Summations Only

Thanks Percie.
"Fourberie" then not fraud. Just wee bit of fourberie.
( I never heard of that one and thus it seems the least insulting) ;-))))

Jar,
I don't have any idea on what percent of Christians would be aware of those issues. Or just call them a non- issue ( Like Faith) and claim otherwise.
As a guess, I say 99%.
That is 99% are not aware of the fourberie mentioned here. There is far more than that as well. That's no more than a snippet of fourberie.
You are an exception. One that I have never seen before actually.But take this as an example. The normal good Catholic kid goes to Catholic school becomes an altar boy, ( avoids some issues there;-)))) . Then later he finds out with extreme reluctance. That the priests have been telling a load of Bullshit. The Gospel of Mark is not the Gospel as written by Saint Mark. There is no indication in any way it's anybody but Mark, it's not though. Nobody says, oh by the way the other boys wrote down Gospel stuff later than the unknown Mark. We don't indicate that either. We don't know who they are either but not Saint Matthew or Saint Luke. Somebody else and they actually copied unknown Mark.. a lot. And this unknown Mark, he screws the geography up so bad, we know he wasn't even familiar with the area. And that's the guy they copy.
This stuff is unheard of. Faith still won't believe it. It seems the more we learn, the more bullshit uncovered.That is not a sincere way to accept god or religion. It's a fourberie way of insincerity because it can't stand on it's own holy book.
Myself, the problems are so deep and so prevalent and so far back in virtually any area that can be looked at... I think it's fair to say that it is full of bullshit from the bottom to top and back again.
There are too many problems and it's a repeated pattern.
That is not a behavior consistent with any form of truth I am aware of.
And that isn't even looking at the logical side of the equation.

I think a hypothesis is exactly as you say.
I'm not saying I accept the documentary hypothesis. I just mean to state it is attempting an explanation based on information, outside of the bible and within the bible. It's "attempting" explanation using some evidence, which itself is subject to scrutiny. I am not saying I agree or don't agree but it's at least attempting to "find some truth" as opposed to stating a purported truth and story is over. So it's heading in the right direction in terms of research and evidence and support for a position, whether it ends up as accurate.... I don't know. Maybe it's part of solving a puzzle but not the solution to the puzzle.
I do know if we accepted the biblical traditions via the grandfather clause... there are many things we would be wrong on. We can't always thank the sincere Christians for pointing those discrepancies out either.
So researching and hypothesis' are good.
In my opinion.

The problem with say Mark are vast. The problems displaying it here, are that it requires a lot of reading, from a lot of sources in order to avoid the routine bias seen in anything religious. The norm for me reading religious stuff is the lack of integrity. I think it's disgusting personally. A person simply never finds this type of disingenuous behaviour in science. It turns my stomach frankly.
Here is an example. The quoted statement.. is based on tradition and Papias and Eusebius for sources. It can not get worse. Tradition means nothing and is almost always wrong. And Papias and Eusebius are liars. With an apologist doing the explaining. What a mess. It's a liar telling a story, using another liar for a source, to prove the lie they are purporting. The believers are willing to gag all the lies back willingly.
This is simply not found in science or indeed whenever we are discussing "normal" evidence. It's unique to religion. It's sad actually.If I get motivated to bang my head against wall, I'll consider posting something lest I get rightly accused of talking smack and showing nothing. The problem is it doesn't matter. If the vast reading required isn't done and reading is only done on bias Christian websites, where the Koolaid is ladled, it's useless.

I certainly empathize with you Percy. I have thought about re- research and posting on these areas. Problems with Mark, Quran comparison, Pentateuch authorship, the lying of Papias and Eusebius....in order to post more evidence other than my opinion.
However, after seeing the 2/7 debacle and complete dismissal of many guys comments with no obvious thought displayed..I can't be less interested.
I have said that Faith is not debatable and was not exaggerating. She has been ladled with too much bunk and continues to rely on the websites of bunk as the ultimate source.
Almost nobody in a cult, realizes that fact while they are in one.

You are in a cult. The same as Mormons, Jehovah Witness, Literal Muslims etc don't think they are in a cult. They are special like you.
As long as you listen to cult members and read the cult websites, you'll happily stay deluded, while preaching absurdity.

I have no idea what affiliation you are. It doesn't matter. The cult thinking is the same in all of them. The ability to accept bunk, while ignoring logic and evidence, but thinking you're special.
You could be Mormon, JW, Extreme Muslim etc. you would be an outstanding member of any of them.

I got into the truest of true cults the old fashion way. I was fortunate to be born to the correct parents, in the correct geography. Ended up as an obviously correct Catholic.
My friend, a former Hindu, he got into it the old fashion way too. He was born in the fortunate area New Delhi. He got the correct parents and was Hindu. The most obviously correct one.
You vetted through all cults, and in an unbiased manner:-))))) ended up with the correct one. Unfortunately, you probably didn't know there was another option among the hundreds of cults. That is, don't join one. Use logic and evidence. But that likely didn't appear in the option list.
So you got the most obviously true of any religion, the top of truism, by another way. The Stockholm Syndrome way. After receiving enough bunk over enough time, then we empathize with members, agree and become a member.
That also works well.

I always wondered how many gods are there?

And God said, let us make man in our image. Genesis 1:26Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods. Exodus 18:11Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? Exodus 15:11Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;(For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you.) Deuteronomy 6:14-15Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord. Psalm 86:8I just don't know how many there are that's all.

It's not quite that simple though. It's kind of an, umm, contradiction...again. So there's that.
Then there are a number of places saying there is but one god. So another contradiction.
Complicated stuff :-))))

And one god: So I don't know how many there are.Edited by Golffly, : No reason given.

No there is no mention of Trinity here. You made that up. No there is no mention on demon gods here. You made that up.

The bible talks about multi-gods on a number of occasions.
To reconcile that, you or the cult, made up this demon god story.
However, if you read the bible ( to quote jar), you'd see that isn't the case.

Like I said you made it up.
You pull two quotes like they apply to all the unrelated ones.
Read Theodoric's post.