powers, spells, and Individual humans who they thought were a step closer to the mythological realm. Jesus and many others like him were the rock stars and professional athletes and celebs  who even like today had an entourage and fans that are star struck and can not only find no wrong in their actions but embellish them.
> Jesus may have walked out into the water and decades later he walked on it. He may have spent time with a Leper and decades later he healed him. The fan club members of all sorts of supposedly religious leaders do not write negatively.
> ...


LOL, I started to leave off the obsessed part


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You have to check the content within. If it is factual and accurate and can be backed up outside of the works or Embellished and Found Nowhere Else outside of the writings itself...


But the point of the Gospels were the Gospels according to.......


----------



## bullethead (Mar 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> But the point of the Gospels were the Gospels according to.......


Spot, that was not written at the top of the originals.  The According To was given MUCH MUCH MUCH later.

Take a book of hunting stories written about your great paps hunting buddy by an anonymous person who never even saw your paps hunting buddy and wrote the stories 70 years after your paps hunting buddy was dead. Then another couple hundred years later the publisher adds According To Spotlite to the story to try to add some credibility to lead the readers into believing someone wrote it who knew Paps buddy and was there.


----------



## Israel (Mar 26, 2019)

The Holy Spirit us privy to all conversations, within and without of a man. Even the hidden (to _that man_) thoughts and intents of the heart.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 26, 2019)

Israel said:


> The Holy Spirit us privy to all conversations, within and without of a man. Even the hidden (to _that man_) thoughts and intents of the heart.


Yes! That is the type of assertive writing filled with unprovable claims that make such religous works.
Santa is Watching too


----------



## Israel (Mar 26, 2019)

To one it's acid..."I cannot bear being known to bone"

To another... "I cannot bear not being completely known"  

All words served for consumption must bear the eating of the server.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 26, 2019)

I take facts flavored Famotidine. Helps digest the waste instead of regurgitate it.


----------



## j_seph (Mar 26, 2019)

1gr8bldr said:


> It's not that content overlaps. We expect them to have much of the same content, even if they were eyewitnesses.. But we also expect them to have different content even if they were eyewitnesses, like John. However, they were not eyewitnesses. So this gets tricky. If Matthew, Mark and Luke all hang out with the same eyewitness, then stories will be much the same, and different. However..... Editorial fatigue is when someone is copying/plagerizing and become fatigued, getting tired, and unknowingly leave signs, proof that they were copying. This has nothing to do with them having the same.... or different content. And everything to do with the proof left behind. However, another angle is the order of events interestingly stick to the same sequence. This is not likely. If we all tell the story of something we all were involved in, our stories will not keep the same order. They will not keep the same context from beginning to end. They will vary in stories, and in the order of the stories. Back to the point. Editorial fatigue is so interesting. It's like finding the DNA to solve a cold case. I gave several instances, just a few of as many as 15. The responses reveal that either the specific points are being ignored or that editorial fatigue has not been understood.


If he was fatigued, tired, why would he even write at all?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 26, 2019)

j_seph said:


> If he was fatigued, tired, why would he even write at all?


Same reasons anyone starts a project strong and then quality wanes the longer it goes.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 26, 2019)

j_seph said:


> If he was fatigued, tired, why would he even write at all?


It's can be even at the beginning, thus not tired, so editorial fatigue is not a perfect term, but it's when the writer/copier is not paying attention and makes a mistake.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 27, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Spot, that was not written at the top of the originals.  The According To was given MUCH MUCH MUCH later.
> 
> Take a book of hunting stories written about your great paps hunting buddy by an anonymous person who never even saw your paps hunting buddy and wrote the stories 70 years after your paps hunting buddy was dead. Then another couple hundred years later the publisher adds According To Spotlite to the story to try to add some credibility to lead the readers into believing someone wrote it who knew Paps buddy and was there.


The Gospels are nothing but the story telling and teachings of Jesus. It doesn’t matter if the “according to” was added later or never, it doesn’t change their intent and as you just described......they’re someone’s account to a story. Every time a Preacher preaches, he’s preaching the Gospel according to......I don’t believe anyone thinks that preacher was actually there sitting next to Jesus either. 

It’s based on his reading, learning, experiences, things he’s heard, etc.

The Gospels should be expected to look familiar and different at the same time. Even two eye witnesses of any event differ in some ways of their account. Yet some think they’ve cracked an egg because the 4 Gospels differ in areas and some think they’ve discovered plagiarism if the Gospels tell identical accounts.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 27, 2019)

Israel said:


> The Holy Spirit us privy to all conversations, within and without of a man. Even the hidden (to _that man_) thoughts and intents of the heart.


