Mummy Mask May Reveal Oldest Known Gospel

[Darth Fife]

Yeah, that's not what straw man means and if you don't know that the Old Testament is the Torah, we're not going to make much progress here.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

    Person 1 asserts proposition X.
    Person 2 argues against a false but superficially similar proposition Y, as if that were an argument against X.

I said, All I'm saying is whatever they find, might not line up precisely with later versions of the Gospels, as has been the case with some of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Your response: Can you provide a credible link demonstrating where the Dead Sea scrolls significantly differ from modern translations of the Torah?


I wasn't talking about the Torah. I was talking about the Gospels.

The Torah and the Gospels (Matthew, Mark Luke and John) are completely different text and, indeed are in a completely different part of the Bible than is the "Torah".

I said nothing about the Dead Sea Scrolls contradicting the Torah. Nor would I as the Torah was well codified long before the Dead Sea Scrolls were written.

People with a very shallow understanding of Scriptures often use the word Torah and Old Testament interchangeably. However the Torah, only refers to the first 5 books of the Old Testament - the Pentateuch.

Depending on whether it is Catholic or Protestant, the Christian Old Testament consists of 46 or 39 books, respectively.

The Mormon link you posted has nothing to do with the evolution of Mormonism. That was about a guy who committed fraud.

You're kinda all over the place with what you're trying to say. You seem a bit flustered. Are you claiming this is a fraud? Are you claiming that this may contradict the modern interpretation of the Bible? Are you saying the modern Bible differs from its earlier predecessors? (If so, they have Bibles that have the direct Greek and Latin translations next to modern ones) Or are you saying today's Christians don't follow the Bible as well as they should?

If the latter of my questions is what you're trying to say, the Mormon fraud guy is irrelevant and confusing. If you're trying to say this may be fraud AND it may turn out to be different from today's Bible interpretation,you need to differentiate your posts better.

Perhaps Mark Hoffman wasn't the best example to cite. I have a personal fascination with the founding and early years of the Mormon Church. In fact, I am fascinated with that whole era of religious history in America. Sometimes I forget that not everyone shares my passion on the subject.

The forgeries Hoffman made, were, of course, frauds, but they were based on well established facts about the early days of the Church in general, and the Prophet Joseph Smith, in particular.

Facts that, if backed up by documentation, would be very embarrassing to the LDS Church. That is how he was able to get the Church officials to purchase those forgeries for astronomical sums, and not have the Church insist on a rigorous authentication process.

Sure, such a process might prove them to be frauds, but what if the were proved to be real?! Given the content of those documents, Church officials just couldn't take that chance! So, they paid Hoffman his price and then locked the documents away - never to be seen again!

Anyhow, I am wandering a little bit. As I said, my premise is simple enough. As I've already stated all religious movements evolve and what was dogma in the years immediately following Christ's crucifixion might have become passe' by the time the Christian Bible was "set in stone" so to speak.

[Dr. Meh]

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

    Person 1 asserts proposition X.
    Person 2 argues against a false but superficially similar proposition Y, as if that were an argument against X.

I said, All I'm saying is whatever they find, might not line up precisely with later versions of the Gospels, as has been the case with some of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Your response: Can you provide a credible link demonstrating where the Dead Sea scrolls significantly differ from modern translations of the Torah?


I wasn't talking about the Torah. I was talking about the Gospels.

The Torah and the Gospels (Matthew, Mark Luke and John) are completely different text and, indeed are in a completely different part of the Bible than is the "Torah".

I said nothing about the Dead Sea Scrolls contradicting the Torah. Nor would I as the Torah was well codified long before the Dead Sea Scrolls were written.

People with a very shallow understanding of Scriptures often use the word Torah and Old Testament interchangeably. However the Torah, only refers to the first 5 books of the Old Testament - the Pentateuch.

Depending on whether it is Catholic or Protestant, the Christian Old Testament consists of 46 or 39 books, respectively.

