What happened to the original copies of the Gospels?

[William]

The original manuscripts of the gospels are not known to have survived, so there is no way to verify if the gospels contained in the bible are true copies of said originals, or even if there actually existed originals and that what is presented as the gospels were simply fictitious creations of the early priesthood of Christianity, which eventually formalized them into a book, which was touted as being "The Word of God".

Q: Why were the original manuscripts allowed to perish if the bible is such a holy relic Christianity touts it to be?

Word of God - the sacred writings of the Christian religions; "he went to carry the Word to the heathen" Christian Bible, Good Book, Holy Scripture, Holy Writ, Scripture, Bible, Book, ...

[We_Are_VENOM]

That's because you cut off the key aspect of my post:

Then point me to the direction of the part of your post I cut off which would clarify the point that I apparently missed.

I asked you to explain your motivation in assigning this term when William has not self-identified as such. In fact we now know that it is a term he objects to.

Tcg

I don't recall him objecting to me assigning the term to him. That is a conversation between him and I, and I don't need to satisfy any third party curiosities by explaining myself.

[Bust Nak]

Then point me to the direction of the part of your post I cut off which would clarify the point that I apparently missed.

He did point you to it. You cut it off again.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Then point me to the direction of the part of your post I cut off which would clarify the point that I apparently missed.

He did point you to it. You cut it off again.

He provided a quote from William, one of which he claimed I ignored.

I responded to his quote of William, only to be accused of cutting off part of William's post, when what I alleged to have cut off was never part of what he said i ignored.

This is gaslighting.

[Bust Nak]

He provided a quote from William...

What are you talking about? It was a quote of Tcg that you cut off.

I responded to his quote of William, only to be accused of cutting off part of William's post...

That's not what happened, you were accused of ignoring a quote of William and you were accused of cutting off part of Tcg's post.

By the way, I am still waiting for you to start a thread to show how it is impossible that nothing what-so-ever exists. You said you would make one back in April.

[William]

and your statement appears to be something along the lines of this;

Moderator Warning

Accusation of dishonesty is not allowed.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Please direct me to the rule number as I am having difficulty finding it.

Thanks

[Bust Nak]

Please direct me to the rule number as I am having difficulty finding it.

Moderator Clarification

Literally rule number 1. Personal attacks of any sort are not allowed. Comments about any person that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.

Also note rule 16. Appeals, challenges, or any response to comments/warnings made by moderators should not be made in public. The proper channel is to send a PM to a moderator and to discuss it directly and in private.


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #56]

The proper channel is to send a PM to a moderator and to discuss it directly and in private.

Sorry - my bad - I thought I was sending my question as a private message and didn't mean for it to end up in this thread.

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #47]

That's because you cut off the key aspect of my post:
Tcg wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 12:34 am

"Unbelieving mysticis'[sic]" is not a position I've seen William self-identify as holding.
I asked you to explain your motivation in assigning this term when William has not self-identified as such. In fact we now know that it is a term he objects to.

This is correct as I myself said as much in post #38

We mystics do not use the word 'believe' - not only because it plainly has the word 'lie' inserted within it, making it what it is - but more pointedly, because it can be used re misrepresentation [another lie] as in the word "Unbelieving" next to the word "Mysticism".

[We_Are_VENOM]

What are you talking about? It was a quote of Tcg that you cut off. That's not what happened, you were accused of ignoring a quote of William and you were accused of cutting off part of Tcg's post.

Yeah, false accusations all over the place, apparently.

I told Tcg that I didn't get the point of what William stated (the quote of William that Tcg provided), and Tcg stated that this was because I cut off his (Tcg's) post...as if the post I allegedly cut off was supposed to make me understand what Williams point was.

Anyways, no more gaslighting. Moving right along.

By the way, I am still waiting for you to start a thread to show how it is impossible that nothing what-so-ever exists. You said you would make one back in April.

I will add that to my to-do list.

[Bust Nak]

I told Tcg that I didn't get the point of what William stated (the quote of William that Tcg provided), and Tcg stated that this was because I cut off his (Tcg's) post...as if the post I allegedly cut off was supposed to make me understand what Williams point was.

Yes, that's the point. It was indeed supposed to make you understand what William's point was.

I will add that to my to-do list.

Come on, I am bored. I've been waiting for months.