Yup. Don’t you just love to hear a nay sayer try to explain it lol


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> The Gospels are nothing but the story telling and teachings of Jesus. It doesn’t matter if the “according to” was added later or never, it doesn’t change their intent and as you just described......they’re someone’s account to a story. Every time a Preacher preaches, he’s preaching the Gospel according to......I don’t believe anyone thinks that preacher was actually there sitting next to Jesus either.
> 
> It’s based on his reading, learning, experiences, things he’s heard, etc.
> 
> The Gospels should be expected to look familiar and different at the same time. Even two eye witnesses of any event differ in some ways of their account. Yet some think they’ve cracked an egg because the 4 Gospels differ in areas and some think they’ve discovered plagiarism if the Gospels tell identical accounts.


Again, you and i can describe something differently but tell the same account.
You can describe your version of Star Wars and I can describe my version of Star Wars and in the end while details will differ, people will still get the basic story including main characters, their roles, the events etc etc. 
If you or I wrote had a copy of the script and re-wrote that down word for word as if they are our own words...that is a problem.
Same thing with the description of a robbery suspect or witnesses to the robbery itself.  Similar stories , may differ a bit, but the stories are close. Word for Exact word....gonna be a problem.

Now enter writings that are claimed to be have a Deity involved in their making..
There is clear evidence that others copied parts of Marks work literally word for word. Not their own similar writings(which with a god involved the writings should have the details exact, like places, times, people,  numbers of people, events...but it can be worded differently to tell the same tale) that essentially say the same thing. Literally Word for Word, and sometimes even stopping short of finishing the entire paragraph!!!!


Am I fine with the writings being the stories and teachings of Jesus, but Christianity as a religion says that they are so much more and authored by the Apostles with the help of a god.

Which is it?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Yup. Don’t you just love to hear a nay sayer try to explain it lol


As opposed to a holy spirit that is unable to write them itself??

Is a naysayer who can't hear it or see it to explain it any worse than a self proclaimed sayer that can't hear ot or see it yet thinks they can explain it??


----------



## BeerThirty (Mar 27, 2019)

Why don't you go to church as ask a Christian with a seminary background?  Your knowledge on the matter seems to be far more studious than the average Christian.  The Bible is a complex writing, and you seem to be finding enjoyment in calling those out who don't have the answers.  Therefore, a conversation with someone more educated on the Bible would be more productive than trying to win your debate on an outdoor-oriented forum.  Or are you afraid you would meet your match?


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 27, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Again, you and i can describe something differently but tell the same account.
> You can describe your version of Star Wars and I can describe my version of Star Wars and in the end while details will differ, people will still get the basic story including main characters, their roles, the events etc etc.
> If you or I wrote had a copy of the script and re-wrote that down word for word as if they are our own words...that is a problem.
> Same thing with the description of a robbery suspect or witnesses to the robbery itself.  Similar stories , may differ a bit, but the stories are close. Word for Exact word....gonna be a problem.
> ...


I don’t think there are as many Christians hung up on who actually wrote the words as you like to imagine.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 27, 2019)

bullethead said:


> As opposed to a holy spirit that is unable to write them itself??
> 
> Is a naysayer who can't hear it or see it to explain it any worse than a self proclaimed sayer that can't hear ot or see it yet thinks they can explain it??


The part of the explanation I’m referring to is the naysayers trying to explain what he thinks does and doesn’t happen. It’s equivalent to you and I trying to tell scientist that dark matter doesn’t exist.......and this is what’s happening.....

I don’t really care if someone doesn’t believe.......or doesn’t understand what I believe......but don’t tell me what it’s not........when you’re not even sure yourself.


----------



## redwards (Mar 27, 2019)

On last Friday morning as I read the daily reading that is on the Billy Graham "Wisdom for each Day" flip calendar on our kitchen counter, this thread came to my mind.

"Luke's Editorial Fatigue".....indeed!
yet almost 2,000 years later....this is a quote of the reading on the calendar for March 22.



> One of our associate evangelists was preaching at a university.
> 
> One young woman was especially antagonistic. After the lecture she came to him and said, “I don’t believe anything you said.”
> 
> ...



Amazing isn't it...that a Gospel written by poor, uneducated men who supposedly "copied/plagiarized/made up" what they wrote...and suffered from "editorial fatigue"...could produce a book that would permanently change lives!!
PRAISE GOD FOR LUKE'S EDITORIAL FATIGUE


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2019)

BeerThirty said:


> Why don't you go to church as ask a Christian with a seminary background?  Your knowledge on the matter seems to be far more studious than the average Christian.  The Bible is a complex writing, and you seem to be finding enjoyment in calling those out who don't have the answers.  Therefore, a conversation with someone more educated on the Bible would be more productive than trying to win your debate on an outdoor-oriented forum.  Or are you afraid you would meet your match?


I cannot speak for 1gr8, but I have sat down with Pastors and Priests and they left more frustrated than I. Even they cannot answer with certainty.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I don’t think there are as many Christians hung up on who actually wrote the words as you like to imagine.