Perhaps Mark Hoffman wasn't the best example to cite. I have a personal fascination with the founding and early years of the Mormon Church. In fact, I am fascinated with that whole era of religious history in America. Sometimes I forget that not everyone shares my passion on the subject.

The forgeries Hoffman made, were, of course, frauds, but they were based on well established facts about the early days of the Church in general, and the Prophet Joseph Smith, in particular.

Facts that, if backed up by documentation, would be very embarrassing to the LDS Church. That is how he was able to get the Church officials to purchase those forgeries for astronomical sums, and not have the Church insist on a rigorous authentication process.

Sure, such a process might prove them to be frauds, but what if the were proved to be real?! Given the content of those documents, Church officials just couldn't take that chance! So, they paid Hoffman his price and then locked the documents away - never to be seen again!

Anyhow, I am wandering a little bit. As I said, my premise is simple enough. As I've already stated all religious movements evolve and what was dogma in the years immediately following Christ's crucifixion might have become passe' by the time the Christian Bible was "set in stone" so to speak.

Yes, I am aware of what the Torah consists of. I have Jewish aunts, uncles, and cousins and have been to several Bar Mitzvahs. We celebrate some of the holidays with them as well. As for the strawman, I misread your original post and didn't realize you had written "gospels." Incidentally, don't call out logical fallacies in a debate. That's what college kids do when trying to sound smart after taking their first philosophy course. Argue the point without calling it out by the term. It adds more credibility to your assertions. Plus, it's a major pet peeve of mine mostly because it's a weak liberal tactic used to avoid addressing the point and to be condescending instead.

[Darth Fife]

Yes, I am aware of what the Torah consists of. I have Jewish aunts, uncles, and cousins and have been to several Bar Mitzvahs. We celebrate some of the holidays with them as well. As for the strawman, I misread your original post and didn't realize you had written "gospels." Incidentally, don't call out logical fallacies in a debate. That's what college kids do when trying to sound smart after taking their first philosophy course. Argue the point without calling it out by the term. It adds more credibility to your assertions. Plus, it's a major pet peeve of mine mostly because it's a weak liberal tactic used to avoid addressing the point and to be condescending instead.

I wrote one sentence about the type of fallacy you were using. One sentence!

Then I went on to explain why your premise was wrong.

You know what my pet peeve is? People who accept a fail to refute a premise that is demonstrably false.

Don't worry, next time, I won't identify your tactic or the error you made.  I'll just ask if you are stoned or stupid!

 

[Dr. Meh]

I wrote one sentence about the type of fallacy you were using. One sentence!

Then I went on to explain why your premise was wrong.

You know what my pet peeve is? People who accept a fail to refute a premise that is demonstrably false.

Don't worry, next time, I won't identify your tactic or the error you made.  I'll just ask if you are stoned or stupid!

Of course, no need to ask you which it is as you clearly demonstrate in every nonsense post you make that it is clearly both. Good day.

[zewazir]

I wasn't talking about the Torah. I was talking about the Gospels.

The Torah and the Gospels (Matthew, Mark Luke and John) are completely different text and, indeed are in a completely different part of the Bible than is the "Torah".

I said nothing about the Dead Sea Scrolls contradicting the Torah. Nor would I as the Torah was well codified long before the Dead Sea Scrolls were written.

What do the Dead Sea Scrolls have to do with the Gospels?  There are no New Testament references in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Perhaps the lack of New Testament references within the Dead Sea Scrolls can be attributed to the fact that the older of the Biblical scrolls from that find have been dated with BC origins.

Hence, referencing the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospels has no meaning. It just further confuses the enigmatic caution that Christians should be careful what they wish for. The earlier references we have, the better off we are. The Word of God has survived innumerable "scientific" attacks, and yet after the dust settles from each claim against their accuracy, it is the Word, not the atheists, who survives the controversy.