I couldn't agree more but probably for a different reason than you think.

I am certain that the majority of Christians do not take the time to study the history of their own religion or question anything that doesn't make sense.

What is your reason that they are not hung up??


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> The part of the explanation I’m referring to is the naysayers trying to explain what he thinks does and doesn’t happen. It’s equivalent to you and I trying to tell scientist that dark matter doesn’t exist.......and this is what’s happening.....
> 
> I don’t really care if someone doesn’t believe.......or doesn’t understand what I believe......but don’t tell me what it’s not........when you’re not even sure yourself.



Then will you stop telling what is for the same reasons??


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2019)

redwards said:


> On last Friday morning as I read the daily reading that is on the Billy Graham "Wisdom for each Day" flip calendar on our kitchen counter, this thread came to my mind.
> 
> "Luke's Editorial Fatigue".....indeed!
> yet almost 2,000 years later....this is a quote of the reading on the calendar for March 22.
> ...


P.T. Barnum quote comes to mind....


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 27, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I couldn't agree more but probably for a different reason than you think.
> 
> I am certain that the majority of Christians do not take the time to study the history of their own religion or question anything that doesn't make sense.
> 
> What is your reason that they are not hung up??


Whoever actually penned the words isn’t relevant to what the words mean.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 27, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Then will you stop telling what is for the same reasons??


I will tell when asked


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 27, 2019)

Apparently no one is understanding what "editorial fatigue" is. It's not fatigue from hard work and sacrifice that causes you to misspell something. It's proof that the writer was copying from another source. Why does this matter. Well, maybe it don't. Luke never claimed to be inspired. He could have put all this together like scrapbooking. He never claimed he was not copying. However, it implys that we don't have 4 gospels but less since they derive from the same sources [that he is copying from]. Let's see.... which is the easiest editorial fatigue to see, even to those whom don't want to see it.... which one can't be explained away, as if anyone has attempted any of the others I mentioned. Which one is so simple that it can't be denied??? I think it's Matthew and the story of Herod and his wife. 
 Let me go get my bible..... You know the story, Herod inprisoned John because he said it was not lawful for him to have his brothers wife.  Mark 6:20, Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous man." vs 26, the king was greatly distressed, but because of his oath ordered it done" . Now in Matthew, he changes the story.... vs 5 Herod wanted to kill John but was afraid to because the people considered him a prophet. " And you know the story, the seductive dance that pleased Herod so much that he said anything you want. Prompted by her mother they said Herod's head.  vs 9, the king was distressed but ordered her request granted. Notice... right there. Matthew forgot that he changed the story and reverted back to Mark's version, thus proof he was copying.  This does not cover the editorial fatigue of the "tetrarch" blunder. It's a good one.
 this is what editorial fatigue is. It's forgetting that you changed the initial story and reverting back to the original without realizing it


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Whoever actually penned the words isn’t relevant to what the words mean.


So to all the Christians thay have been told/taught/led to believe that the Gospels were written by the very men that knew and walked among Jesus(minus Luke)...it isnt relevant?

Whoever actually penned the words isn't relevant to what the words mean....that can be said of just about everything ever written ever


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 27, 2019)

It's really easy to see that Matthew Mark and Luke all stem from the same source, or each other. They never expected that they would survive to be compared side by side. The almost exact same order of events/stories should be enough to see this. However, religion is like a blindness, in a trance like state, no one sees it???


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 27, 2019)

bullethead said:


> So to all the Christians thay have been told/taught/led to believe that the Gospels were written by the very men that knew and walked among Jesus(minus Luke)...it isnt relevant?
> 
> Whoever actually penned the words isn't relevant to what the words mean....that can be said of just about everything ever written ever


The Gospel according to Matthew is just that. Some say Matthew didn’t write anything, some say he did. I’m saying it doesn’t matter, it’s the Gospel according to Matthew regardless if he wrote it, had a buddy to write for him, was interviewed, etc. That part is not relevant.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> The Gospel according to Matthew is just that. Some say Matthew didn’t write anything, some say he did. I’m saying it doesn’t matter, it’s the Gospel according to Matthew regardless if he wrote it, had a buddy to write for him, was interviewed, etc. That part is not relevant.


Those that say Matthew wrote it are incorrect. 
If it doesn't matter who wrote it then why decide to name it Gospel According to Matthew?


By your line of thought, War and Peace could have been named Winnie the Pooh and it wouldn't matter.
Star Wars titled Gone With the Wind 2 and the Audience would let the content speak for itself..

In a sense though I have to agree with you because fictional works by a fictional author just seems to make sense.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Those that say Matthew wrote it are incorrect.
> If it doesn't matter who wrote it then why decide to name it Gospel According to Matthew?
> 
> 
> ...


We KNOW what’s fictional.......until this date.......you’re not 100% that this one is.....


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> We KNOW what’s fictional.......until this date.......you’re not 100% that this one is.....


Im rarely ever 100% on anything, but a preponderance of the evidence that leads to a more likely than not scenario is as good as it gets.


----------



## Madman (Mar 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I cannot speak for 1gr8, but I have sat down with Pastors and Priests and they left more frustrated than I. Even they cannot answer with certainty.



Was the frustration because you confused them or because the conversation goes in a circle?


----------



## Madman (Mar 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Im rarely ever 100% on anything, but a preponderance of the evidence that leads to a more likely than not scenario is as good as it gets.


The preponderance of the evidence leads to exactly what Luke says he was doing in his Gospel;

"1 Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.

He arguably used personal experience, interviews, and the writings of others to do as he claims; "I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, ".


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2019)

Madman said:


> Was the frustration because you confused them or because the conversation goes in a circle?


Because they had no factual answers to the questions I asked.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2019)

Madman said:


> The preponderance of the evidence leads to exactly what Luke says he was doing in his Gospel;
> 
> "1 Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.
> 
> He arguably used personal experience, interviews, and the writings of others to do as he claims; "I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, ".


And then Luke proceeded to Copy the works of another and act as if he did it himself. Non-Arguably.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Im rarely ever 100% on anything, but a preponderance of the evidence that leads to a more likely than not scenario is as good as it gets.


If God is often referred to as the adult Santa for Christians.......and fictional 

What percentage of surety do you have that your childhood Santa doesn’t exist?

What’s the difference in the two, and why?


----------



## Madman (Mar 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Because they had no factual answers to the questions I asked.


or did they have no answers you would accept?

What would be needed for you to accept their answers to questions?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> If God is often referred to as the adult Santa for Christians.......and fictional
> 
> What percentage of surety do you have that your childhood Santa doesn’t exist?
> 
> What’s the difference in the two, and why?


99.99999%

Embellishments based off of beliefs fuels both but some of the difference is Santa isn't supoosed to save you from a fiery eternity for believing in him nor will he send you there for not believing in him.


----------



## Madman (Mar 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> And then Luke proceeded to Copy the works of another and act as if he did it himself. Non-Arguably.


according to you


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2019)

Madman said:


> or did they have no answers you would accept?


I'll ask you as I spoke to them
Indulge me if you will...

Can you explain Marriage to me?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2019)

Madman said:


> according to you


According to the evidence

You have been clearly shown word for exact word text in his gospel with others. His was written after the others. 
It is not me that is having a problem with acceptance.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Because they had no factual answers to the questions I asked.


Bingo.

And this is where the Christians are with the non Christians.......the non Christians have no factual answers to our experiences.......

I will give you one to try, and this is how the 4 Gospels can work in spirit.

Explain to me in your own or any scientific research a factual, not “a possible” answer, how I was 1400 miles from home for work related reasons, visited the Wednesday night church service to a church I’ve never been to or known anyone from, the preacher calls me in his office and tells me exactly how I should handle a situation that I was facing, and when to do it, and the outcome. And he was dead on.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> 99.99999%
> 
> Embellishments based off of beliefs fuels both but some of the difference is Santa isn't supoosed to save you from a fiery eternity for believing in him nor will he send you there for not believing in him.


No Sir, I dont care who can and who can’t save you. People that don’t believe in God aren’t concerned about salvation. 

What’s the difference in a childhood Santa and an adult Santa? How can you be positive that one fictional character isn’t real but can’t be for the other?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Bingo.
> 
> And this is where the Christians are with the non Christians.......the non Christians have no factual answers to our experiences.......
> 
> ...


I don't know.
I don't claim to know.
I do not fill in what I do not know with mythical deities so that I can better understand.

If I did that, I could say Satan possessed the preacher and is leading you to what he wants. Totally possible in your religion's tales. 
Or
I could say with a straight face that Zeus was aware of you dilemma and used the preacher to solve your crisis. Now that is right along the lines of what you are eluding that your God did...but when I insert Zeus...well that just sounds stupid doesn't it? And you are not stupid enough to believe it are you?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> No Sir, I dont care who can and who can’t save you. People that don’t believe in God aren’t concerned about salvation.
> 
> What’s the difference in a childhood Santa and an adult Santa? How can you be positive that one fictional character isn’t real but can’t be for the other?


Fear of Death, the reality of your own mortality, the thoughts of never ever being able to exist as you do now.

Hope when you are a kid vs hope when you are an adult. 

I can go on and on. Multiple reasons/differences


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I don't know.
> I don't claim to know.
> I do not fill in what I do not know with mythical deities so that I can better understand.
> 
> ...


I’m good with possibilities. But it’s not factual.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Fear of Death, the reality of your own mortality, the thoughts of never ever being able to exist as you do now.
> 
> Hope when you are a kid vs hope when you are an adult.
> 
> I can go on and on. Multiple reasons/differences


I’m not talking about me, I’m talking about a non believer. He don’t have the hope I have for a place in heaven.

I’d like to hear some actual non believer reasons as to why he is 100% positive that one fictional character doesn’t exist but not 100% positive that another fictional character doesn’t.

Hope of heaven, fear of death, mortality, eternal peace / torment can’t be part of those reasons because they are associated with the character that’s not supposed to exist.

That’d be like me saying I’m 99% sure that Santa isn’t real but I’m leaving the door open with 1% in case there’s a present.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I’m good with possibilities. But it’s not factual.


Then what are the facts that explain your 1400 mile separation and the pastor apparently knowing what was going on?


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Then what are the facts that explain your 1400 mile separation and the pastor apparently knowing what was going on?


I’m saying there’s a spiritual connection. Exactly the the Bible tells us that we are one body in Spirit.

I know that’s not considered factual, but there’s no other explanation for it. And, things like this are often.....


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I’m not talking about me, I’m talking about a non believer. He don’t have the hope I have for a place in heaven.
> 
> I’d like to hear some actual non believer reasons as to why he is 100% positive that one fictional character doesn’t exist but not 100% positive that another fictional character doesn’t.
> 
> ...



"You" was in general.

Because I do not know something for sure, I cannot rule it out completely. But I have to go with the preponderance of evidence whether it is for or against.

Can you rule out Santa completely?
Are you able to watch every household to see who and who does not visit on Xmas eve?
Common sense tells us an answer.
Maturity brings out the doubt in absurdities like Flying Reindeer, delivering toys, breaking into homes, eating 4 million tons of cookies etc etc.
Yet, some adults move on to Santa 2.0. Flying into the skies instead of flying reindeer. Gift of eternal life instead of toys for gifts. Sees you when you are sleeping, knows when you are awake, he knows if you've been bad or good so be good for goodness sake....that doesn't change now does it.

Does the "spirit" of Santa exist Spotlite?

Tell me why Santa does not exist 100%

Does Santa's Spirit come into us all around that time of year and inspire us to fulfill his mission?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I’m saying there’s a spiritual connection. Exactly the the Bible tells us that we are one body in Spirit.
> 
> I know that’s not considered factual, but there’s no other explanation for it. And, things like this are often.....


No other explanation for it.....?????.....!!!!!

Lets go back to things like that which happen to believers in other gods ....
No other explanation other than their gods and spirits MUST exist also, correct?


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> "You" was in general.
> 
> Because I do not know something for sure, I cannot rule it out completely. But I have to go with the preponderance of evidence whether it is for or against.
> 
> ...


Lol don’t divert this to keep from answering. I want to know why and how “YOU” specifically, bullethead, ruled Santa out as a fictional character (I’m assuming 100%)......and can’t rule out another character that you refer to as fictional - what’s the difference? Why can’t YOU apply everything equally to both characters? 

Now, for factual reasons, Santa doesn’t exist because I became Santa. For most likely common sense reasons......he can’t physically drop in on every house on one night just in one state, let alone world wide as the story is told. Obvious reasons, I got things when I was bad.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> No other explanation for it.....?????.....!!!!!
> 
> Lets go back to things like that which happen to believers in other gods ....
> No other explanation other than their gods and spirits MUST exist also, correct?


I”m only concerned with the “preponderance of evidence” that you go with that refutes my God’s intervention. 

What ya got?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Lol don’t divert this to keep from answering. I want to know why and how “YOU” specifically, bullethead, ruled Santa out as a fictional character (I’m assuming 100%)......and can’t rule out another character that you refer to as fictional - what’s the difference? Why can’t YOU apply everything equally to both characters?
> 
> Now, for factual reasons, Santa doesn’t exist because I became Santa. For most likely common sense reasons......he can’t physically drop in on every house on one night just in one state, let alone world wide as the story is told. Obvious reasons, I got things when I was bad.


No diversion.
We have to cover a lot of territory in order to get to the final answers.

I am applying equally to both characters.
Santa , is based off of a person that once existed.
Jesus, is based off of a person that once existed.

I'm with you on why all of the factual reasons the embellishments do not work for either character. 

99.999999999999%
Due to a smidge of real person as the basis for each.


Now, do you feeling the Spirit of Santa at a certain time of the year or not?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I”m only concerned with the “preponderance of evidence” that you go with that refutes my God’s intervention.
> 
> What ya got?


The Zero Evidence that any specific god exists, let alone the god you worship had anything to do with any of it.

You will have me believe your god contacted the preacher and foretold him of your "problems" and the preacher was then able to step in and help.
Yet at the same time in many various places all over your Gods supposed creation, there were people in life or death situations that ended up dead, physically and mentally scarred for life and had to endure the most awful happenings because the Lord didnt whisper to someone else what was about to take place so those people could be helped. You are just not that special Spotlite.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> The Zero Evidence that any specific god exists, let alone the god you worship had anything to do with any of it.
> 
> You will have me believe your god contacted the preacher and foretold him of your "problems" and the preacher was then able to step in and help.
> Yet at the same time in many various places all over your Gods supposed creation, there were people in life or death situations that ended up dead, physically and mentally scarred for life and had to endure the most awful happenings because the Lord didnt whisper to someone else what was about to take place so those people could be helped. You are just not that special Spotlite.


So with “zero evidence”......you are still not 100% positive that my God isn’t real. Why??? With the preponderance of evidence.......it should be fairly easy to explain, right?


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> No diversion.
> We have to cover a lot of territory in order to get to the final answers.
> 
> I am applying equally to both characters.
> ...


I’m absolutely 100% positive that Santa doesn’t exist. If you’re not, why?

I don’t want to sound hard headed, or argumentative. I may not be asking the right questions......

What I want to know is how can you refer to two characters as fictional but not even 100% positive that one is......fictional?

Once I consider a character fictional.....there’s no room for .0001% that it’s not.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> So with “zero evidence”......you are still not 100% positive that my God isn’t real. Why??? With the preponderance of evidence.......it should be fairly easy to explain, right?


For the same reasons I lump it in with the other gods. My past religious beliefs want me to think "something" like us humans is out there, but I have seen no evidence of it on my own,  from science, or from the various religions or believers. And I have definitely not seen any evidence of a specific god as told in all of the various man made writings.

So far,  yes it is THAT easy to explain.
I know better. I am as sure as the possibilities of a Flying Spaghetti Monster existing....but the Spotlite in me (.000000001) is keeping the light on in case whatever MAY be there wants to do some fishing and convince me of it's presence. I am confident of the outcome,  but what the heck..


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I’m absolutely 100% positive that Santa doesn’t exist. If you’re not, why?
> 
> I don’t want to sound hard headed, or argumentative. I may not be asking the right questions......
> 
> ...


You can say you are positive, but in reality you just do not know.

I will ask you again.
Does Santas "spirit" overcome you around Xmas and put you in a mood that you are not in at other times of the year?
Or
Is it a conditioned response brought on by your entire lifetime of upbringing, family traditions, culture,  etc etc etc?


----------



## Madman (Mar 28, 2019)

Madman said:


> according to you





bullethead said:


> I'll ask you as I spoke to them
> Indulge me if you will...
> 
> Can you explain Marriage to me?



The purpose of marriage - To bind a man and woman for the purpose of raising children.  Every human culture has had some form - " But whether we [Christians] marry, it is only that we may bring up children; or whether we decline marriage, we live continently (_1st Apology _29 [A.D. 151]).


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You can say you are positive, but in reality you just do not know.
> 
> I will ask you again.
> Does Santas "spirit" overcome you around Xmas and put you in a mood that you are not in at other times of the year?
> ...



So you’re saying that you don't know if Santa really is fictional?


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> For the same reasons I lump it in with the other gods. My past religious beliefs want me to think "something" like us humans is out there, but I have seen no evidence of it on my own,  from science, or from the various religions or believers. And I have definitely not seen any evidence of a specific god as told in all of the various man made writings.
> 
> So far,  yes it is THAT easy to explain.
> I know better. I am as sure as the possibilities of a Flying Spaghetti Monster existing....but the Spotlite in me (.000000001) is keeping the light on in case whatever MAY be there wants to do some fishing and convince me of it's presence. I am confident of the outcome,  but what the heck..


Ok that makes sense. I get that. I wasn’t connecting the dots on calling something fictional but not really convinced it is. I’m glad you’re leaving the door open though.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2019)

Madman said:


> The purpose of marriage - To bind a man and woman for the purpose of raising children.  Every human culture has had some form - " But whether we [Christians] marry, it is only that we may bring up children; or whether we decline marriage, we live continently (_1st Apology _29 [A.D. 151]).


Thank you.

Now how about Divorce?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2019)

Spot


Spotlite said:


> So you’re saying that you don't know if Santa really is fictional?


SpotLite, I am equally convinced that both are fictional. My .000001 opening is so minutely small that for all intents and purposes I know neither exist anywhere but in the mind. 
But, being that I understand that I cannot possibly know everything, I leave that crack.


----------



## hobbs27 (Mar 29, 2019)

The Gospel writers were a lot closer to the events than most are thinking. I see a lot of error in thinking because of the late dating of the Gospels.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_410.cfm


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2019)

I was close to a lot of events that happened 30+ years ago also but I still wasnt actually there


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2019)

hobbs27 said:


> The Gospel writers were a lot closer to the events than most are thinking. I see a lot of error in thinking because of the late dating of the Gospels.
> 
> https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_410.cfm


Your link/source lists Matthew as the first gospel written.


----------



## hobbs27 (Mar 29, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Your link/source lists Matthew as the first gospel written.



Yes, it does.

"
Matthew Was Always Believed To Have Been Written First
We now go a step further by considering Matthew's gospel. According to the unanimous testimony of the early church Matthew was the first gospel written. The church father Eusebius places the date of Matthew's gospel in A.D. 41. If this is true, then we have a third independent source about the life of Christ written during the eyewitness period"


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2019)

hobbs27 said:


> Yes, it does.
> 
> "
> Matthew Was Always Believed To Have Been Written First
> We now go a step further by considering Matthew's gospel. According to the unanimous testimony of the early church Matthew was the first gospel written. The church father Eusebius places the date of Matthew's gospel in A.D. 41. If this is true, then we have a third independent source about the life of Christ written during the eyewitness period"


Eusebius is well known for fudging.

Many biblical scholars disagree


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 29, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Eusebius is well known for fudging.
> 
> Many biblical scholars disagree


Eusebius may have had info that lead him to believe this, however..... the church might believe Matthew was first, but no historians do. Mark or Q would have been first


----------



## Madman (Mar 29, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Now how about Divorce?


I see no purpose for divorce.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2019)

Madman said:


> I see no purpose for divorce.


I am asking about the Church's stance.

Remember, I am asking you what I've asked the priests.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2019)

I had this conversation with a priest before my wedding when I was asked if I wanted to Convert to Catholicism. I was baptized Catholic but attended Lutheran Protestant Sunday school,Confirmation etc.
I asked about marriage and got a reply similar to yours.
Then I asked about divorce...
I was told that while frowned upon, and while every effort is made to try to reconcile the couple, in instances where reconciliation cannot be resolved the church will allow/understand divorce.

Then I asked about annulment.
I was told that under certain circumstances where the union must be totally dissolved that a lengthy process is taken where much has to be considered to dissolve the union and remove all traces of the union in the eyes of the Church and the Lord. It is for very special circumstances and is not taken lightly. When finished, as far as the Church and God  are concerned, the two people were never married.  The union never happened.
Annulment is a necessity if a man or woman was once married and wants to remarry another Catholic in a Catholic Church and ceremony. 


Then I asked about having children out of wedlock. And what is thought of about the man and woman who do it.
I was told that it is a Sin in the Eyes of the Lord and the Church.

I said I understand.

Then asked them to explain my sister and myself, my mother and my father.
They looked puzzled.

I said my mom and dad were married, they had two children. Apparently circumstances arose that it could not work out so they divorced. 
Later my father wants to remarry, and he needed his first marriage annulled. The "lengthy" process went extremely quickly as soon as $1000 changed hands, in fact it was a matter of days.
Anyway,  now you have a man and a woman who were never married in the eyes of God. The woman has two children out of Wedlock in the eyes of god and the Man has two children out of wedlock in the eyes of god. Now you have a man who is in the Choir and is married to one woman but has children with another woman he was never married to. Explain them and my sister and me on how we are perceived in the eyes of the Church and God.

"Mr. - - - - - -, God still loves you all, but it is obvious that you do not want to convert.  We will have look into if you can be married in the Catholic Church."

My wife is Catholic, and they eventually allowed it. But also the priest wanted to pick the godparents for our first Son out of the congregation because he felt our choices of life long friends who we trust, but also were not Catholic, were not qualified enough to fulfill the role.

He liked me even less after I told him what I thought of him and his Church.


----------



## Madman (Mar 29, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I am asking about the Church's stance.
> 
> Remember, I am asking you what I've asked the priests.


If someone divorces they cannot remarry.  "What God has joined let no man separate" Mark 10:9


----------



## Madman (Mar 29, 2019)

ann


bullethead said:


> I had this conversation with a priest before my wedding when I was asked if I wanted to Convert to Catholicism. I was baptized Catholic but attended Lutheran Protestant Sunday school,Confirmation etc.
> I asked about marriage and got a reply similar to yours.
> Then I asked about divorce...
> I was told that while frowned upon, and while every effort is made to try to reconcile the couple, in instances where reconciliation cannot be resolved the church will allow/understand divorce.
> ...



Annulment  has nothing to do with after the wedding it has everything to do with before the wedding.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2019)

Madman said:


> If someone divorces they cannot remarry.  "What God has joined let no man separate" Mark 10:9


Now you are seeing why I had the questions that I did for the priest.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2019)

Madman said:


> ann
> 
> 
> Annulment  has nothing to do with after the wedding it has everything to do with before the wedding.


I am not understanding what you are telling me

Which wedding, my fathers first wedding to my mom, or 2nd wedding to my step mom?


----------



## Madman (Mar 29, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I am not understanding what you are telling me
> 
> Which wedding, my fathers first wedding to my mom, or 2nd wedding to my step mom?


I am saying if you get divorced you cannot remarry it is polygamy.  What God has joined no man may separate.


----------



## Madman (Mar 29, 2019)

I am not Roman Catholic so I do not know that much about what they teach.
https://www.catholic.com/video/marriage-divorce-and-annulment


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2019)

Madman said:


> I am saying if you get divorced you cannot remarry it is polygamy.  What God has joined no man may separate.


The Church seems to disagree


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2019)

Madman said:


> I am not Roman Catholic so I do not know that much about what they teach.
> https://www.catholic.com/video/marriage-divorce-and-annulment


It never ceases to amaze me how rules are bent, overlooked and utterly destroyed by the Clergy & Church if those are the actual rules on that video.
The Catholic church marries people  who have already been married every single day and  who knows how many times daily that do not meet the videos requirements.

Another reason to call bullsnort on these "organized" religions and their "rules" or ability to follow supposed "rules ".


----------



## Madman (Mar 30, 2019)

bullethead said:


> The Church seems to disagree


The church does not disagree.  I do not know the specifics of your parents marriage/annulment/divorce, but the church will not remarry a divorced person.  Do not confuse the the church with bad clergy.  The video explains the churches stance on the topic.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 30, 2019)

Madman said:


> The church does not disagree.  I do not know the specifics of your parents marriage/annulment/divorce, but the church will not remarry a divorced person.  Do not confuse the the church with bad clergy.  The video explains the churches stance on the topic.


Mother and Father got divorced.
Father met another woman years later.
Wanted to marry her.
A grand to the church and 3 days later the annulment was finished business.
He got married again.


Simple as that
It happened

So on the day the annulment was final he was never married the first time and my sister and I became illegitimate.


----------



## Madman (Mar 30, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Mother and Father got divorced.
> Father met another woman years later.
> Wanted to marry her.
> A grand to the church and 3 days later the annulment was finished business.
> ...



Let's say for the sake of argument it was "as sime as that".  The church never said you and your sister were illegitimate,   they said your parents didn't have a sacramental marriage, therefore it was annulled.   As I said annulment is about the "state" of the couple before they enter into matrimony.  As for the $1000.00 to the church, it cost him to get a civil divorce, the church incurs cost by looking into an annulment.  

I know people who paid the canon lawyers and were refused annulments.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/answering-common-questions-about-annulments


----------



## bullethead (Mar 31, 2019)

Madman said:


> Let's say for the sake of argument it was "as sime as that".  The church never said you and your sister were illegitimate,   they said your parents didn't have a sacramental marriage, therefore it was annulled.   As I said annulment is about the "state" of the couple before they enter into matrimony.  As for the $1000.00 to the church, it cost him to get a civil divorce, the church incurs cost by looking into an annulment.
> 
> I know people who paid the canon lawyers and were refused annulments.
> 
> https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/answering-common-questions-about-annulments



That link is PR stunt.
What they say happens and what really happened is definitely two different things.
This took place in 1976, $1000 then got the process done much faster than the guidelines has a person believing now. 12 months or longer is a joke. 3 days start to finish. They probably charged $50 then and 12 months for a decision but for $950 more you got the express line.



> Next, illegitimacy no longer carries any canonical consequences.


So when DID it? And apparently the Church had to adjust their rules to do so. It absolutely once did.



> I won’t pretend that these answers satisfy every nuance of the questions considered, and we all know these are not the only questions that apologists will encounter on the topic of annulments. But if I have given a basic orientation to the subject of annulments, and if I have indicated in broad terms the type of intelligent responses that are available to inquiring minds, then we will have accomplished something useful and good.


Meaning this is the press release we put out there but in reality it doesn't work like that.

When the Church nullifies a marriage it officially makes the determination that the marriage did not take place. It did not meet the requirements to be official. It never happened. The marriage between two people as far as the church is concerned was not valid.

Next is where the Annulment gets intertwined with civil law.
Canon law was abrogated in 1983. The church states that as long as the marriage was done in a Civil ceremony that the resulting children were legitimate. So the church is saying that they honor the Civil ceremony sometimes and for some things but do not honor it for others, but as far as the Annulment goes, in the eyes of church, those two people were never married.
It is a have your cake and eat it too scenario to save face. They separate themselves from civil ceremonies in one instance and an Annulment wipes the slate clean as if the civil ceremony never took place. As far as the Church is concerned the two people were never married.
But, then when children are involved they say you two people were never married, but, we recognize your marriage that officially never happened for the kids sake.
And that was just adjusted to include legitimacy within the last few decades, it wasn't always so.


----------

